HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05251999 - D8 4
. Contra
TOO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS u tCosta
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD County
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE. May 25, 1 999
SUBJECT: Hearing on the Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on General Plan #GP950014, Rezoning with Preliminary Development
Plan #RZ963040, and Final Development Plan #DP963921, and appeals by the
Applicant Summerhill Homes and by the neighbors Susan Pantos, Richard
Botelho, Judy Kiefer-Meyer and Tim Timmons on Subdivision #SD966016 in the
Alamo area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDAILQNa
I, Accept the Graft and Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this
project as being adequate for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program as prepared for this project.
3. Adopt General Plan Amendment as modified by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission and direct staff to include this amendment in
the next consolidated General Plan Amendment.
4. Approve Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan #RZ963040 with the
conditions of approval as modified by the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM D TICtN OF BOARD C ITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ONMay 2 5 192 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ..,_ OTHER
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION
VOTE OF ;SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
xxUNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ w- - } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Debbie Chamberlain (9251335-1213) ATTESTED May_ 2 s , 1999
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL. BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Summerhill Domes THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works Dept. 4ND COUNTY D INISTRATOR
B Deputy
I� Y
SUBJECT LINE: Stone Valley Oaks
BOARD OR COMMITTEE CRATE
Mage 2
5. Approve Final Development Plan ##DP963021 with the conditions of approval
as recommended by staff and modified by the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission.
6. Approve the findings contained in the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission Resolution #13-1999 as the basis for the Board's action.
7. Approve the "CEQA Findings for Approval of the Stone Valley Oaks" and
include with Board Order for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
8. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to rezoning #RZ963040, waive reading
and set date for adoption.
9. Uphold the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
and deny the appeal of the applicant Summerhill Homes and the appeal of
Susan Pantos, Richard Botelho, ,Judy Kiefer-Meyer and Tim Timmons.
19. Direct staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPAC
Norse. The cost of processing the application and appeals are borne by the
applicant.
BAQKQRQUN-Q/REASON.S FOR RECOMMENDATIQNS
The background information for this series of related applications is presented in the
four staff reports that are included with the Board Order.
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission held four bearings to
consider the proposed General Plan Amendment and related applications. At the
conclusion of the April meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval to the Board of Supervisors of a General Plan Amendment for the
approximately 100 acre site to change the land use designations from Agricultural
Land to Open Space; from Single Family Residential-Low Density to a mix of Single
Family Residential-Low Density and Single Family Residential-Very Low Density;
and to redistribute the land uses on the site to allow a 47 lot residential project. The
Sart Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission also voted to approve a 47 lot
vesting tentative subdivision map, and to recommend approval of the (a)
environmental impact report and associated mitigation monitoring plan, (b)
implementing rezoning and preliminary development plan, and (c) final development
plan.
It should be recognized that the plan recommended for approval was the result of
deliberations of the Planning Commission, and is not the project originally proposed
by the applicant. Specifically, 67 lots were requested at the time that the application
was filed. On May 1, 1997 the project proponent reached an agreement with
neighboring property owners just west of the property that resulted in elimination of
SUBJECT LINE*Stone Valley Oaks
BOARD OR COMMITTEE DATE
Fuge 3
proposed lots in the northwest portion of the site, and resulted in a reduction in the
potential lot yield to 64 single family residential lots. It was the 64 lot plan, referred
to as the Mitigated Alternative, that was the subject of the January hearing of the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
The January staff report included a Staff Study (dated January 8, 1999) which
identified 58 lots. In this plan, which was presented in Figure 11 of the January staff
report, no lots were proposed north of "A„ Drive. The legend for the Staff Study
indicated that residential lots total 27.19 acres of the site, and 7.55 acres of the site
were required for road right-of-way (total approximately 34 acres). For comparison,
the adopted general plan land use map shows approximately 33 acres of land
designated Single Family Residential-Low Density. The intent of the Staff Study was
to avoid development of the most sensitive lands (i.e., lands adjacent to a parcel
owned by the East Say Regional Park District, protect oak woodland habitat, and
retain steep and marginally stable land in opera space land use).
At the February hearing, the applicant provided a Vesting Tentative Map for
consideration by the Planning Commission that was based upon the January 8, 1999
Staff Study. This plan, which was titled "Staff Response Revised Plan", identified
59 lots. The footprint of development was intended to closely match the Staff Study.
The increased lot yield was achieved by decreasing the size of the Green Valley
Creek detention basin from the basin shown in the Staff Study, and lot boundaries
were adjusted slightly, but all lots were 20.000 square feet (or larger).
(Subsequently, the applicant revised the map and showed a 58 lot plan.)
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission had a number of concerns,
including steepness of slope, drainage, traffic/traffic safety, protection of the
Humphrey property from growth inducing impacts, grading/retaining walls, integrated
open space (i.e., avoidance of open space surrounded by development),
infrastructure-related issues, and visual quality. Because of these issues, the
Planning Commission directed staff to prepare another staff study with a substantial
reduction in density.
The March staff report presented Staff Study #2 (dated March 8, 1999). This plan,
which was presented in Figure S-1 of the March staff report, had a lot yield of 48
single family residential lots. Within the Stone Valley geek watershed (i.e., west
portion of the site), 38 lots of 20,000 square feet (minimum) are indicated, in the
Green Valley geek watershed (i.e., east portion of the site), 10 lots of 49,090
square feet (minimum) are indicated. This plan also shows all private residential lots
setback 50 feet from the Humphrey property. At the March hearing the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a Vesting Tentative Map and Conditions of
Approval for a 47 lot project (i.e., a one lot reduction in density, based upon Staff
Study #2).
At the April, 1999 hearing the Planning Commission reviewed a Vesting Tentative
Map for 47 lots; along with an associated General Plan Amendment land use map
that designated the residential lands in the Stone Valley Greek watershed Single
Family Residential-Low Density; and in the Green Valley Creek watershed Single
Family Residential-Very Low Density. The Planning Commission approved the April,
1999 Vesting Tentative Map with the provision that the area of Lot 9 be combined
with Lot 10; and that the homesite on Lot 9 be relocated to the east portion of the
new lot, where a lot would be added to the area of Lots 39-43. In summary, the
SUBJECT LINE: Stene Valley Oaks
BOARD OR COMMITTEE DATE
Page 4
adopted Contra Costa County General Plan shows approximately 32 acres of Single
Family Residential-Low Density (SL) on the property, with the remainder of the site
(68 acres) designated Agricultural Land (AL). The January staff report for the
General Plan Amendment estimated the range of allowable units under the adapted
General Plan to be 33 to 80 single family residential lots. The 47 units approved by
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission falls within the lower 1/3 of
the allowable range. The thrust of the general plan land use map recommended for
adoption by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission is to concentrate
units at lower elevations in the western portion of the site; retaining the higher
elevations as privately maintained open space that is in conservation easements
and/or scenic easements, and allow only 10 lots of 40,000 square feet (minimum)
in the eastern portion of the site; and limit the road in the northern and eastern
portion of the site to a 28-foot curb-to-curb width. The recommended land use
designations are SL for the western development area; SV for the eastern
development area; and OS for the private open space in the project.
In the view of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, the 47 lot
project represented an appropriate lot yield, given the constraints of the site. As
approved, the entire 98.8 acre parcel would be rezoned to Planned Unit District (P-
1), with R-20 zoning standards applicable to the western development area, and R-
49 zoning standards applicable to the eastern area. The Preliminary Development
Plan indicates three privately maintained storm water detention basins, along with
trails in the private open space.
APPEAL OF PROJECT" PR PCNENT
Following the Planning Commission decision on the Stone Valley Oaks project, the
attorney representing the project proponent filed an appeal on behalf of Surnmerhill
Homes, the developer. The appeal was aimed at seeking reconsideration of the
entirety of the Planning Commission's decision (appeal dated April 29, 1999). The
biggest concern of the applicant relates to the lot yield and secondarily to the
conditions of approval.
1. Appeal Point #1
The appeal letter did not identify specific points, but subsequently the
representatives of the developer have met with the Public Works Department
to suggest "word smithing" conditions of approval to rake subtle (but
significant) changes in language as it pertains to the design of detention
basins. The project proponent agrees to construct three privately maintained
basins with hydrology based on Flood Control methodology. However, they
have verbally requested relief from designing the relatively small basins that
are proposed to the same construction standards used for regional basins
maintained by the County, and they have raised other relatively minor issues
pertaining to certain Public Works conditions. However, the primary concern
of the project proponent is lot yield. At the April, 1999 Sari Damon Valley
Regional Planning Commission, the staff'report recommended approval of 58
lots, based on the Staff Study #1 (dated January 8, 1999).
SUBJECT LINE:Stone Valley flaks
BOARD OR COMMITTEE DATE
Page 5
Staff Response
The primary difference between the 47 and 58 lot plans is the allowable
density in the east portion of the site. The 47 lot project allows 10 lots of
40,000 square feet. This reduction in density was accompanied by an
increased setback of lots from the Humphrey property, and generates fewer
vehicle trips on a 28-foot wide road. (Use of a narrow road section in the
northern part of the site allows elimination of retaining walls for "A" Drive.)
Furthermore, the 47 lot project provides a greater separation of residential lots
between the eastern and western development areas. It was the desire of the
Planning Commission to avoid a land-locked open space area on the site with
limited wildlife habitat value. The 47 lot project, by avoiding retaining walls
and maximizing the width of the northern opening, is superior to the other
options considered.
APPEAL QF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS
On May 3, 1999 an appeal was filed by the following neighboring property owners.
Susan Pantos & Richard Botelho
2701 Stone Valley Road
Judy Kiefer-Meyer
2597 Stone Valley Road
Tim Timmons
2717 Stone Valley Road
The location of these properties with respect to the project site can also be identified
in the April, 1999 Vesting Tentative Map and Final Development Plan that was
approved by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. These three
parcels are on the south side of Stone Valley Road, opposite the "A" Drive/Stone
Valley Road intersection. The appeal letter states that all three properties are
affected by the proposed improvements. The appellants all live within 300 feet of
one another and their concerns pertain to the effect of improvements to Stone Valley
Road on their properties and the relationship of the "A" Drive/Stone Valley Road
intersection to their properties. The appeal points and staff response are presented
below.
1. Appeal Point #1
Placement of the entrance road to Stone Valley Oaks directly across from
2701 Stone Valley Read has adverse effects on the appellants. To
accommodate left turns into the project, a left turn storage lane is planned.
Hence the width of road improvements will be greater for this segment of the
road. The concern raised by the appeal letter is as follows:
2tone Valley Road: The left turn storage lane necessitates relocating the
bike path along the frontage of this lot. It will require acquisition of right of
way and shorten the driveway. This is deemed to result in a financial and
personal loss, and will complicate ingress/egress for the homeowner.
SUBJECT LINE: Stone valley oaks
BOARD CP COMMITTEE [SATE
Page 6
2701 Stone Valley Road: The entrance to Stone Valley Oaks is directly
opposite this parcel. Problems anticipated by the property owner include (a)
loss of property due to right of way acquisition, (b) endanger a mature oak
located near the edge of Stone Valley Road, (c) eliminate use of one of two
existing driveway entrances to Mone Valley Road, and (d) result in a night-
time lighting problem, because headlights of cars existing the development
would shine directly on the residence.
2717 Mone Valley Road: Improvements to Mone Valley Road associated with
this project would result in the edge of the travel lane and bike lane being
shifted nearer the residence. The property owner anticipates that right of way
acquisition would be required and that ingress and egress would be made
more difficult.
Staff Response: The property that is proposed for development is
characterized by a high, south-facing ridge along its Stene Valley frontage.
Local relief on this ridge is more than 100 feet (from elevation +400 to +590
feet); the slope is steep (over 40 percent) and the hillside is immediately
adjacent to a scenic route (Stone Valley Road). The only potential locations
for the project entrance are in the southwest property corner (the proposed
location which is objected to by the appellants) or through the Humphrey
property, which is located immediately east of Stone Valley Oaks. The
Humphrey property is Williamson Act land. Construction of a public road
through that parcel is not consistent with the terms of the Williamson Act
contract, would be growth inducing, and would conflict with Mitigation Measure
4.055.1 in the Environmental Impact Report.
With regard to the planned improvements to Stone Valley Road, the details
of road improvements are conditioned by the County, based on
recommendations of the Public Works Department. A portion of the appeal
letter states that the developer did not meet with appellants prior to hearing
to discuss the specifics of the required road improvements. It should be
recognized that it is not possible for a project proponent to meet with
concerned neighbors to explain the details of the road widening until the
project is approved. The County does have adopted precise alignment
drawings for Stone Valley Road. Those adopted plans called for a road
section that is significantly wider than the roadway section approved by the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission at its April, 1999 hearing.
In effect, the plan that was approved reduces the planned width and hence
reduces the effect of road widening on adjacent property owners. It should
also be noted that the EIR mitigation measures preclude extensive grading on
the Stone Valley Oaks side of Stone Valley Road. (Because of its visibility,
steepness and stability characteristics, the EIR directed the widening of the
road would occur exclusively/mainly on the south side of the road, where
slopes are flatter.) The conditions of approval specify that the existing
channel on the south side of Stone Valley Oaks ridge not be relocated, the
widening will be tucked up against Stone Valley Road as tight as possible and
still comply with the EIR mitigation. The Public Works Department has
determined that a left turn storage lane is needed for safety and to facilitate
the smooth flow of traffic. The Public Works Department has also reviewed
access to the appellants lots and found that the planned road improvement
will not result in the creation of safety hazards.
SUBJECT LINE: stone Valley Oaks
BOARD OR COMMITTEE DATE
Page 7
With regard to the issue of headlights shining onto the residence at 2701
Stone Valley Road, a potential solution is the planting of shrubs or trees on
the appellants property, adjacent to the road right of way. The conditions of
approval have addressed this issue, so that the plants selected, size,
necessary irrigation, etc., can be in stalled subject to ,approval of the owner
of the property at 2701 Stone Valley Road.
ALTERNATE AQTIQNIS
If the Board finds merit in approving staff's original recommendation for 58-units
based on the analysis in the January 21, 1999 staff report, staff would request the
Board DECLARE THEIR INTENT to approve and DIRECT staff to make the
appropriate modifications to conditions of approval, and the General Plan Map and
prepare findings for consideration by the Board on June 15, 1999.
DM/DJC/aa
BD21Stone. DM
ADDENDUM TO ITEM I).8
May 25, 1999 Agenda
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the
recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the request by
SummerHill Homes(Applicant) and WLM Company(Owner)to amend the General Plan on an
approximately 100 acre site to change the land use designation from Agricultural Lands to Open
Space and to redistribute the Open Space and Single Family Residential designations on the site
to allow a 67 single family residential project(GP 95-0014); and to rezone approximately 98.8
acres from General Agriculture District (A-2)to Planned Unit District(P-1), and to approve the
associated preliminary development plan(RZ 96-3040);to approve the final development plan
(DP 96-3021)to allow 67 single family residential lots(minimum parcel size 20,000 square
feet), along with privately maintained open space; and to hear the appeals by SurnmerHill Homes
(Applicant/Appellant), and Susan Pantos, Richard Botelho, Judy Kiefer-Mayer and Tim
Timmons (Appellants) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission decision on the applicant's original vesting tentative map (SD 96-8016) for 67
residential lots, along with open space parcels, Alamo area. (Stone Valley Oaks).
Dennis Barry, Patrick Roche and Debbie Chamberlain of the Community Development
Department were present. Silvano Marchesi,Chief Assistant County Counsel,was also present.
Mr. Roche,reported on the General Plan Amendment study and.Ms. Chamberlain reported on
the Vesting Tentative Map and Final Development Plan. She advised of two changes in the
Conditions of Approval,which would be in the Final Conditions if the Board approved the
project, and three changes relative to the?Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Melissa Morton, Public Works Department suggested changes to the Conditions of Approval
relative to Stone Valley Road.
The public hearing was opened, and the following people offered comments:
Sandy Skaggs, Esq.,represents applicant, SummerHill Hames,
Greg Jones, 292 Smith Road, Alamo;
Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, 1.196 Boulevard Way,#10, Walnut Creep;
John Henderson,Alamo Improvement Association, 2445 Southview Drive,
Alamo;
Jeanne Jeha,261 Valle Vista, Danville;
Linda Sanchez, 61 Greg Court, Alamo;
Rich Lyding, 167 Oak Road, Alamo,
Kathy Anderson, 1597 Scrafix Road, Alamo;
Richard Loewke,AICP, 55 Oak Trail Court, Alamo;
Rich Botelho, appellant,2701 Stone Valley Blvd., Alamo;
Judy Kiefer-Meyer, appellant,Alamo;
rebuttal from Sandy Skaggs.
The following people did not speak,however the Chair read their names into the record.:
Barry Johnson, 105 Winestone Court,Alamo;
Jacqueline Fineberg, 20 Cole Court,Alamo;
Linda Smith, 3134 Bawling Green Drive,Walnut Creek;
Christopher Toy, 19 Cole Court,Alamo;
Gil Toy, t9 Cole Court,Alamo;
Mariah Toy, 19 Cole Court,Alamo;
Rich Fineberg, 20 Cole Court,Alamo;
Sara Goldstein, 1943 White Cliff Court, Walnut Creek;
Cliff Edmondson, 191 Oak Road,Alamo;
Page Greenwood, 181 Alta Vista Way,Danville;
Debbie Outcalt, 349 Canterbury Court; Alamo;
Karen Young, 490 Edinburg Circle,Alamo;
Brandy and Ray Geiger, 18 Shadow Oak Road,Danville;
Sue Elvidge, 34 Francesca Way, Alamo;
1
Stacey Maloney, 8632 Valencia Street, :Dublin;
Kim Short, 282 La Questa, Danville;
Brenda Puckett, 100 Amigo Road,Danville;
Lynn Robone, 237 Stetson give, Alamo;
Melissa Smith, 250 Crestridge Drive, Danville;
Marisa, 2851 Via Cordoba, Sara Ramon;
Jennifer Hatter, 380 Paraiso Drive,Danville;
Lowell Day, 208 Smith Road, Alamo;
Kim Edmondson, 191 Oak Roan, Alamo;
Neil and Julianne Sayre,.2565 Joseph.Lane, Alamo;
Angela Butler, 6524 Zenith Ridge Drive, Danville;
Rich Estrada., 440 Ballinger Canyon Road, San.Ramon;
Maria Bizzach, 31.27 Fox Creek Drive,Danville;
Renee Thompson, 845 Ladera Cote, San Ramon;
Katy Van Laanen, 1470 Creekside Drive, Walnut Creek.;
Brandee and Ray Geiger, 18 Shadow Cliff Road,Danville;
Diane Falconer,40 Northview Court, Danville;
Lynette Hegeman, 231 Balceta Court,Danville;
Gail Bishop, 333 Canterbury Court,Alamo;
Cathy Dunn, 940 Underhill, Alamo;
Betty A. 0)'Neill, 9944 Brunswick Court, San Ramon;
Jerry Bishop, 805 Turrini:Drive, Danville;
June Bishop, 805 Turrini Drive,Danville;
Julie Liesch, 312 Red Maple Drive, Danville;
Chris Hoult, 2655 Bridle Lane,Walnut Creep;
Robert Hoult, 2655 Bridle Lane, Walnut Creep;
Craig Bender, 2673 Bridle Lane, Walnut Creek;
Lisa Hennessy,44 N. Jackson Way,Alamo;
Anne McCall, 407 Brigham Lane, Danville;
Tom and Maria Tubbs,43 Pheasant Run Terrace,Danville;
Debbie Everett, 1025 Ocho Rios Drive, Danville;
Margaret Clark, 322 Livoma Heights Road.,Alamo;
Cindy Douglas-Hiley, 79 Alta.Loma Court,Danville;
Alison Foster, 2429 Warren Road, Walnut Creek;
Julie Ding, 32 Van.Gordon Place, Danville;
Jaimie Doinirus, 7258 Tina Place,Dublin;
Janine Starley, 391 Paraiso Drive,Danville;
Sheila Ambrose, 1561 Serafix Drive, Alamo;
S fix.K Kworuian, 134 Timberlane,Danville;
Maura Brown, 333 Castenada Court,Danville;
Pam and Elbert Lewey,2681 Stone Valley Road., Alamo;
Jahn DeMain, 72 Greg Court, Alamo;
Dean Caney, 78 Greg Court,Alamo;
Teresa Dionne-Coney, 78 Greg Court,Alamo;
Kare De Mau, 72 Greg Court,Alamo;
Judith Carlisle,66 Greg Court, Alamo;
Nancy Conti,White Gate HOA, 65 Greg Court,Alamo;
Beth Eggers, 3276 Stone Valley Road, Alamo;
Bruce Daniel, 3272 Stone Valley Road,Alamo;
Linda Daniel,3272 Stone Valley Road,Alamo;
Steve Saunders, 61 Greg Court, Alamo;
Don Riley,M.D. 60 Greg Court,Alamo;
Elli and Kent Gordon, 75 Bordeaux Court, Danville;
Tiffany Valerate, 503 Chatelaine Court,Danville;
Bonnie and Al Farias, 37 Savona Court,Danville;
Danny Malone, 8632 Valencia Street,Dublin;
Tony Goulart,22030 Goldenrod Lane, San.Ramon;
Judy Homburger, 1400 Emmons Canyon Drive,Alamo;
Jahn Nelson, 3035 Stonegate Drive, Alamo;
Glendoris Moreland, .216 Valle Vista,Danville;
Amy Price, 1951 Old 0)ak Place, Walnut Creek;
Curt Ingram, 9447 Alcosta Blvd., San Ramon;
Inge Robertson, 186 Montana Drive,Danville.
2
Those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues.
Supervisor Gerber inquired about various matters including: water runoff, the detention basin,
traffic studies,the entrance to the proposed subdivision,parcel sizes, and the security gate. She
then requested an audio-visual presentation relative to the BIR.
Patrick Roche presented the audio-visual report on options for developing the site consistent with
the General Plan and under different BIR scenarios.
The Board continued to discuss the issues.
Supervisor Gerber expressed concern that putting utilities in the roadway for Stone Valley Oaks
would be growth inducing for the Humphrey property.
Dennis Barry advised that the utilities do not increase the development possibilities for the
property since they already have that same potential from existing lines in the road.
Supervisor Gerber stated that she would life to preserve the habitat corridor from the front to the
back of the property, and arrange for the proposed internal trail to be public.
Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Gerber offered the following motion:
1. Establish an agreement with the applicant that they will discuss and attempt to locate
on the Humphrey property or at a nearby location, an equestrian or horse boarding
facility to encourage equestrian use in the area;
2. At the larger homes of the 47 proposed, set-up conditions so they could accommodate
horses;
3. Suggested that the applicant work with the County and the Humphrey property owner
to review other locations in the area with regard to equestrian activities;
4. Suggested that the language in the Conditions of Approval clearly indicates that horses
or equestrian use is allowed on the paths, if possible;
5. Amend language in the Conditions of Approval to reflect that the land that the
applicant dedicated to the County for use in a precise alignment plan, allows for
rededication back to the applicant after this Board considers the precise alignment
question;
6. Suggested that discussions continue with an interested person regarding light signal
issues on Stone Valley Road;
7. Approve the changes as indicated on the standards for the detention basin flexibility,
which staff agreed with;
8. Establish that construction hours will be from 8:00 a.m.. to 5:30 p.m.; and
9. Include the suggestions proposed by Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, in his letter of
May 25, 1999, (as attached).
The Board continued their discussion,Debbie Chamberlain inquired if the motion included the
staff recommendation that the lots are single family, with R-40 standards in the Zoning Code.
Supervisor Gerber confirmed that it was included. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion, and
the vote by the Board was unanimous.
3
Z4
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Adopted this Order on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS CILIA, UILKEMA, GERBER, DeSAULNIER and CANCIAMILLA
NOES. NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 99/308
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Stone Valley Oaks }
General Plan Amendment
County File#GP95-0014 )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is Bled with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. I3-1999 adopted by the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission which discusses the Stone Valley Oaks General
Plan Amendment (County File#GP95-0014).
On Tuesday,May 25, 1999,the Board held a public hearing on said General flan Amendment
discussed by the San Ramon galley Regional Planning Commission,Resolution No. 13-1999. Notice
of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at a hearing, called for
testimony of all persons interested in this matter.
On Tuesday, May 25, 1999, the Board APPROVED the General Plan Amendment and
directed staff to include the Stone Valley Oaks General Flan. Amendment into the second
consolidation General Plan Amendment for 1999 as allowed by State Planning Law.
Contact. Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director, CBD (335-1210)
cc: Community Development Department
CAO
County Counsel
thereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED. M a v 25L 19a9.W... .
P141L BATCHELOR,dark of the Board
CK'df of Supeorp and County Adrn €strator
bo4:stonevly.res ,
By
RESOLUTION 99/308
, r
Approx
Gt
rt YS
a�' ''r'u ryf.
h,meq
02,
Single Family Residential Nery Low bensi
Single Family Residential-Low Density
y
#
Public/Semi-Public
PPI Parks and Recreation
105 Ope
#, #
#- ♦♦ +
Agricultural
♦ #
ContraI hereby certif-- that this amendinent to the I hereby certify that this amendment to the
IY
1 �1 Plan Contra # # f adopt" i
approved bv the San Ramon Valley Regional by the Board of Supervisors on May 25, 1999.
Planning t April
Phil
Batchelor, of • Board Supervi-
sors
and ` !.
Barry, or
Dennis M.
Community Development Director #1DeDu
+yrs
F�
• 0Al �
f3 £' i
.'
RECEIVED
Board of Supervisors MAY 2 5 1
,MD Headquarters arters County Administration Building
� 96 Bnu eva_d flay 651 Pine Street CLEAR 55AR5 o UPERVISORS
site ic Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA CO.
Wa'nut Creek,CA 94695
SMS,Vidling Address re: Stone 'Valley Oaks
P.O. Box 5376 File RZ963040, DP963021, SD968016
Wal_n_flat Creek,CA 94595
Telephone May 25, 1999
(925;947-3535
Fax
{9251947-3603 Save Mount Diablo is a Contra Costa conservation organization founded in
email 1971 and including more than 5000 supporters. Our views about this project
savem`diab@aol.ca.rt are somewhat different than those of the neighbors, concentrating more on
President footprint than unit count. Our primary goals in this project involve the
Va;c,,m Sproul preservation of the most important open space and wildlife habitat, and the
Vice President,FounderArt Borwe"; buffering of the neighboring regional park and the Park District's Las Trampas
Secretary to Mt. Diablo u ional trail. . ,
Amara Koss,J.D.
Treasurer
Nigel O v,e rvt,' his 100 acre parcel is extremely beautiful and is characterized by
neighboring open space which extends 3/4s of a mile north to Mt. Diablo State
Executive Adamsoard.
Park. On.the west the parcel is bounded by the Regional Park District's Las
�a�er€Adarr-�s,J.D.�.
Aga.; L.Bowe rman,PhD. Trampas to Mt. Diablo Regional Trail, and on the north by public open spa
Founder owned by the Das ict. �T le site is steep and hilly and the Board. is faced�w
Daus C oager consideration o �e ene al Plan's sloe protection language. An ro project
Dori de Frenery,PhD. A P Py P l
Karen_Rant should enhance rather than degrade neighboring open space and trails.
Stepen Joseph
Bob Marx, If you choose to support a project of an size, a number of opportunities for
Steven Meh;raar,j,De y PP P y pP
Bob Nunn preservation have been considered by staff and the Regional Planning
At=.an Prager Commission, and many of our concerns have been addressed by the
Dave Sargent applicants. The staff report identifies a number of these opportunities,
Executive Director supported by the East Bay Regional Park District, and Save Mount Diablo.
Gerry Keenan
The most important of these recommended changes is that there is a clear
distinction between the northern part of the parcel, with its intervening creek
channel, higher elevations, more sensitive habitat and location adjacent to
regional parklands. These features should be protected and buffered.
• Both staff and Commission recommendations removed the units north of
the loop road, with no grading or stockpiling of materials in this area or on
other preserved open space. This northern open space area should be
Attachment to Board Ordee,'A#d n um May 25 , 1999 , Item D.8
2
irrevocably offered for dedication to the EBRPD subject to their requirement
for a benefit assessment district to fund management of the dedication, a
condition which the applicant appears willing to accept. Otherwise, a
conservation easement should be placed on the open space area which
precludes any development, grading or other damage to this area. An
irrevocable offer of a floating trail easement should also be required for
dedication to the District. ?a F, 5T VL A"-O o PJ 1PP J-�I S AAR-Or w i L�L
The staff s recommended buffer to the Las Trampas to Mt'. Rabid Regional 5 4,�s6
Trail should be required, along with realignment of the trail to match natural
contours. project grading should be prohibited within the realignment area in
order to shield the District from fixture liability. The staff recommendation of
one story building heights along Dots 1-8 should be supported, to decrease
impacts on the regional trail.
o The project is designed to visually preserve the minor rid,geline between the
two phases, but earlier maintained only a narrow connection between this
central open space area and the open space north of the road. We appreciate
both the applicant`s and the Commission's efforts to pull back its on either
side of the ridge to widen this open s ace connection, A A(L '514
Mount Diable supports the staffecomme :A�� �r� P(ave
f'p �.�ti®ns � �l request t�eAL�-
for an EVA to "A" Drive, and the EBRPD request for a road width reduction
frons. D Court into the second phase of the project.
Should the Beard choose to support a project on this site, Save Mount Diable
would appreciate inclusion of these conditions to ensure protection and
enhancement of the most important habitat and recreational features as they
relate to neighboring public lands and trails.
Sincerely,
Seth Adams
Director of Land Programs
r1NDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONJING_R 9 3040 AND
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANTP9 '021 (Stone galley Oaks 47 lot SRVRPC
Proposal- AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 5� 1999
Findings
A. P-I District Findings:
1. The applicant has indicated they intend to commence construction within two
and one-half years of the effective date of final project approval.
2. The Stone Valley Oaks project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County
General Plan recommended for amendment, The project site plan and
architecti.,,ral guidelines as amended by the proposed conditions assure
aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. Special nmeasures are provided to
safe,niard against fire hazards (e.g., fire retardant roofs, fire breaks, fire
department access to open space areas).
3. The project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability
and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby
coin inunity. The project which proposes lot sizes of 20,000 square feet
(znininiuni) and would set aside approximately 65% of the pi-oject area as
permanent open space will link the site with both the residential areas (to the
west) and the adjacent park lands (to the Borth),
4. In accord with the required findings of the Planned Unit District, the County
finds that the development of a hannonious, integrated plan like this project,
justifies exceptions from the nornial application of the Ordinance Code,
including variations in parcel config,iration and design to provide better
conformity with the environmental features of the site.
B. Growth Management Element Peiformance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The proposed development will not result in an increase of 100 or
more peak period trips as documented in a ti-affic study presented in the Draft
EIR dated January, 1998. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare
a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. On the other
hand, the development will both be required to contribute fees to the County
for local (Alamo Area of Benefit) and regional (Soumern Contra Costa Area
of Benefit) transportation improvements in accordance with ordinance
requirements prior to issuance of building pen-nits.
FDP-2
2. Water: The East Bay Municipal utility District has indicated that the site lies
within the District's sphere of influence. The District is capable of serving the
project but annexation to the service area is required, which requires approval
by the District's Board of Directors.
3. Sanitary Sewer: The site lies within the sphere of influence of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District but outside the District's service area.
Annexation of the site to the District will be required before construction may
commence. The District has conducted a limited analysis for the sewer system
located downstream of the proposed project. The existing main sewer is
adequate for the additional wastewater which will be generated by this prefect,
but District facilities farther downstream do not have adequate flow carrying
capacity under the District's current design criteria for ultimate conditions.
Improve,nents to con-ect the deficiencies are in the Districts Capital
Improvement Plan. Improvements to the District's existing; facilities that are
required as a result of new development will be fanded from applicable
District fees and charges. The developer will be required to pay these fees and
charges at the time of connection to the sewer system.
4. Fire Protection: The site lies within approximately 1.5 miles of the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District Station at 41101 Stone Valley Road.
5. Public Protection: The Growth Mana(,einent Element standard is 155 square
feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. The project will
generate a population of approximately 141 (3 persons per household X 47
units), which is far below the standard of the Growth Management Element
standard. The Sheriff s Office had no comments on this application.
6. Parks & Recreation: The applicant will be required to contribute the standard
park dedication fees for each of the new residences. Presently, the park
dedication fee is $2,000 per dwelling; unit.
7. Flood Control & Drainage: This project will be required to collect and convey
all runoff to an adequate manmade drainage facility or a natural watercourse.
To mitigate the impact of project runoff on Stone Valley and Green Valley
Creeks, privately maintained storm water detention basins are required for this
prQiect. To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this
development on San Ramon Creek, one cubic yard of channel excavation
material will be removed from an inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek for
each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the
FDP-3
development, or the applicant will have to contribute an in-lieu fee for such
purpose. There is an equivalent requirement to mitigate increased runoff to
Green Valley Creek. No portion of this site lies within an area subject to a
100-year floodplain hazard as indicated on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency map.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING RZ963040 AND FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP963021
1. The project is approved for a maximurn of 47 lets and ancillary roads,
along with private open space and detention basins. Submit a revised
Final Development Plan which complies with the Ordinance Code
require'Ments and which incoi j)orrtes measures from Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan prepared in response to
Planning Commission concerns (April, 1999).
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
A. Cultural Resources Survey, prepared by LSA, dated January,
1997.
B. Biologic Survey data prepared by LSA and dated April 23, 1996,
December 9, 1996 and June 17, 1997.
C. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Engeo, Inc.
And dated May, 1996, and update report dated March 10, 1997,
D. Child care needs analysis prepared by dk Associates and
received by the Community Developer;ent Department on Jude,
1996.
E. Landscape Plan prepared by Don Rose Landscape ar�d dated
received June, 1996 by the Community Development
Department.
F. Tree evaluation, protection and preservation recomrnendatioil s
prepared by Hortscience and dated June, 1996.
G. Phase 11 Environmental Report prepared by Engeo, Inc. and
dated July 1, 1997.
H. Hydrology reports of Stone Valley and Green Valley Creeks
prepared by Questa Engineering and dated March 13, 1997.
1. Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Vesting; Tentative
Subdivision Map - Illustrative Plan, received by the Comrnuriity
Development Department on June 14, 1996.
FDP-4
J. Mitigated Alteniative Plan prepared by dk Associates and dated
July 18, 1997.
K. Stone Valley Road Plan prepared by dk Associates, dated June
14, 1996.
L. Best Management Practices letter provided by dk Associates,
dated January 8, 1996.
M. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Store Valley Oaks
(dated January, 1998) and Response to Comments (dated
,November, 1998).
N. Vesting Tentative Map and Final Development flan Prepared in
Response to Planning Commission Concerns (April, 1999).
1 The rezoning to P-1 and Preliminary Development Plan request is
approved to allow for the development of up to 47 single family
residential lots oii the 98.81 acre site. The lots sh«ll be 20,000 square
feet minimum. and shall meet R-20 standards and uses; lots in the
eastern portion of the site shall be a minimum of 40,000 square feet.
Building height, setbacks, uses and other development guidelines shall
be the R-40 .District standards. Equestrian uses may be permitted on
those lets which exceed 40,000 square feet. Slope gradients in the
project shall comply with the recommendations in the Engeo report,
dated May, 1996.
3. Prior to filing the first Final Map, submit a revised Final Development
Plan showing any revision to the internal circulation plan or lot layout,
with lot areas indicated. The Final Development Plan shall show
detailed house locations, typical elevations, driveway, fencing plans
and street tree locations. It shall also show the realiginnent of the
EBRPD trail, scenic easements/open space easements and identify the
areas to be landscaped to buffer views of residential lots as-.viewed
from the EBRPD trail. It shall show lot dimensions and shall include
a table listing average widths and average depth of each residential lot,
A plan prepared by a plant ecologist shall be referenced by the Final
Development Plan. The Plant Ecologist's report shall provide details
of restoration of graded hillside areas that are to be retained as private
open space, and details of the vegetative buffer along the EBRPD trail
corridor. The revised Final Development Plan shall be subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall incorporate
the features shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Final
Development Plan dated April, 1999. Those futures include
elimination of lots north of"A" Drive, provide store water detention
FDP-5
basins in both the Stone Valley Creek and Green Valley Creek
watersheds, provide for realignment of the EBRPD trail and easement,
reduce the width of the unloaded segment of "A" Drive to a 28-foot
widtlr from "D„ Court intersection to the cul-de-sac, the minimum
standard acceptable to Public Works. The Final Development Plan
shall include the following: gate the EVA`s, provide for a landscape
buffer along the segment of the EBRPD trails that overlooks the
development, negotiate with EBRPD regarding, a conservation
easement and a trail passible by service vehicles across the northern
portion of the property, provide a 30-foot wide {minimum} buffer- of
private open space between the trail easement and private residential
lots, and provide a 50-foot wide open space buffer between the
Hurnphrey property and private residential lots in Store Valley Oaks.
(MM 4.053.1)
Archaeology
4. if any significant cultural materials such as artifacts. hurnan burials, or
the like are encountered daring construction operations, such operations
shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Coniniunity Development
Departi-hent shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified
archaeologist contacted and retained for further recorrmell dation s.
Significant cultural materials include, but are not lirnited 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.
Geologic Conditions
5. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading per snit, or installation of
iruprovements or utilities, applicant shall submit a preliminary geology,
soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Plaiming
Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out
the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall
reference the revised grading plan and provide standards and criteria for
the specific storm water detention basins, EVA°s, retaining walls and
slide repair work, along; with earthwork, drainage and foundations.
This report shall address percolation through the Boor and walls of the
detention basins.
FDP-6
6. A grading bond shall be required for the work necessary to carry out the
recommendations of the preliminary soil report. Sufficient subsurface
information shall be provided to estimate the cost of required soil
improvements.
7. The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval of the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading
permits, (MM 4.05 3,1)
8 At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, aro erosion
control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion
control plan shall provide for the following measures.
A. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the
dry season (April 15 through October 1) only, and all areas of
exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and
subsequent sedimentation. After October 1, only erosion
control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any
modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review
and specific approval by the Grading Section of the Building
Inspection Depar-tnient and Zoning Administrator. (MM 4.054.3
and 10.061.2)
B. Landscape plans for all landscape areas shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect (or in the case of the erosion control
plan or landscape buffers in private open space, by an
experienced plant ecologist). Plans shall be certified for
compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance. Proposed
shrubs shall be a minimurn 5-gallons in size; proposed trees a
minimum 15-gallons in size (10% of the trees may be of a
smaller size to provide for variety of appearance). Prior to
submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the East Bay Municipal
Utility District and Public works Dvpar bnent, Road Engineering
Division, shall be provided an opportunity to review and
comment on the plans.
FDP-7
C. If necessary for survival of young plants, the pian 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.
D. The erasion control plan small 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:
1) Performing maintenance during the winter rainy season,
as necessary.
2) Regular inspections by the project engineer daring the
winter rainy season.
3) Spot inspections drrr-ing/immediately following severe
storms.
E. A schedule for the installation of erosion control measures shall
be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator prior to July I of each grading season.
9. If the grading plan does not provide for balanced cut and fill on-site, arty
earth material that is imported or exported shall require specific
approval of the .Zoning Administrator. Moreover, the plans shall be
submitted to the Public Works and Building Inspection Departrirents for
technical review and comment prior to action by the Zoning
Administrator.
Trees
10. Prior-to 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 nomination request shall be accompanied by the grading/tree
preservation plan approved by the Zoning Administrator.
FDP-8
11. To assure protection and/or reasonablee replacement of existing trees to
be preserved which are in proximity to project improvements, the
applicant shall post a bond (or- cash deposit or other surety) for the
required work with the Community Developrnent Department. The
teen of the bond shall extend at least 24 months beyond the completion
of construction. Prior to posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist
shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms
in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise
damaged by construction-related activity. The tree bonding program
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Adrninistra-
too.
12. The Heritage Tree Designation submittal shall include a proposed
notice, upon Board of Supervisors designation action, to be used to
inform prospective buyer=s of residential lots that contain heritage trees
of the heritage tree program, and the process that must be followed in
order to remove or otlierwis' damage a tree.
13. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree
preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
14. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree
preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County
Code:
A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading,
compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with
trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install ferieirt, at the
dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all
trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or
issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the
location thereof approved by appropriate County staff.,
B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or
change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline
unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County
and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. if
grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an
arborist may be required to be present daring grading
operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require
FDP-9
protective measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of
grading and construction, an involved arborist snail prepare a
report outlining further methods required for tree protection if
any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the
developer and applicant.
C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or
construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of
oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any
tree to be saved.
Construction
1 . Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following
construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements;
A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 5.00
A.M. to 5:30 P.11\4- Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays. (MM 9.042. 1)
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and
subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with
mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationar-7
noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as
possible. (MM 9.042.1))
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the
applicant shall past the site and mail to the owners of property
within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the prQject site
notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and area of responsibility. The person responsible for
.maintaining the list shall be included.. The list shall be kept
current at all tunes and shall consist of persons with authority to
indicate and implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise
FDP-10
and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehi-
cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall
be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-
issued with each phase of major grading and construction
activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the
Community Development Department. The notice shall be
accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the
property owners noticed, and a rnap identifying the area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program. shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation
of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require
an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be
allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-fault effort to avoid
interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. This shall
include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment.
F. Transporting of heavy equipment and ti-ticks shall be limited to
week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and
prohibited on Federal and State holidays.
G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following
the cessation of construction activity, all consti-iiction' debris
shall be removed from the site.
16. The project shall cornply with the dust control requirements of the
Grading Ordinance including provisions pertaining to water
conservation,
17. On site haul routes shall be generally limited to those areas of the site
which are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of
hillsides. Hauling of material through an approved scenic easement
shall be precluded. (MM 10.061.2)
FDP-3 1
Domestic Water
18. Prior to recording the Filial Map, the applicant shall demonstrate that
water is available to the subject property fi-om ESMLID. (MM 6.052.1)
Sanitaiv Sewer
19. Prior to recording the Final Map, provide proof that adequate sanitary
sewer quantity and duality can be provided from CCCSD. (MM
6.052,2)
Community Facilities
20. Prior to fling the Filial Map, a proposed program to address and
mitigate all child care needs shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
21. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $20,823.00
which was paid with the application submittal, plus tune and material
costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee.
Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit
effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The
fees include costs through perinit issuance plus five working days for
file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the
project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you
shortly after permit issuance.
22. The project proponent shall provide deed disclosure to the pro,,,pective
buyers of the property that the schools in the Alamo area are
overcrowded and area residents may not be able to go to neighborhood
schools. The deed disclosure shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoiung Administrator-prior to recording the filial map.
Landscaping
23. A revised landscaping and irrigation plan} shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 60 days prior to
recording of Filial Map. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the
landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform. to the County
Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed
FDP-12
prior to approval of fine building permit. The plan shall be prepared
by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in
compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. The
elements of the plan shall include the following;
A. Track walking of top soil on graded 3:1 (H:V) cut slopes and fill
slopes, and specialized revegetation measures appropriate to the
north-facing 2:1 cut slope along the unloaded segment of "A"
Drive.
B. Revegetate graded areas with species and patterns designed to
emulate natural native vegetation patterns of the region. The
revegetation program shall be designed by a qualified
r.-vegetation specialist and is subiect to review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
C. Create a buffer of plant materials to partially screen and soften
views of residential lots and residences from the EBRPD trail.
D. California native drought tolerant plants shall be used as much
as possible. All trees shall be a minirntum 15-gallon size, all
shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size, except as otherwise
noted.
Residential Design and Construction
24. Development of individual residential lets shall conforrn to the
following requirements:
A. Development shall conforrrr to the approved Design Guidelines,
as modified by this approval.
B. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building or grading
permits for homes, proposed residential designs shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval.
The submittal shall include the site plan, a grading plan,
structural elevations, floor plans and a sample palette of exterior
colors and materials. A tree preservation plan and arborist
report shall be required if determined by the County Zoning;
Administrator that construction on the subject lot will impact
any trees.
FDI'-l 3
C. All structures shall comply with the required setbacks, less any
required scenic easements. To the extent that any ancillary
structures are permitted, they shall be located completely within
the building envelope(s). Unfenced tennis courts, patios and
decks not higher than 18 inches above natural grade are allowed
within the building envelopes. Small "outbuildings" may be
allowed within the building envelopes if they do not exceed 15-
feet in height and a total of 600 square feet.
D. Exterior wall and roof colors and materials small utilize medium.
to dark earthtone colors, defined as those having less than 50%
light reflectance. A licensed architect shall certify submitted
elevations with this requirement.
E. Construction on individual residential lots shall confonn to the
R-20 zoning district standards for lots in the SL portion of
project; and R-40 standards in the SV portion of the prQJect.
F. lots l - 3 shall be limited to single story or 22-feet in height;
Lots 4 - 8 shall be limited to two story or 30-feet in height.
(MM 5.071.2)
House Numbers
25. All dwelling units shall have Douse numbers that are visible from the
street which may require illumination.
Water
26. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County {ordinance
pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water
Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water
devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques.
(MM 6.052.3)
FDP-14
Design Guidelines
27. At least 45 days prior to the filing of the Final Map, the issuance of
grading pennits, the submittal of improvement plans, and any
construction on the site, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator revised Design Guidelines. The
Guidelines shall include text and graphics which includes
changes/additions based on the revisions to the site plan and the other
conditions herein and shall:
A. Require residential building plans to incorporate storage areas
for the storage of recyclable materials.
B. Require water conservation measures to be used for landscaping
consistent with Cotinty Ordinance Code Chapter 82-6.
C. Require water conservation devices to be incorporated in
residential designs.
D. Require each residence to have an electrical outlet installed in
the garage which is designed to dedicate for future use in
recharging electrical vehicles.
E. Inform residence/builders that the building requirements
contained in the guidelines are standard which shall be used by
the County in the issuance of any necessary permits.
F. No gating of roads within the project are allowed, except EVA's
and any trails that are passible by service vehicles of the
EBRPD. The gating of such trails will be negotiated with the
EBRPD and is subject to approval by the Zoning Adrnin�istrator.
G. No staging area(s) for EBRPD trails are allowed on site without
the specific approval of the Board of Supervisors, with
consideration of parking needs.
H. Include the fallowing changes to the Guidelines:
FDP-1 5
Site Design
1) If tennis court lights are requested which exceed 7-feet
in height an amendment to the Final Development and
payment of all necessary fees must be submitted for the
review and approval of the County.
2) Removal of any trees on-site shall be in conformance
with Chapter 816-6 of the County Code.
3) Side and real- entry garages are encouraged to avoid an
elevation which is dominated by garage doors. Where
garages accommodate more than 2-cars, garage doors
should be oi; separate off-set wall planes. Driveway
width at the road should not exceed 26-feet.
4) The Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by
Hortscience (1996) as amended by this approval, shall be
incorporated into the project CC&Rs.
Gradin /Residential Lots
28. Site grading shall complement and reinforce the architectural and
landscape character, Man-made slopes should be gently rounded to
bleiid imperceptibly it7to the iiatui-al foi-iTi oftlie gf°ou:id. (MM 4.053.1)
29, Final grading of lots is restricted to the designated level pad. Any
proposed gradinghnodification of slopes steeper than 3:1 shall require
geotechnical review and specific approval of the Zoning Admis,jstrator,
30. After grading operations are completed, disrupted slopes shall be
stabilized with vegetation and returned to a natural appearance.
31. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a 3:1 gradient, except for slopes
between residential lots which are 10 feet or Less in height, and the cut
slope along the unloaded segment of"A" Drive. These slopes shall be
allowed to have slope gradients of 2:1.
FDP-2
Drain e/Residentia] Lots
32. Roof down spouts shall be tied into an underground storm drainage
system, to reduce the likelihood of concentrated s€nface run-off`causing
erosion.
33. The control of water run-off and avoidance of erosion shall be a
consideration both during construction and in the final design of each
Dome site.
34. Where surface storm rater drainage unproveinents arL necessaiy, they
shall be designed to create a natural rattier than a manufactured
appearance,
35. Where scenic easements are used for horse corrals, special attention
shall be paid to ensure that erosion does not occur in grazed paddock
areas.
Pa'\ging Materials/Residential Lots
36a Appropriate paving materials shall be utilized for a natural, rustic
appearance. Brick, masonry, or interlocking concrete pavers set in
sand, turf block, and textcired, patterned and colored concrete
resembling natural rnaterials are all appropriate paving types. This
shall not limit the use of asphalt concrete for public roads.
37, Patios and walkways shall be in inediuin earth tones found in the
surrounding enviromnent. Use of permeable paving materials is
encouraged. Break up lame expanses of paving with bands of field
stones or colored concrete.
Entry Features/Residential Lots
38. Individual entry gates shall require review of the Public Works
Department the specific approval of the Zoning Administrator.
39. If desired, entry pilasters shall be made of local stone, masonry, brick,
or rnaterials in earth tones which harmonize with architectural colors.
Exposed concrete block and sheet siding material's such as plywood
shall not be allowed.
FDP-i
Fencin
40. The use of solid fencing shall be limited to the building envelope.
Property line fencing beyond building envelope is discouraged.
41. Open wire fencing on hill slope of 3:1 or greaten- are allowed.
42. Retaining walls are discouraged in the rear of upslope lots. Level
outdoor use spaces are more sensitively created to the sides and front
of a home on an upslope lot. Wien walls are required they shall
become an interesting and integral part of the design, not an awkward
afterthought.
43. Retaining walls shall be designed with careful consideration for
strei,gth, a deep foundation, and provision for drainage and configured
to sensitively fit within the rolling hillside and of a material which
blends with the setting. Use of redwood hoards, landscape ties, and
railroad ties in retaining walls shall be avoided. Use of more
permanent materials such as stone, masonry and concrete is
encouraged. Stepping of retaining walls is encouraged.
44. Fencing shall not restrict vehicle sight lines at driveways.
2ecks
4_55, Avoid excessive deck heights greater than 8-feet.
46. The underside of decks shall be screened with vegetation or clad with
an architectural skirting. Create shadow and articulation with treatment
of deck skirting.
47. Decking shall harmonize with the architecture in fiiiish, texture or color.
48. Create a sense of enclosure for the deck area with horizontal elements,
benches, railings, or planting. Changes in levels can provide variety
and highlight movement from. one use area to another. Stepping a deck
can give a feeling of being tucked into the landscape. heavy appealing
railings or balustrades shall be avoided.
FDP-18
Landscape Lighting
49, Lighting shall be unobtrusive and functional. The driveway and envy
walk can be lit with lot bollards or low pathway lights. Simple non-
intrusive fixtures are encourage.
50. All landscape lighting shall be mounted near or below ground level and
may be used only within the building envelope, to avoid light spillage
into neighboring homes. High wattage flood lighting is prohibited.
Materials Finishes & Colors
51. Building materials shall blend in with the setting and reflect a high
quality, residential image.
52. Stone, brick, wood siding, shingles, smooth stucco finishes or other
natural material are encouraged. Avoid plywood siding, concrete block
or low quality stucco application. Use of highly reflective rnaterials
shall be avoided.
53. An excessive number of different wall materials shall be avoided.
Exterior wall materials shall be consistent and bear a logical
relationship to the architectural style of the house and to its changes in
form. Roofing material shall be a fire resistant material such as
ceramic file or composite shingles.
54. Building colors, including roofing materials, shall also hair-ronize with
the environment. Warm m mediurrr to dark earth tone colors are
encouraged. Trim colors shall be consistent and appropriate to the
overall composition. .,
55. Roof gutters and down shouts shall be of a material and color integral
to the architecture.
FLT-19
Public Works Conditions
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 1€3 of the
Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval.
Conditions of Approval are based on the plans submitted on June 14, 1996 as modified
by the July 24, 1997 'Mitigated Alternative Plan and the Vesting Tentative Map and
Final Development Flan prepared in response to Planning Commission's concerns
(April, 1999)
COMPLY WITH TIIE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
FILING OF A FINAL MAP AND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUII-DING PERMITS:
General Requirements:
56. Applicant shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a qualified registered civil
engineer, to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County
Ordinance and these conditions of approval. The following conditions of approval are
subject to the review and approval of Public Works.
Stone Valley Road Frontage Improvements:
57. Applicant shall construct necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street
lighting, pavement widening, and 0.6-meter (two±foot) shoulder backing along each
side of Stone Valley Road, along the project frontage. Pavement widening shall
provide for a 10.4-meter (34±foot) width road, widened to 5.5±meter (18-foot) half-
widths where a concrete, or asphalt concrete, curb is proposed neat to the edge of
pavement. Pavement widening shall also provide for left tune channelization with an
additional 4.8 rr,�eter (l6±foot}painted median for eastbound traffic turning left into
the project's "A" give access. Adequate conforms and transitions shall be provided
by the applicant. Tile Stone 'Valley Road improvements will require corrstru,,tion of
improvements along both the north and south sides of Stone Valley Road. The
alignment shall follow the Basic alignment drown on the Stone Valley Road Plan
(Sheet 3 of 10), as modified by these conditions of approval, subject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant
shall also construct a 2.4±meter(8-foot) separated concrete path along the south side
of Stone Valley Road along the length of this project's frontage.
The reduction in width from the presently approved 19.5 meter- (64-foot) roadway
width shall only be permitted with approval of the Board of Supervisors.
FISP-20
The applicant shall be required to improve the existing 8-foot separated pedestrian
path to an acceptable condition from the Nvest side of the -Mar;
FDP-211
1
Road Dedications:
60. Applicant shall convey to the County. by Offer of Dedication, the right of way
necessary for the planned future width of 25.6¢meters (84-feet) along the frontage of
Stone Valley Road. Additional right of way shall be conveyed to the County, by Offer-
of Dedication, if required for adequate room for the 10.4-meter (34=foot) roadway,
shoulder areas and separated sidewalk along the alignment shown oil the Stolle Valley
Read Plan (Sheet 3 of 10). The Stone Valley Road right of way line shall be located
at least 1.5-meters (5±feet) from the trail facilities and at least 3-meters (10±feet)
from the edge of pavement.
Maintenance of Facilities:
61. A. Tile Homeowners Association covenants. conditions and restrictions shall
assure maintenance ofthe riding trail and the EVA from the end of the "A"
Drive public road through the Htmmplrrey property to Stolle Valley Road as an
all-weather road.
B. Detention basins designed and constructed for this proiect's drainage mitigation
shall be maintained in perpetuity by a public entity such as a geologic hazard
abatement district (GHAD), or otlier entity acceptable to `public Works.
On-site Green Valley Creek Detention Basin:
62. The use of all on-site detention basin in the Green Valley Creek watershed will.
mitigate downstream impacts by controlling peak discharge rates so that the arnount
of water leaving the site at any one time are at least 20%less than the in-lieu of flows
leaving the site under- it's pre-development state for the 10 year design storm (MM
10.062.1) The applicant shall show that stormwater detention will not increase peak
flows downstream.
This 20%reduction in peak discharge rates is in lieu of Mitigation Measure 10.135.1
recommended by the E1R which had required:
Prior to filing of the first Final Map, a geotechnical engineer shall
perform a site study of Green Valley Creek downstream of the project
site. The County shall clearly identify the parameters of the study and
will identify locations where an incremental increase inerosion may be
critical to the downstream property owners. Accordingly, the applicant
shall perform the measures recommended by the geotechnical engineer
to miti�uate any potential impacts at the identified locations. lnfbrination
FDP-22
substantiating; that there will not be any si&rnificant downstream erosion
shall be submitted by the applicant's engineer at the time the find
detention basin designs and water clirality control plans are submitted
by the applicant's engineer to the County (CCCFC & FCDand County
Public Works). Implementation of this measure wolrld' effectively
mitigate the impact to a Less than Significant Level. (MM 10.135)
63. Use detention basins with a siltation element to control magnitude and frequency of
runoff for detention basins in both the Stone Valley Creek and Green Valley Creek
watersheds. (MM 10.063.1 and 10.064. 1)
Payment of Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinances.
64. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoror:gzhfare Fee Ordinance for the Tri-Valley Area of Be-nefit, the Alamo
Area of Benefit and the SCC Regional Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. The project traffic mitigation fees will be collected at the tin-le of the
Building Permit for each residential unit in this developr;lent. The amount of tile fee,
shall be the fee in effect at the time of issuance of each Building; Permit.
65. Prior to issuance of a building permit, file the Final Map for SIODdivision 8016,
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTFORMING THE
APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing require-
ments prior- to recording the Final Map or requesting building or grading; permits.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Grading and
FDP-23
building permits are require.
E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Depar mient of Fish &Y Game, P.O. Box
47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within the develop-
ment that may affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the
Corps of Engineers to determine if a pernilt is required.
G. Payment of Fish & Gatne Fee - The applicant is required to pay an environmental
review fee of$850.00 for the Depar tinent of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal
period. Failure to do so will result in fines. In addition, the approval is not final or
vested until the fee is paid; nor may the County Dost a Notice of Detennination until
the fee is paid. A check for this fee shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department Trade out to Contra Costa County for submittal with the
final environmental documents.
H. Vsting Tentative Map Ri l - The approval of this vesting tentatiire map confers a
vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,
policies, and standards in effect as of Jane, 1997 , the date the vesting tentative reap
application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department.
The vested rights also applies to development fees which the County has adopted by
ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be
specified irr the conditions of approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting
the Building Inspection Department at 3315-1192.
L Police Services District Costs and Necessary Processing Time - The applicant is
advised that the tax for the police services district is curr-ently set by the Board of
Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price
Index (CPI) aqjustrnents). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of
Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also
subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be
those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is ad14.sed that
v
FISP-24
the election process takes.fronr 3 to 4 nionths and must he conilVetecl prior to
recording the Final Mal).
J. Expiration of Vested flights. Pursuant to Section 66452,6(g) of the Subdivision Map
act, the rights conferr=ed by the vesting tentative reap as provided by Chapter 4.5 of
the Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the
recording date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and
regulations. Where several final maps are recorded on various phrases of a project
covered by a single vesting tentative map, the initial time period shall begin for each
phase when the final map for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial tirne period, the st€bdivider may apply
for a one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable
filing fee. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may
appeal that denial to the Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the
appropriate filing fee with the Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be snbject to automatic extension puns{rant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g) relating to processing of related development
applications by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new
building permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and
regulations in effect at that time.
K. '`notice of 90-day oppor mnity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, or other
exactions per-tai€ring to the approval of this permit.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code
Stiction 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,
reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval`. The
opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved.
L. Additional requirements may be imposed by the hire District, the Health Department
and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these
departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
DM/aa RZ,/3040c.DM
1/13/99,2/8/99,o-/9/99,-3/18/99,4/13/99,
4/21/99 - SR (a),5/25/99 - B/S (a)
FIND NGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR STONE VALLEY OAKS
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL, COUNTY FILE OSD9 801 - 47 LOT
RVRPC PROPOSAL - AS APPROVER BY THE .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY
25, 1999
Findings
A. Growth Management Element Performance Standards
1. Traffic: The proposed development will increase traffic volumes to the roads
and intersections in the cormnunity, however, the EIR concluded that the
traffic impacts would not decrease the level of service at any of the 28
intersections and freeway ramps studied in the EIR with the exception of the
Roundhill Road/Stone Valley Road which drops from LOS "A" to "B"
Accordingly, the EIR concluded that the pr-Qject would not result in any
significant iMpacts associated with traffic volumes.
2. Drainaue & Flood Control: The Public Works Conditions of Approval require
that all storm waters entering; or originating within the project comply with
"collect and convey„ requirements of the Ordinance Code. Specific exceptions
will be permitted if there is a 20% decrease in peak hour storm drainage,
subject to the review of Public Works. The Public Works Conditions of
Approval also address the design, construction and maintenance of storm
water detention basins intended to reduce peak flow originating on the site to
less than the existing peak flows at the downstrearn edges of the property.
The site does not lies within a floodplain and no portion lies within a special
Flood Zone of the Federal Emergency Management Ageticy. Therefore, the
project has no significant risk of flood hazard.
3. Water Service: Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant is required to
provide evidence to the County that the applicant has obtained a "will serve"
letter from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (reference Section 6452.1).
4. Sanital= Sewer Service: Prior to approval of a final wrap, the applicant is
required to provide evidence to the County that the applicant has obtained a
`°will serve" letter from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (reference
Section 6-052,2).
5. Fire Protection: The site is located within an area that has an urban level of
e r5
SUB-2
service (3 minute response time and/or 1.5 miles from the first-due statim).
The property to the north is a "State Responsibility" area.
6, Public Protection: The Growth Managennent Element standard is 155 square
feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. The conditions of
approval require establishment of a police services district for the project
which will mitigate the added demand on the Sheriffs Departinent.
7. Parks & Recreation: The applicant is required to contribute $2,000 per
residential lot which satisfies the Growth Management Element Performance
Standard.
B. Findings to Approve a_T_entative Map
aired Finding: The Planning Conumssion shall not approve a te��tative nnap unless
it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the proNisions for its design
and improvement, is consistent with tine applicable general plan required by law. The
Stone Valley Oaks project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County General Plan
recommended for amendment.
Findin : The tentative map provides for a maximum of 47 single family residential
lots and is consistent with the proposed County General Plan amend=nnent. The
project is also required to collect and convey all run-off to an adequate natural or
manmade drai;nage facility or mitigate tine off-site drainage impacts. To mitigate the
impact of project peak-Dour run-off on Stone Valley and Green Valley Creeks,
privately maintained storm water detention basins are required.
CONDITION'S OF APPROVAL
1. The project is approved for a maximum of 47 lots and ancillary roads,
along with private open space and detention basins. Submit a revised
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map which complies with the Ordinance
Code requirements and which incorporates measures from the Vesting
Tentative Map and Final Development Plan prepared in response to
Planning Commission concerns (dated April, 1999), except that Lot 9
shown in that plan shall be merged with Lot 10 and a sixth lot will be
allowed to be added on tine west side of "A" Drive within the area of
existing Lots 39 to 43.
2. The approval is also based upon the following reports:
SUB-3
A. Cultural Resources Survey prepared by LSA, dated January,
1997.
B. Biologic Survey Data prepared by LSA and dated April 23,
1996; December 9, 1996; and June 17, 1997,
C, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Engeo, Inc.
And dated May, 1996, and update report dated March 10, 1997.
D. Child care needs analysis prepared by dk Associates and
received by the Community Development Department in June,
1996.
E. Landscape Plan; prepared by Don Rase Landscape and dated
received June, 1996 by the Cominunity Development
Department.
F. Tree evaluation, protection and preservation recommendations
prepared by Hortscience and dated June, 1996.
G. Phase II Envirorunental Report prepared by Engeo, Inc. And
dated July 1, 1997.
H. Hydrology reports of Stone Valley and Green Valley Creeks
prepared by Questa Engineering and dated Ma{-clr 13. 1997.
1. Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Vesting 'tentative
Subdivision Map - Illustrative Plan, received by the Cormnuriity
Development Department on June 14, 1996.
r
J. Mitigated Alternative Plan prepared by dk Associates and dated
July 18, 1997.
K. Stone galley Road Plan prepared by dk Associates, dated June
14, 1996,
L. Best Management Practices letter provided by dk Associates,
dated January 8, 1996.
M. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Stone Valley Oaks
SUB-4
(dated January, 1998) and Response to Cornrnents (dated
November, 1998).
N. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan
Prepared in Response to Planning Cornmission Concerns (April,
1999).
Rezoning Required
3. This subdivision shall be approved contingent upon; approval of a
conforming General Plan Amendment, rezoning and final development
plan by the Board of Supervisors. If the above entitlements are not
granted this approval shall be null and void.
Indemnification
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including
the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the Contra Cosa 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 rnap 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 claire, action, or proceeding and
cooperate fully in the defense.
Conditions of Approval Prior to Filing Final Maes
a
S. At least 60 days prior to filing a Final Map, issuance of grading permits
or issuance of a building permit, a revised site/grading plan and related
documents shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Adreinistrator. The submitted plan shall provide for: balanced grading
or include an estimate of the volume of import (or export) proposed.
The storm water detention basins shall be located outside of the road
right-of-way and are not to be on private residential lots. The Final
Map shall identify EVA`s, scenic easements and conservation
easements. The limits of grading shall be shown and gradients of
graded slopes shall be labeled. It shall also show grading required for
realignment of the EBRPD trail, if it is modified.
SUB-5
6. The applicant shall submit a stabilization grading plan for review and
approval by the County prior to County approval of the Project
Tentative Map (MM 4.(354.3). The grading plan shall be accompanied
with a geotechnical report. The required report shall comment on and
provide recommendations for the grading associated with the Final
Subdivision Map, including grading for EVA's trails and storm water
detention basins, retaining walls and improvements along Stone Valley
Road. The constriction of improvements must comply with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
Growth Mann e_g ment
7. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate that water-
is available to the property from EBMUD (MM 6.052.1).
8. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall delmonst-ate that sewer
service is available to the property, fi-om Central Contra. Costa Sanitary
District (MM 6.052.2).
9. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
project's design incorporates both internal and external water
conservation measures, including use of drought tolerant plants, inert
materials and minimal use of turf' Include evidence of compliance with
the County's Fater Conservation Ordinance (MM 6.052..0.
10. Prior to filing the first Final Map, the developer shall be required to
den<onstrate adequate school facilities and obtain a will-serve letter
from the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (MM 6.053.1).
11. Growth inducement to the Humphrey property shall be minimized by
implementing the following measures: (a) construct a finished cul-de-
sac terminus at the end of the Stone Valley Oaks project road; (b) limit
the EVA across the Humplu-ey property to a minimal-width gravel or
comparable all-weather, but unpaved surface to retain the i-ural
character of the Humphrey parcel; and (c) Ili-nit the easement to
emergency access, with no general access alto«ed, and require that all
utilities be constructed underground (MM 4.055.1).
12. Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map, a conservation easement shall
SU-B-6
be established along the north portion of the property, using a
conservation easement instrument approved by the Zoning
Administrator. The boundaries of the conservation easement shall be
negotiated with the East Bay Regional Park Dist7•ict, and the easement
shall be granted to the East Bay Regional Park District. The easement
instrurnent shall provide that no grading, or other development activity,
or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior written
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
13. Prior to ding the Final Subdivision Map, scenic easements shall be
dedicated to the County for all private open space lands shown on the
development plans using the scenic easement instn-urnent approved by
the Zoning Administrator. 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. Maintenance of storm water detention basins, trails and
EVA, along with maintenance of vegetation and erosion control
measures, are allowed in the scenic easement.
Submittal of Compliance Report
14. At least 50 days prior to ding a final map or issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the
conditions of approval with this permit and the final development plan
perrnnit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works
Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a
description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of
compliance with that condition. (A copy of the conditions of a7proval
may be available on computer disk; to try to obtain, contact the project
planner at 335-1210.) For each condition of approval, the Compliance
Report shall indicate if the applicant feels the condition has been
satisfied. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to filing
a final map. The Zoning Administrator may reject the report if it is not
comprehensive with respect to applicable requirements for the
requested ministerial permit,
The compliance deterrnination review is subject to staff tune-and-
SUB-7
materials charges. Submittal of the Compliance Report shall be
accompanied by an initial deposit of S 1,500.00.
Election to Establish a Police Services District
15. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding
to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special
tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall
be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI
adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of
Super\risors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed
prior- to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be
responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the
time that the election is requested by the owner.
Trail and East Bav Regional Park District Offer of Dedication
16. Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map for Phase 1, provide a ."30-foot
wide buffer-of private open space (minirmini) between the EBRPD trail
easement and private lots. Within the private open space corridor that
is just east of the EBRPD trail easement, irrdigeno.rs sl,.rrrbs and ground
cover shall be provided to create a vegetation screen between the
EBRPD trail and new roads and buildings within the development area.
Plant locations shall allow distant views over the new development but
minimize views dawn onto nearby houses and yard areas (MM
4.053.1). Other provisions of this condition are as follows:
• Any grading along; and adjacent to the EBRPD trail shall mimic
the natural contours. 0
• The EBRPD trail and its associated 50ofoot wide easement shall
be realigned to follow the natural contours allowing greater ease
of access for hikers and the Park's maintenance staff. The
alignment of the trail shall be negotiated with the EBRPD.
+� During construction of the project, construction activities shall
allow trail users to pass.
• The developer shall negotiate with the EBRPD for a possible
SUB-8
trail passible by service vehicles to the park dist -ict lands
located to the north of the site.
17, East Bay Regional Park District shall be granted a floating trail
easement on private open space lands in the project. The District shall
assume maintenance responsibility and liability for such public trails.
Wildlife Surveys
18. Following installation of subdivision improvements, no grading shall
be permitted on open space, except for (a) maintenance of storm water
detention basins; (b) maintenance of biking/equestrian trails; (c)
construction of a trail passible by service vehicles to the East Bay
Regional Park Disnict parcel, if requested by the District; or (d) erosion
control/stabilization work undertaken by the GHAD.
19. An irrevocable offer of dedication of the nordieni open space area shall
be made to the East Bay Regional Park Disti-ict, subiject to the District's
requirement for a benefit assessment district to fund
naa�,�erent!mai �ter�ai�ce of the dedication. The boundary of the
dedication shall be subject to negotiation with the District. The
northern open space shall be preserved in a conservation easement
which precludes any development, grading or tree removal, with the
exception of the following activities: (a) maintenance of storm water
detention basins, (b) maintenance of trails, (c) construction of a trail
passible by service vehicles, if requested by the EBRPD, and (d)
erosion control/stabilization work undertaken by the GHAD.
d
20. No more than 15 days prior to commencement of construction activities
on the site, a nest survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife
biologist to ensure that no raptors or loggerhead shrikes are nesting oil
site. Shall an active nest(s) be confirmed, construction activities or
intrusion by man shall not be allowed within 300 feet of the nest until
the fledglings have left the nest. Any active nest discovered during; the
pre-construction survey shall be monitored weekly by the wildlife
biologist to ensure development activities are appropriately setback
from the nest. Copies of weekly field notes of the biologist shall be
provided to the Cotrununity Development Deparnent within 3 days of
the site visit (MM 7.045.1).
21. .Prior to filing of the Final Map and any site disturbance, the applicant
SUB-9
shall submit documentation of an Alameda Whipsnake habitation
assessment performed by a qualified herpetologist. The herpetologist
shall complete an Alameda Whipsnake Habitat Evaluation Form and
submit it to the California Departrnent of Fish & Garne for review and
comment and to the County Zoning Administrator. The Zoning
Administrator shall consider any comrnentsirecornmendations of CDFG
prior to approval of the herpetologist's report (MM 7.046.1).
Landscaping
22. A revised landscaping and in-igation plan shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 60 days prior to
recording of Final Map. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the
landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County
Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 42-26 and shall be installed
prior to approval of final building pen-nit. The plan shall be prepared
by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in
compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. The
elements of the plan shall include the following:
A. Track walking of top soil on graded 3:1 (H:V) cut slopes and fill
slopes, and specialized revegetation measures appropriate to the
north-facing 2:1 cut slope along the unloaded segment of "A"
Drive.
B. Revegetate graded areas with species and patterns designed to
emulate natural native vegetation patterns of the region. The
revegetation program shall be designed by a qualified
revegetation specialist and is subject to review and appioval of
the Zoning Administrator.
C. Create a buffer of plant materials to partially screen and soften
views of residential lots and residences from the EBRPD trail.
D. California native drought tolerant plants shall be used as much
as possible. All trees shall be a minimum IS-gallon size, all
shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size, except as otherwise
noted.
23. if occupancy is requested prior to the installation of the landscape and
SUB-10
irrigation improvements, then either (a) a cash deposit; (b) a gond; or
(c) letter of credit, shall be delivered to the Count, for 125 percent of
the estimated cost of the uncompleted portion of the landscape and
irrigation improvements. If compliance is not achieved after six months
of occupancy as determined by the County Zoning Adn-imistrator, the
County shall contract for the completion of the landscaping and
ii-rigation improvements to be paid for by the held sum. The County
shall return the unused portion within one year of receipt or at the
completion of all work.
24. All replacement trees shall be replanted at a 5:1 ratio. These trees shall
be monitored by an ISC Certified Arborist for a minl3nuin of 5 years.
Provision foi-monitoring shall be incorporated into the CC & R's, and
a copy of the annual monitorilIg report shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department by October I st each year.
CDFG standards require survival of 90 percent of replacement ti-ees
after 5 years. and that standard will apply to replacement trees planted
on open space lands in the project (i.e., if 5 significant trees are
removed during development, a 90 percent ratio requires survival of 2')
replacement trees). .Due to the excellent wildlife habitat value of the
lame valley oak (labeled tree 41 112 in the arborist report prepared by
HortScience, 1966), this tree shall be preserved if possible. If its
removal is necessary for safety reasons, it shall be removed in late
summer after the nesting season, and before the onset of fall. This will
allow any nesting; birds to have vacated the nests, and will allow the
acorn woodpecker colony to utilize another oak t3-ee while acorns are
still available before the onset oflvinter. If this tree cannot be saved a
replacement radia of 7:1 shall be utilized (MM 7.042.l).
25. Prior to filing the Final leap, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval of the County Zoning Administrator, an oak tree
protection/monitoring program prepared by an ISA certified arborist
and shall be instituted by the developer to assure that root zones are not
impacted by grading activities. The plan shall identify tasks to be
performed prior to issuance of the gradin; peii-iut; identify an
inspection schedule during gradin; and provide for regular reporting to
the Community Development Department to document the site
inspections and identify any concerns and any present
recommendations. The program shall also address the long-tern
management of oak trees within and adjacent to the developed area to
assure that they are not impacted by summer watering, inappropriate
SUB-1 1
trimming, etc. The Tree Preservation Guidelines on pages 9-11 of the
Tree Report for Stone Valley Oaks prepared by IIortScience (1996)
(DEIR Appendix E), shall be included in the management program.
The program shall be incorporated into the CC & R's (MM 7.0143.1).
CC & R's
26. The developer shall avoid use of poisons for rodent control during
project development unless approved by CDFG. Proper uses of
rodenticides or other appropriate rodent control measures, consistent
��-id CDFG standards, shall be incorporated into the project
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (MM 7.047.1).
27. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall subunit for review and
approval of the County Zoning Administrator a plan for ongoing
maintenance of open space including maintenance of pedestrian trails,
a star thistle eradication program and repair of erosion. The hillside
fronting Stone Valley Road shall be retained in a natural condition
except where grading is required to develop the praject entry drive
(MM 4.054.1). Minor grading for the widening of Stone Valley Road,
if required, shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
28. The CC&Rs shall contain a copy of the site plan identifying the location
of the East Bay Regional Park District trail easement along the west
boundary of the project, and the trail easement offered to EBRPD
which extends across the northeast portion of the site. The CC&Rs
shall stipulate that no barriers shall be erected that would interfere with
public access along either of the two trail easements.
29. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review
with the Final Map, and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Admir ,istrator. This document shall provide for establishment,
ownership and maintenance of the common open space. Maintenance
responsibilities shall include existing, trees and developer installed
landscaping, trails, fire protection (mowing of weeds), and star thistle
eradication. The plan for maintenance shall include the maintenance
cycle. and provide for funding of maintenance of the basins, The CC
& Rs shall not provide for maintenance of detention basins since they
require an entity able to assure perpetual maintenance.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&.Rs) developed for
f
SUB-12
this project shall include the following deed restrictions:
A. No recreational vehicle, goat, boat trailer or mobilehome shall
be stored on the site overnight.
B. No gating of roads within the project are allowed, except EVA's
and any trails that are passible by service vehicles of the
EBRPD. The gating of such trails will be negotiated with the
EBRPD and is sut}ject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
Fencing
30. Prior to filing of Final Map, the applicant shall submit a fencing and
EVA/EVMA gating plan. The approved plan shall be attached to the
CC&Rs Design Guidelines and provide the following:
A. Restriction of fencing within or on the perimeter of the common
open space area (and possibly other areas of the site), to wire
(non-cyclone) and/or split-rail fencing.
B. Restrictions oil fencima of firebreak maintenance easement.
C. Design guidelines for residential lot fencing.
D. Desigm of all gates to restrict access to EVA's and trails passible
by service vehicles of the EBRPD; and description of proposed
locking mechanism.
Vegetation
r
31. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a tree
preservation plan showing the retention of 243 existing on-site trees,
the 3 trees that are to be removed and the number and location of the
required replacement trees at a replanting ratio of 5:1 (MM 4,(154.2).
31 Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a yellow star
SUB-13
thistle control program to be implemented on all private open space
lands on the property, and prepared by a qualified plant ecologist. Over
time, the resulting decrease in yellow-star thistle will increase the
habitat value for wildlife and mitigate for the loss of artnual grassland
(MM 7.041.1).
33. Vegetation for landscaping and erosion control shall be restricted to
native plan species and non-invasive ornamental plant species.
Restrictions on planting exotic pest plant shall be included in the
Conditions, Convents and Restrictions for the pi-oiect. The preliminary
landscape plan was screened for invasive species using the CalEPPC
(California Exotic Pest Plast Council) list of Exotic fest Plants of
Greatest Ecological Concern in California (August, 19961 and none
were found. The final lai-dscaping plan shall be reviewed for invasive
plants using, the Cal EPPC list Before installation. In addition the
landscape contractor shall be informed that they must notify
Community Development Department if any substitutions are made
during plant installation. This will help to protect the preserved habitat
areas, and adjacent parkland areas from any further introduction of
invasive pest plants (MM 7.0344.1).
Stre-et Names
34. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed st7-eet names
shall be submitted for review by the Community Development
Department, Graphics Section (335-1271). Alteaiiate street names shall
be submitted. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community
Development Department without the approved street names.
Archaeoloay '
35. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or
the like are encountered during consn-uction operations, such operation
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 not limited to, aboriginal
human remains, chipped stone, ground stone, shell and bone artifacts,
concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bane, and
historic features such as privies or building foundations.
Deed Notification
SU-B-14
36. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's
Office for each parcel to notify fixture owners of the lets that they own
property in an agricultural area:
"This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased
land in an agricultural area where faun equipment causing dust; noise
associated with farm activities; certain animals and flies may exist on
surrounding properties. This statement is, again, notification that this
is part of the agricultural way of life in the open space areas of Contra
Costa County and you shall be fully aware of this at the time of
purchase."
Grading Limitation
37. No eartl7Nvork shall be allowed in the nortliNvest comer of the property,,
except (a) maintenance of the EBRPD trail. (b) construction of a trail
passible by service vehicles of the EBRPD, if requested by the District,
or (c) erosion control/stabilization work undertaken by the CHAD.
Building Permits
38. Prior to issuance of any building permits, an overall plan for lot
development shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator showing proposed building setbacks, and number of
stories with one, two or split level buildings. Oil lots 1-3 homes shall
be limited to a single story or 22 feet in height (h-UM 5.0-12.2). Oil lots
4 - 8 homes shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
x
39. The proposed buildings shall be similar to those shown on submitted
plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and
architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall
be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning
Administi-ator. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be
free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television
aerials, etc., or screened from view. The building shall be finished in
wood and stucco or other materials acceptable to the Zoni110
Administrator.
40. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit as-graded
STUB-15
reports of the engineering geologist or 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; landslides repaired; buttress fills with keyway,
location, any retaining;walls installed, subdr-ains and their connections,
and other soil improvements installed during grading, all as surveyed
and mapped by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. Applicant
shall comply with the recommendations of the geologic report
submitted with the application, subject to review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
41a The design, color and location of any project sign or other entrance
feature shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
42, Prepare and Implement l-lazardous Substance Control and Emergency
Response Plan (HSCERP). The plan shall describe spill prevention
methods to be used during the project, waste handling, collection and
disposal procedures, and an emergency response program to ensure
expedient containment and clean tip of a spill or leak. Any hazardous
materials to be stored on-site shall be shown on a plans and stored in
a fully contained and secured location to protect the materials from
vandalism and theft. (MM 10.1_34.1)
43. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, a sample section
and color of any proposed masonry walls along "A" Drive shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to the Zoning Administrator review, the masoruy wall plan
including color and finish shall be submitted to the Alamo
Improvement Association for their comments. The Alamo
Improvement Association comments shall be forwarded to the Zoning
Administrator prior to the Zoning Administrator's decision on the
masonry wall.
44. Prior to filing a final map, applicant shall offer to dedicate to the East
SUB-16
.Bay Regional Park District Parcel A, except for the portion between the
EBRPD tail and lots 1-8 tithe "Parcel"). The offer shall be subject to
a provision prohibiting public parking ol- staging areas except as
approved by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing. If the offer
is accepted, applicant shall cooperate in the formation of a benefit
assessment district to provide funds to EBRPD for maintenance of the
Parcel.
45. Prior to filing a final reap, applicant shall offer to dedicate to the East
Bay Regional Park District a floating trail easement within Parcel A for
a fuhire loop trail. The location of the ti-ail shall be determined by
agreement of the District and the applicant, or its successor, at the time
of acceptance of the dedication; said location shall be fixed and
identified in the document evidencing the acceptance of the offer.
After acceptance, the District shall be responsible for const7-uction,
maintenance and liability of the trail.
46. Prior to filing a final map, applicant shall offer to dedicate to the East
Bay Regional Park District an easement for the internal trail shown on
the tentative map within Parcel B, extending from Stone Malley Road
to A Drive in the vicinity of Lot 43.
47. Prior to filing the Final Map, provide written documentation agreeing
to invite the County and owners of the Humphrey property to meet to
discuss locating an equestrian or horse boarding facility on the
Hu nphrey property or elsewhere nearby.
48. This application is subject to an initial application fee of 520,823.00
which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and aterial
costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the irutial fee.
Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit
effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The
fees include costs t1wough permit issuance plus five working days for
file preparation.You may obtain current costs by contacting the project
planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly
after permit issuance.
Public Works Conditions
SLB-17
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the
Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval.
Conditions of Approval are based on the plans submitted on June 14, 1996 as modified
by the July 24, 1997 Mitigated Alternative Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and Final
Development Plan prepared in response to Planning Commission's concern (.April,
1999).
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
FILING OF A FINAL MAP AND PRIOR TO ISSI17ANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
General Requirements:
49. Applicant shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a qualified registered civil
engineer, to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County
Ordinance and these conditions ofappi°oval. The following, conditions of approval ai-e
subject to the review and approval of Public '"7oi•ks.
50. Comply with the conditions of approval for Development Permit 96-3021 prior to
filing of the Final Map, unless otheiivise specified within the approved development
Permit.
Stone Walley Road Frontage Improvements:
51. Applicant shall consmuct necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, sti,eet
lighting, pavement widening„ and 0.6-meter (two±foot) shoulder lacking along each
side of Stone Valley Road, along the project frontage. Pavement widening shall
provide for a 10.4-meter (34±foot) width road, widened to 5.5+meter (18-foot) half-
widths
alfwidths where a concrete, or asphalt concrete, curb is proposed next to the,edge of
pavement. Pavement widening shall also provide for left tum channelization with an
additional 4.8 meter (16-foot) painted median for eastbound traffic turning left into
the project's "A" Drive access. Adequate conforms and transitions shall be provided
by the applicant. The Stone Valley Road improvements will require construction of
improvements along both the north and south sides of Stone Valley Road. The
alignment shall follow the basic alignment shown on the Stone Valley Road Plan
(Sheet 3 of 10), as modified by these conditions of approval, sulbject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant
shall also construct a 2.4±meter (8-foot) separated asphalt concrete path along the
south side of Stone Valley Road along the length of this project's frontage.
The applicant shall be required to improve the existing 8-foot separated pedestrian
SUB-18
path to an acceptable condition fi•om the west side of the Magruder property, west of
this project, to Monte Vista High School, where the existing path will be retained.
Widening or relocation of the separated pedestrian path at the south side of Stone
Valley Road shall not extend past the adjacent creek's north top of bank.
The applicant shall modify the alignment, and construct road improvements along the
easterly portion of Stone Valley Road along the frontage of this property, with
adequate transitions to the east, to provide adequate stopping sight distance in
accordance with Caltrans standards for vehicles to safely tura right and/or left from
Smith Road onto Stone Valley Road based oil 150-meters (492-feet) of stopping sight
distance.
The left turn channelization from eastbound Stone Valley Road into "A" Drive, and
it's easterly transition shall be designed and installed as a dual left turn lane, whichh,
will also legally allow left rums in and out of the property on the south side of Stone
Valley Road.
Stove Valley Read Off--Site Improvements:
52. Applicant shall contribute $5000 (the applicant's anticipated pi-o-rata share) to the
Road Improvement Trust bund (No. 819200-0800) toward the conctioil of traffic
signalization improvements at the Stone Valley Road - Roundhill Road intersection.
(MM 8.097.01)
53. Pave the driveway to the residence at She's Swim School to align the access opposite
"A" .give and work to modify landscaping to reduce headlight glare into the
residence subject to the review of the Public Works Department and review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator, and written authorization of the effected
property owner. If no authorization is received, the condition is waived. �
"Af° .Drive Access:
54. Applicant shall construct curb„ necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and
pavement widening along the frontage of"A" Drive to County public road standards.
Applicant shall construct curb face 3-meters (IO±feet) from the widened right of way
line up to "13" Court. Street lighting shall be limited to safety lighting at intersections
along the public roads within the project.
55. Applicant shall construct the "A" Drive access to this property from Stone Valley
SUB-19
Road as a 12.2-ureter (40±foot) road within an 18.2 meter (60±foot) right of way. If
the applicant chooses to install a median island on "A" Drive at Stone Valley Road,
additional road widening and right of way shall be provided subject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The length
of the 12.2-meter (40+-foot) road within an 18.2-meter (60±foot) right of way entry
shall be determined based on a traffic operations analysis. This entrance geometry
shall transition to the proposed 11.0-ureter (36±foot) road within a 17.0-meter
(56±foot) right of way at/or Before "B" Court, subject to the review of Public Works
and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
56. Applicant shall construct the cul-de-sac to Cotrnty public road standards at the end
of"A" Drive. (MIM 4.055.1 and 8.094.011. The applicant shall also construct a 6.0-
meter (20±f6ot) wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) within 17 meter (56± foot
right of way) from the easterly end of "A" Drive southerly to Stone Valley Road
through the adjacent Humphrey property, along an alignment subject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Adminristrator. The applicant
shall limit his improvement of the Humphrey property access road, from this cul-de-
sac southeasterly to Stone Valley Road, to a gravel, or comparable, all-weather road,
in order to retain the rural character of the Humphrey property. The surface of this
emergency vehicle access road shall not be paved with asphalt concrete or Portland
cement concrete. Utilities installed through the Humphrey property along this EVA,
shall be undergrounded. (MM 4.055.1) Extend the "A" Drive right of way to the
southeasterly property line so that it can be extended through the f umplrr•ey property
to Stone Valley Road in the future to facilitate traffic flow bet--veen these two
properties.
57. Applicant shall construct, to County public road standards, the portion of"A" Drive
east of the "A" Drive-"D" Court intersection. The roadway shall be constructed as
a 28-foot roadway within a 50-foot right of way. The inside curly face, of the
horseshoe shaped roadway, shall be located I 0-feet from the right of way line, with
the hinge point located 5-feet from the right of way line where required to eliminate
the need for retaining walls. The outside curb face of the horseshoe shaped roadway,
shall be located 12-feet from the right of way lure, with the hinge point located 7-feet
from the right of way lime where required to eliminate the need for retaining walls.
Where retaining walls would not otherwise be required, the hinge point shall be
located at, or outside, the right of way lure. This roadway shall be signed for "No
Parking" along one side of the roadway, and the curb shall be painted red on that side.
If a portion of this roadway is utilized as a staging area for entrance to the open
space, additional parking shall be provided as needed to minimize the potential for
parking along this portion of the roadway.
58. Retaining walls are not proposed along the public roads in this project. However, if
St.7B-20
they are required, they are subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Any retaining walls, on the up-hill side of the public roadway, shall
be installed outside the public road right of way. Retaining walls supporting the
public roadway shall be installed within the public road right of way. The location of
the walls shall be subject to the review of Public Works and the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. The walls shall be masonry and the design of the walls
shall be subject to the review of Public Works and wilding Inspection and the review
and approval of the Zoning Administi-ator. Where a substantial drop-off is proposed
between the edge of pavement and any area within the public road right of way, the
applicant shall provide a traffic and pedestrian safety plan, and implement it, subject
to the reviexv of Public Works and the review alid apps-oval of the Zoning
Administrator. This niny require installation of a substantial fence and/or a guard rail.
"B" Court, aaC" Court, "D" Court and "F"r Court:
59. Applicant shall const-i-uct curb, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and
pavement widening along the frontage of "B" Court, T" Court, and "D" Court.
Applicant shall construct the curb face 3-meters (10±feet) from the widened right of
line.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
60. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, pen-nits and/or
easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private
road and drainage improvements.
61. Applicant shall funiish proof that emergency vehicle access is available Born the
easterly end of"A" Drive to Stone Valley Road through the property presently owned
by the Humphreys, on an alignment subject to Public Works review and the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Encroachment Permit
62. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, if necessary, fog" construction of d6veways or other improvements within the
right of way of Stone Valley Road or for other off-site improvements in the public
road right of way. An encroachment permit will not be required for work covered by
improvement plans, which have been stamped reviewed by Public Works.
Relinquishment of Abutters'_Riglrts of Access
SU-B-21
63. Proper-ty owner shall relinquish abutters' rights to Stone Valley Road except for the
"A" Drive access shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and Final Development Flan
prepared in response to Planning Commission's concerns (April, 1999). Access shall
be allowed foi-maintenance of the open space area along Stone Valley Road at points
subject to the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Stone Valley Road Trail
64. The applicant shall be requir-ed to improve the existing 8-foot separated pedestrian
path to an acceptable condition from the west side of the Magnider property, west of
this project, to Monte Vista High School, where the existing path will be retained.
Widening or relocation of the separated pedestrian path at the south side of Store
Valley Road shall not extend past the adjacent creeks north top of bank.
In the vicinity of 2701 Stone Valley Road, road widening will be on the north side of
Stone Valley Road and the existing path in accordance with Caltrans standards,
subject to the review of Public Works and the review and appi-oval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Neither- Stogie Valley Road widening nor pedestrian path constr-riction shall be
pennitted to redtice existing legal parking along the south side of Stone Valley Road,
east of Smith Road, subject to Public Works review and the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
Road Alignment and Sight Distance-.
65. Applicant shall submit a pi-elrminary improvement plan and profile to Public Warks
for review showing; all rewired improvements to: the fronting and offsite portion of
Stone Valley Road, along °"Aar Drive transition areas; and, in the vicinity of Drive
near the "D" Cour curve The sketch plan shall be to scale and show horizontal and
vertical alignments, transitions, curb lines, lane sti-iping and cross sections and shall
provide substantiation that the sight distance requirements have been met, along with
other requirements of Chapter 98-4, "Width,," and Chapter 98-6, "GI-ades," of the
Ordinance, and these conditions of approval. The plan shall extend a minimum of 50
meters (164±feet) beyond the limits of the proposed work along Stone Valley Read
and the specified portions of"A" Drive.
66. Applicant shall provide 150 meters (492+-feet) of comer siglit distance at the "A"
SL'B-22
Drive intersection with Stone Valley Road and at the Smith Road intersection with
Stone Valley Road in accordance with Caltrans standards.
67. Applicant shall provide 75 meters (246±feet) of stopping sight distance at the "D"
Court intersection with "A" Drive in accordance with Caltrans standards for vehicles
approaching the intersection along "A" Drive, and for those running left or right from
that intersection onto "A" Drive. This ehnnninate development potential ori Lot 9.
Deed Notification for Future Through Streets
68. Prior to flim the Final Map, the applicant shall provide deed notification to all
residential lots that "A" Street may be extended in the future and install signage at the
end of the road to inform prospective property owners that it may be extended.
Emergency Vehicle Access.
69. The emergency vehicle access between} the end of "A" Drive and the southeasterly
property line, and between the southeasterly property lune and Stone Valley Road
shall be a 6.0-meter (20tfoot) all weather road within a 17-inneter (56±foot) right of
way.
70. Through traffic, other than emergency access, small not be permitted between this
property and the Humphrey property without approval of the Board of Supervisors,
after- consideration at a public hearing before the San Rannonn Valley Regional
Planning Commission.
71. Applicant shall provide a draft of a deed disclosure statement for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. This deed disclosure shall be recorded coil currently
with each final nnap, for all lots in the subdivision. The deed disclosure statement
shall inform prospective property buyers/homeowners of the possibility gnat "A"
Drive may be extended in the future. Extension of"A" .give small only occur with
concurrence of the Board ofSupen-visors after a public hearing before the Saiz Ramona
Valley Regional Planning Commission.
Road Dedications:
72. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way
necessary for the planned future width of 25.6±nleters (84-feet) along the frontage of
Stone Valley Road. Additional right of way small be conveyed to the County, by Oft'er
of Dedication, if required for adequate room for the 10.4-meter ('34±foot) roadway,
shoulder areas and separated sidewalk, along the alignment shown on the Stolle
SLB-23)
Valley Road .Flan (Sheet 3 of 10). The Stolle Valley Road right of way line shad be
located at least 1.5-meters (5±feet) from the trail facilities and at least 3-meters
(10±feet) from the edge of pavement. Neither the Stone Valley Road widening,
pedestrian path or shoulder shall extend into the creel: area ala;}g the south side of
Stone Valley Road.
73. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, a landscape
maintenance easement along Stone Valley Road for utilization of the County to
provide for adequate sight distance.
74. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way
necessary for the planned width of"A" Drive, Including the cul-de-sac at its easterly
terminus, and the other- cul-de-sacs within this development. Adequate right of way
shall be conveyed to provide 3±meters (1 0-feet) between curb face and right of way
lure, from Stone Valley Road to "D" Corm. From "D" Court to the "A" Drive cul sac,
the outside curb face of the horseshoe shaped roadway shall be located 3.0 meter
(10± feet) from the right of way lure. The inside curb face of the horseshoe shaped
roadway shall be located 3-ureters (14± feet) from the right of way line.
75. The applicant shall be permitted to apply for vacation of excess Stolle Valley Road
right of way. if the County approves of a modification of the Stolle Valley Road
precise alignment FA-4431 which would allow for such vacation.
Security Gates
76. No security gates are allowed on roads in the project, except for the EVA at the
Humphrey property and access points for trails that are passible by service vehicles
of the EBRFD, subject to negotiation with the District and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
t
Annexation to County Service Area for Operation and Maintenance of Street Lights:
77, This property is not currently within the County Service Area L-100 Lighting District.
The property owner will be required to annex into the district prior to filing the Final
Map. The applicant should be aware that this annexation process must comply with
State Proposition 218 requirements which state that the property owner-must hold a
special election to approve the annexation. This process may tape approximately 4 to
6 months to complete.
Pedestrian Access:
t
SUB-24
78. Applicant shall design, all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with
"Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act where feasible
subject to the review of Public Works and review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
79. No sidewalks on internal streets are required for this project.
Parking:
80. Curbs (if connstmeted) shall be painted red and "No Parking" signs shall be installed
along Stone Valley Road and the portion of"A" Drive between, Stone Valley Road
and "las„ Court; tine curb shall be painted red and "No Parking" signs shall be histalled
along one side of any portion of "A" Drive which will have less than a 10.0arneter
(32±foot) width roadway.
The San Ran ions Valley Fire Protections District may require the curb be painted red
and "No Parking" signs along one side of"B" Corm, "C" Court and "D" Cou:-t.
82. Applicant shall provide one or more of the following additional off-street parking
alternatives [shared parking shall be located no fanlher than 90-meter (295±feet) fi-onn
the residences served, parking alone one side of the road and garage parking may be
counted in this off-street parking count]:
6 off-stn-eet parking spaces per residence.
5 off-street parking spaces per residence with one shared parking space for
each two residences, or
4 off-street parking spaces per residence with two shaved parking spAces for
each three residences.
Utilities/Urndergrounding.
82. Applicant shall underground all new and existing utility dist]-ibution facilities,
including those along the frontage of Stone Valley Road.
Maintenance of Facilities
SUIS-2e
83a The property owner shall record a statement of obligation in the foiin of a deed
notification, to inform all future property- owners of them-legal obligation to maintain
the EVA from the end of the "A," Drive cul-de-sac to the southeasterly property line
and through the Humphrey property to Stone Valley Road. This obligation may be
assumed by the homeowners association.
84, retention basins designed and constructed for this project's drainage n itigation shall
be maintained in perpetuity by a public entity, such as a geologic hazard abatement
district (G AD), or other entity acceptable to Public Works.
Drainage Improvements;
Collect and Convev
85. Applicant shall collect and convey all stonnwater entering and/or originating on this
property, without diversion and within ars adequate stone di-ainage facility, to a
.natural watercourse havi�ig definable bed and banks, oi• to an existing adequate public
storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in
accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. The applicant shall be
permitted an exception from requirements to improve off-site, doNvnstream portions
of Stone Valley Creek and Green Valley Creel: provided that the peak hour design
stormwater discharge from each of the watersheds is reduced by at least 20%.
86. Applicant shall design and construct all stonn drainage facilities in connpliance with
the Ordinance Code and County Public Works design standards.
87. Applicant shall be permitted an exception to allow discharge of storinwater to
roadside ditches along Stone Valley Road provided that the applicant verifies the
adequacy of the downstream ditch system or constructs any necessary improvements
to make this system adequate to handle ultimate storm water runoff. Roadside ditches
along Stone Valley Road shall not exceed a depth of 0.15 meter (0.5±foot). Where
more capacity is needed, the applicant shall install underground drainage facilities.
Hydrology and Drainage
SUB-26
Design and Construction of Detention Basins:
88. All hydrologic calculations and hydraulic analysis shall conform to the District policy.
The applicant shall submit a lamer scale hydrologic map, annotating flow rates and
tributary areas. The applicant's engineer shall use the Tatum method over the
Muskigum-Curage method for calculating travel time in the flood routing, analysis
unless the Muskigun.-Curage method is trached up with information satisfactorily
demonstrating that the geometric assumptions accurately reflect tine existing
conditions subject to review and approval of Public Works. (MM 1.0.065.1)
89. The applicant's submittal shall include a refined detention basin analysis for each of
the proposed basins to more accurately determine the inflow and outf`ow hydrogn-apps
for the basins. The applicant shall subn;it a copy of the refired detention basin
analysis to the Round]-..]]] Country Club for their information. Tl.e Contra Costa
County hydrological model is also available to the applicant at the cost of staff time
to run the model. The results of the refiners detention basic, analysis and/or
compliance with the detention basin guidelines may result in tl.e loss of one or more
lots,
90. The detention ponds (detention basins) shall be designed and constructed in
conformance with Contra Costa County's "Detention Basin Guidelines" Design
exceptions shall be subject to Flood Control and Public Forks review and ti.e Zoning
Administrator review and approval. Particular consideration shall be given to basin
side slopes, adequate sediment storagge potential. basin maintenance, basin access,
aesthetics, and possible inclusion of recreational facilities. A 4,800#cubic meter(3.9-
acre-foot) detention 'basin constructed in accordance with the design criteria (basin
side slopes and access criteria) specified in the "Detention Basin Guidelines" will
cover an area of approximately 0.3±hectare (0.75 acre) to 0.5±1rectare (1.25 acres)
for a basin having a depth of 3±meters (10 feet) or 1.5±meters (5 feet), respectively.
Detention basins shall only be considered feasible after substantial geotechnical,
hydrological and ground water studies have determined the potential for slope
instability. This slope stability analysis shall be submitted to and reviewed by the
County Geologist and Public Works, subject to the review and approval of tl.e Zoning,
Administrator, prior to filing the Final Map, and prior to issuance of a grading pernut.
91. Since the proposed storm water control facilities will have storage capacities less than
18,500± cubic meters (15 acre-feet), the developer will be required to ensure
maintenance of the facilities through either an existing;public maintenance entity or
by creation of a public maintenance entity (formation of a CHAD will probably be
required) acceptable to Public Works. The developer will also be required to
SLAB-27
demonsti-ate that the entity will have an adequate revenue source to assure perpetual
maintenance. The developer shall prepare a Stornn Water (duality Plan and
Maintenance and Monitoring Plan that demonstrates a secure and perpetual funding
source and maintenance entity, which will be responsible for the stem water control
facilities.
92. On site detention ponds shall mitigate post development Bows leaving this site
substantially below (at least 20% below) pre-developnnent levels, rased on the design
storm, at the project site and effectively initigate the impacts to a 'fess than Significant
level. Prior to construction, all detention basins shall be reviewed and approved by
the Contra Costa County Flood Control District and the Public Works Department.
(MM 10.062.1)
93. The applicant shall design the basin(s) to comply with the District's detention basin
guidelines to include design for the 10 year star inr (according; to upstream, watershed
acreage and Title 9, and to safely pass the 100 year storm evert with 0.6±rueter-(two
foot) of freeboard between the maxirnurrr 100 year water surface elevation and the
lowest point along; the tap of bank. The applicant shall also include provisions for a
perimeter service road and 4:1 detention basin side slopes. An\! design exceptior:s
shall be subject to the review of Flood Control and Public Works, and review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The primary outfall structure must include a
trash rack facility that meets the approval of the Flood Control District and Public
Works. The basin design must comply with District standards for operation and
maintenance.
The applicant shall oversize the detention basin(s), sulliect to County Flood Control
District review, to provide adequate volume for the accuirlulation of sediment.
94, The applicant shall provide detention basin(s) with the first phase of construction in
each watershed. Basins may be phased, so that the volume provided is adequate to
mitigate the runoff effects of the developed areas of the project.
95. The applicant shall develop and implement a plan for basin maintenance so that
adequate, continual flood protection is provided. The plan shall include, but not be
limited to: the maintenance of embankments; inlet and Nutlet structures; performance
of weed abatement; and, clearing of sediment, trash and other pollutants oil an annual
basis. The plan shall outline who will maintain the basin(s) and recommend a reliable,
perpetual funding; mechanism to meet the satisfaction of the County Flood Control
District. Since the anticipated capacity of the basins will each be less than
18,500±cubic meters (15 acre-feet), the County Flood Control District shall not be
the maintenance entity. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC cit R's) for the
SUTB-?8
subdivision shall notify residents of the potential for frequent silt removal and any
inconveniences associated with this type of maintenance operation.
A plan shall be submitted showing that the maintenance equipment normally
anticipated including 16 ton axle loads, can reach and operate to remove sediment and
potential debris from all portions of the detention basin. The detention basin access
roads shall be at least 15-feet wide and be located entirely outside of the traveled way
of all public and private roads. .Design exceptions shall be subject to Flood Control
and Public Works review and the Zoning Administrator's reviev,- and approval.
The proposed levee shall be shown to be stable and potential damage by rodents aaad
potential erosion shall be minimized. The detention basin maintenance program shall
include provisions for an annual survey to determine maintenance needs such as:
existing and anticipated geed for sediment removal; removal of debris; rernoval of
excessive vegetative groAth in the basin; monitoring stability of the levee; and,
provisions to minimize liability.
96. The applicant shall design the emergency spillway for the detention basin(s) to pass
the 100 year peal: flow rate. Roads or pedestrian trails shall net be utilized for the
emergency spillway.
97. In the Stone Valley Creek watershed, the upstream basin shall serve primarily as a
sediment/debris basin for the natural watershed upstream, subject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant
shall peiforin a sediment study consistent with ABAG and County Flood Control
District standards to estimate the anticipated sediment and debris load to this basin.
This inforn cation shall be used to determine the sediment and active storage design
volumes for the basin, as well as utilized to develop a basin maintenance play,,
funding mecllanisin and determine a maintenance entity other than the Couliv Flood
Control District. The sediment basin outfall design shall be relatively low
maintenance, and meet the approval of the County Flood Control District.
98. The applicant shall retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to perform a study which
addresses: slope stability, erosion control measures, and mitigation for watercourses
within the project limits, and addresses slope stability, permeability, levee
protection/stability, draw-down effects, and liquefaction concerns for the proposed
detention basins.
99. Recreational dual use of detention basins shall not be allowed. Basins shall be fenced
SUB-29
to keep trespassers out in accordance with District detention basin guidelines, subject
to the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
100. Applicant shall submit a drainage study, subject to the review and approval of the
County Flood Control District, which includes analysis of existing, interim and
ultimate conditions. The analysis shall demonstrate the adequacy of proposed
mitigation measures to address impacts to watercourses within the project and
downstream of the project.
101. The applicant shall incorporate flood control infrastructure features to avoid long-
ponding stagnant water that could become a source of odors. mosquitoes and a
potential hazard to public health.
102. The applicant shall design the basins to include installation of fencing and/or signing
around inlets and outfall structures and around any open channel sections.
On-site Stone Vallee Creel: Detention Ponds.
103. The use of on-site detention ponds in the Stone Valley Creek watershed plus
elimination of development near the rear yards of lots on Alamo Glen Drive (See
FEIR Figure 10-1) will mitigate downstream impacts by coiItrolhng peak discharge
rates so that the amount of water leaving the site at any one time is substantially (at
least 20%) less than the amount of peak hour storinwater discharge leaving the site
under it's predevelopment state, based on predevelopment conditions based on the
design storm. The location of the two ponds (in the Stone Valley Creek watershed:
one along the west side of"A" Drive near Stone Valley Road; and, the other along the
north side of "A" Drive east of "D" Court) are acceptable for this purpose.
Implementation of this measure xvill reduce the impact to a Less than Significant
level. Applicant shall show that stonnwater detention will not increase peak flows
downstream.
Based on the limited channel capacity of Stone Valley Creek and Green Valley Creek,
the detention banns shall be designed to reduce peak flows stormwater° flows to at
least 20%less than the ten year design storm pre-development peak flow conditions.
Since the detention basin will serve a watershed less than 259thectare (one square
mile) it shall have the capacity, with sufficient freeboard, to hold the difference
between pre and post-development runoff from the ten year frequency of average
recurrence interval runoff and shall perforin to County specifications for detention
basin operation. Additionally, the detention basins shall be sized to contain without
freeboard a one hundred year average recur-ence interval runoff, unless it can be
SUB-30
shown that a one hundred year average recurrence interval runoff. carp be safely
passed through the detention basin without damage to the detention basil) or
downstream properties or conveyance systems. (MM 10.061.1)
On-site Green Valley Creek Detention Basin.
104. The use of an onsite detention basin in the Green Valley Creek watershed will
mitigate downstream impacts by controlling peak discharge rates so that the project
peak flows leaving the site at any one time are at least 20% less than the amount
leaving the site under it's pre-development state for the 10 year design storill. (in lieu
of MM 10.062.1). Applicant shall show that stoni;r\,ater detention will not increase
peak flows dotivnst-i-eam.
105. Use detention basins with a siltation element to control magnitude and frequency of
runoff for detention basins in both the Stone Valley Creek and Green Valley Creek
watersheds. (MM 10.063.1 and 10.064.1)
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
106. Storm drainage originating oil the property and conveyed in a concentrated Illanner
shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s).
107. Applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage easement any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
108. Applicant shall reduce his impact on Green Valley Creek by reducing the peak hour
design storms, and smaller design stones. leaving the site to at least 2.0% less than the
existing (in Iters of MM 10.135.1) predevelopment conditions using the design storm
as a bans. t
103. To reduce the impact of additional stone water run-off from this development on San
.Ramon Creek, 0.8tcubic meter (one-cubic yard) of chatuiel excavation material will
be removed from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek for each 4.6 square
meter (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.
Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual
SUB-31
excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will be
calculated at the rate of $1.08 per square meter ($0.10±per square foot) of new
impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious 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 the creek annually.
110. To reduce the impact of additional storin water run-off from this development on
Green Valley Creek, 0.80±cubic meter (one-cubic yard) of channel excavation
material will be removed from the inadequate portion of Green Valley Creek for each
4.6 square ureter 150±square feet) of new impervious surface area created by the
development in the Green Valley Creek watershed. All excavated material shall be
disposed of off-site by the developer at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and
constr action staking will be by the Flood Control District.
'Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual
excavation and removal of material front the creek. The cash payment will be
calculated at the rate of S 1.08 per square meter ($0.14±per square foot) of new
impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious 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 rrse these funds
to work on the creek annually. (MM 14.064.2)
Creep Structure Setbacks.
111. Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is
within the stnrcture setback area of the portions of the creeks traversing this property,
and along Stone Valley Creek, where they will be retained in their natural state. The
structure setback area shall be determined by the criteria outlined in Chapter,1914-14,
"Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights"
shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. Where sections of public or private
roadways fall within the structure setback area, the road shall also be considered to
be a structure. The structure setback area may be reduced subject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, based on a
hydrology and hydraulic study and a soils and geotechnical analysis which shows
that the creek banks will be, or will be improved to be, stable and non-erosive with
the anticipated creek flows. The hydrology and hydraulic study shall be based upon
the ultimate development of the watershed. Modification of the creeks shall be subject
to Public Works review and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements:
SLAB-32
112. The applicant shall -comply with the County's Storni Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance (Ordinance No. 96-21) and all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulaated by the California
State Water Resources Control Board, or any of it's Regional NA'ater Quality Control
Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region TT, or Central Valley - Region TMJ).
113. The applicant shall file the Notice of latent (NOT) with the State dater Resource
Control Board and submit a copy of the NOI to Building Inspection prior to filing the
first Final Map or the start of grading, activities, whichever conies first. (Based on
FEIR Section 10.131.1) A General Permit shall be obtained. (NIIN-1 10.13331.1) As part
of the General Permit requirements, the applicant must develop and implement a
Storm Water- Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP mast include erosion
and sediment control treasures and a site monitoring and inspection program that can
be implemented to reduce erosion during project construction. Compliance with the
requirements of the General Permit and implementation of art approved SWPPP will
Mitigate impacts to a Tess than Significant level. (FEIR Section 10.131.1 and MM
10.131.1)
114. Utilize Best Management Practices. Implement the follm ging Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for controlling runoff and to eliminate or minimize non-storm water
discharges. Implementation of these measures or other BR lPs which meet the
approval of Public Works and satisfy the requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board will reduce the impact to a Less than Significanrt level. More specific
practices recorninended for erosion control and avoidance of water pollution are listed
in Section 10.130 of the Final EIR. (MM 10.061.2 and 10.131.2)
A. Prior to any grading or clearing, operations, develop an erosion contfol plan
which addresses construction and post construction impacts and requires
implementation of appropriate, specific, BMPs. The plant shall be submitted
to the local agency for review and approval.
B. Avoid removing ground cover vegetation frons areas adjacent to the work site;
do not remove ground cover vegetation from work areas before it is necessary,.
C. Avoid grading that disturbs large areas of earth during the wet season (October
1 through April I5).
D. Locate and install drainage inlets that receive runoff frons the project site and
SUB-3 3
protect then, with berms or filters per above erosion: control plan.
E. Control the amount of runoff crossing the construction site by diverting it
around the site.
F. The top of fill and cut slopes shall be graded in such a way as to prevent water
from flowing freely down the slopes. Erosion control tecl-tiiques such as
construction of slope drains and swales shall be installed to prevent water
from flowing freely down the slopes, and the use of geotextiles mats and or-
retaining walls will be used to stabilize cut slopes (review by Building
Inspection).
G. When work is halted due to rainfall, a positive gradient away from the tops of
slopes shall be provided to direct surface runoff away frorn slopes to areas
where erosion can be controlled. Installation of silt fencing to intercept
sediment laden runoff and placement of straw gales to slow the erosive
velocity of runoff`shall be used for temporary conditions. No areas may be left
exposed through the winter season without erosion control measures having
been implemented. By July I of each year the applicant shall submit an
erosion control plan for review and approval of the Building Inspection
Department, Grading Division. All graded areas shall have erosion control
measures in place no later than October I of each year. All work occurring,
after- October- I of each year must be performed in compliance with a work
plan submitted to the local agency for review and approval (review by
Building Inspection).
H, Install berms, settling basins, drainage facilities and erosion control measures
to protect ditches and creeks (review by Building Inspection).
I. Locate stockpiles of granular material at least G meters (`0+-feet) any from
any drainage inlet, watercourse or curb return and cover or berm to reduce
potential sedimentation of watercourses. Review and approval of the work
plan shall be obtained prior to performing work (review by Building
Inspection).
J. Use soil amendment and jute netting, mulch or other approved erosion control
fabrics/mats, or other approved techniques. Revegetation of the graded slopes
may be aided by amending the soils with mulch or with organic material from
the site and by spreading these materials in a thin layer- on the graded slopes
prior-to the whiter rains, and following rough grading. Jute netting and/or other
approved erosion control fabrics/mats, or other approved techniques, shall be
SUB-34
installed over the treated slopes to minimize the erosive forces of raindrops.
All landscaped slopes shall be maintained in a vegetated state after the Project
is completed. Drought-tolerant vegetation, requiring drib irrigation not more
frequently than once a month during; the summer, shall be utilized for slope
reve,getation. No high pressure irrigation lines shall be placed oil or above
,graded slopes. Implementing this mitigation measure will effectively mitigate
the impacts to a Less than Significant Level. (MM 10.1352.1)
K. Incorporate detention basins with siltation elements. :Based on the site
conditions and the common use of such facilities in the region, it is
recommended that the Project design be modified to incor porate detention
basins with siltation elements in the storm water control systervs installed in
the Stone Valley Creek and Green Valley Creek watersheds. The study
conducted by Questa, December 1997 concluded that there will be no
significant increase in the erosion potential in Stone Valley Creek as a result
of the installation of the proposed storm water detention facilities.
Implementation of this measure Will t3,eat stone water i-unoff, reduce peak flow
conditions and effectively mitigate the impacts to a Less than Significant level.
(MM 10.13:3.1)
L. Applicant shall assure, through Homeowner's Association covenants,
conditions and restrictions, that:
Property owners and the Homeo«vner's Association, are encouraged to:
landscape to the maximum extent possible with native, drought tolerant
plants; and to utilize drip irrigation facilities to the maximum extent
possible (rather than spray mechanisms) subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Public open spaces shall be maintained by the Homeowner's
Association with seeded and/or landscaped areas subject to tl:e review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Educational materials will be provided to both the individual
homeowners and the Homeowner's Association describing the NPDES
program and providing detail oil proper methods of disposal of
household items, chemicals, fertilizer application, etc.
115. Implement Comprehensive Storm Water Quality Plan. The Contra Costa County
Clean Water Program requires development of a comprehensive storm water quality
plan prior to any grading or cleaning operations for the reduction or elimination of
storm water pollutants. The Plan and Project design shall incorporate long-teen Best
:Management Practices (BMP's) I'll accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean
SUB-35
Water- Program criteria for new developments. Applicant shall implement the
following BMP`s su]�Ject to the review of Public Works which could include the
following. These measures or other BMPs Nvh1ch meet the approval of the County
Public `.Yorks Department and satisfy the requirements of the Regional Yater Quality
Control .Board will reduce the impact to a Less than Significant level.. (MM 10.133.2)
The applicant shall implernent a program which includes the following, subject to the
review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Siltation elements in detention basins, and filtering inlets may be incorporated in lieu
of wetland biofilters and shallow roadside swales, or other elements subject to review
and approval of Public Works.
A. A wetland bioiilter° system shall be incorporated into detention basins
constructed on-site. Locations and sizes of these facilities must be shown on
the Project tentative rnap.
B. Driveways and household walkways shall use pervious type pavements to
reduce the total amount of impervious surfaces, or other alternative, where
appropriate.
C. On private roads, street sweeping shall occur at least once a year between
Septernber 1 and October 15. Verification of sweeping shall be submitted to
the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program.
D. An annual public education meeting shall be conducted for homeowners to
discuss urban runoff and source control practices to protect water duality.
i✓. Stenciling of the stormdrain system (inlets) using thermoplastic tape with
language/graphic icons designed to discourage the illegal dumping of
unwanted materials (i.e. "No Dumping, Drains to Bay").
r
F. Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in
directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior-to entering the street curb
and gutter (review by Building Inspection).
C. Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to
home buyers (review by Community Development),
116. Implement a Comprehensive Stonnwater Quality Maintenance Monitoring Plan. Prior
SUB-36
to filing the improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a storm water duality
maintenance and monitoring plan applying the following performance standards:
implementation of the PrQject will not degrade water duality in Store Valley Creek,
Green Valley Creek or Oak Hill Park such that beneficial uses identified by the
Regional eater Quality Control Board would be impaired or precluded. This plan
shall demonstrate a secure and perpetual firnding source and maintenance entity that
shall be responsible for maintenance of clean water/private drainage facilities. The
plan shall also include a schedule of monitoring and reporting to ensure the long-term
effectiveness of the facilities and identify the entity responsible for performance and
oversight of the monitoring and reporting prograrn. Implementing this mitigation
.measure will effectively mitigate the impacts to a Less than Significant level. (MM
10.133.3)
117. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, a geotechnical engineer- shall perform a site study
of Green Valley Creek downstream of the project site. The County shall clearly
identify the parameters of the study and will idelrtify locations where an itrcremental
increase in erosion may be critical to the do\vnstreann property avorers. Accordingly,
the applicant shall perform the measures recommended by the geotechnical engineer
to mitigate any potential impacts at the identified locations. Information substantiating
that there will not be any significant downstream erosion shall be submitted by the
applicant's engineer at the tirne the final detention basin designs and water duality
control plans are submitted by the applicant's engineer°to the County (CCCFC & FCD
and County Public Works), Implementation of this measure will effectively mitigate
the impact to a Less than Significant Level. (MM 10.1'35.1) in lieu of this Mitigation
Measure, the applicant shall reduce the peak hour design storms for stormwater
arriving at and originating on this property, and lesser design storms, by 20%.
118. Comply with all Conditions of Approval for Development Permit 963021 and
Rezoning 963044 prior to filing of Final Map.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
ADVISORY DOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE
APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
SUB-,7
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Tri-Valley Area of Benefit, the Alamo
Area of Benefit and the SCC Regional Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors.
B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal,
construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the Califon-Iiia State Water
Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water (duality Control Boards (Sall
Francisco Bay - Region II or Central Valley - Region V).
C. This project may be sul3 ect to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game.
It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O.
Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this
development that may affect any fish and 1;rildlife resources, per the Fish and Cance
Code.
D. This project may be subject to the regwrements of the Anny Corps of Engineers. It
is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of
Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
E. Notice of 90-day Opportunity to Protest Fees, Dedications, Reservations, or Other
Exactions Pertaining to the Approval of This Permit.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code
Section 66000, et serf., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,
reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The
opportunity to protest is lirnited to a 90-day period after the project is approved.
The 90 day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition
of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit,
begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing
pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Cornnrunity
Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
F. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
G. Comply with the requirements of the Sari Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
H. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
SL'B-3 8
I. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental
Health Division (925) 646-2521.
J. Payment of School Fees: Comply with the fee requirements of the San Ramon Valley
Unified School District.
K. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Depar—o nent. Building
permits are required prior to the construction of most structures.
L. Vested Riv. ts: This project is subject to the development fees in effect under County
Ordinance as of June 14, 1996, the date the vesting tentative neap application was
accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are
in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions
of approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the follodving:
Park Dedication 52,000.00 per residence.
Child Care $400.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting
the Building Inspection Department at 335-1196.
M. Police Services Distr-ict Costa and Necessai) Processing Time: The applicant is
advised that the tax for the police services district is cur-r-ently set by the Board of
Supervisors at $200 per parcel annual]} (with appropriate f€rt►rre Consumer- Price
Index (CPl) adj€rstnients). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of
Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also
subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be
those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the
election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to recording
the Final Map.
N. Expiration of Vested Rights: Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g) of the Subdivision Map
Act, the rights conferi-ed by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of
the Subdivision Map Act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the
recording date of the final/parcel reap. These rights pertain to development fees and
regulations. Where several final maps are recorded ori various phases of a project
covered by a single vesting tentative rnap, the initial time period shall begin for each
SUB-39
phase when the find map for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period, the subdivider may appy
for a one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable
filing fee. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may
appeal that denial to the Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the
appropriate flim fee with the Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g) relating to processing of related development
applications by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period. remaining development (i.e., new
building permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and
regulations in effect at that time.
D-M/aa
SDII/8016c.DM
1/13/99
2/8/99
3/9/99
3/18/99
4/13/99
4/21/99 - SR (a)
5/25/99 - B/S (a)
MA FIINTDI?yTGS FOR.APPROVAL OF STONE VALLEY OAKS GENERAL PLAN
A,MENDMEN7 COUNTY FILE#GP95-0014 REZONING AND PR.ELIMINTAaY
DEVELOPMENT PLAT COUNTY FILE#RZ963040, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COUNTY FILE#DP963021• AND FOR APPROVAL OF AND DE'N'IAL OF APPEAL
REGARD N. G. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, COUNTY FILE# D968016 (47-Unit Project)
The Contra Costa County:Board Of Supervisors makes the following findings,
recommendations and statement of project benefits under the California Environmental Quality
.Act:
I. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW
A. -Purpose.
1. These findings, recommendations and statement of overriding considerations
("Findings") are made and adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors as its findings under the California Environmental Quality Act
relating to the proposed project referred to herein as the Stone Valley Oaks
Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this Board
regarding the environmental impacts of the Stone Valley Oaks Project, mitigation
measures, alternatives to the proposed development Plan, and the overriding
considerations, all of which in this Board's view,justify approval of the Stone
Valley Oaks Project despite any environmental impacts.
2. The Findings are divided into three general sections: Part I: General Findings
and Overview briefly describes the Stone Valley Oaks project and the procedural
history of Its environmental review under CEQA. Part II: CEQA Findings and
Recommendations contains the Board's findings and recommendations relating to
environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. Part III: Statement
of Overriding Considerations contains the statement of overriding considerations,
which, even though not required by CEQA because this Board concludes that all
possible impacts are mitigated to a level less than significant, are adopted by this
Board in further support of its environmental conclusions. r
B. The Stone Valley Oaks Project.
3. SummerHill Homes,the applicant,has requested a General Plan amendment to
redistribute the Contra Costa County General Plan land use designations of the
property from Agricultural Lands and Single Family Residential Low Density to
Open Space and Single Family Residential Low Density. The applicant has also
requested a rezoning from A-2, General Agricultural, to P-1, Planned Unit
District. The applicant is also seeking approval of Preliminary and Final
Development Plans, a vesting tentative subdivision map and final subdivision
map, and annexation into districts of urban service providers. The Project may
include the adoption of a Development Agreement. The applicant initially
requested approval of a 67 unit'single-family residential development on a 98.81-
acre site,referred to as "Stone Valley Oaks." This 67-unit development proposal
is the "project"studied in the EIR and is referred to in these findings as the "67-
unit proposal"or"the `project' studied in the EIR."
4. The staff reports for the January 20, 1999 meeting of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission refer to a refined plan that provides for 58 units as
the"Staff Study"(Figure 11 in the staff reports for the January 20, 1999 meeting
of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission). The Staff Study was
further refined through modifications adopted and recommended by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,which provide for a 47-unit
project, and which include modifications to the conditions of approval. The 47-
unit project is schematically depicted in the"Vesting Tentative Map And Final
Development.Plan Prepared in Response To Planning Commission Direction"
dated April 1999, which was presented to the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission as part of the staff report for its April 21, 1999 meeting.
The 47-unit project differs from the"project" studied in the EIR in that it, among
other things, reduces development, eliminates some lots, changes the size of
others,provides for a private open space easement along the west side of the
Project,provides a 25 foot private open space buffer between the Humphrey
Agricultural Preserve and lots on the east side of the Project, and provides for an
onsite detention basin the Green Valley Creek watershed area of the Project. The
Planning Commission modifications to the conditions of approval for the 47-unit
project will further reduce environmental impacts,by, among other things,
reducing the amount of sidewalks, grading and lighting, and by prohibiting a
staging area for IBRPD trails without subsequent, specific approval of this Board.
5. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approval and
recommendations for the Stone Valley Oaks Project provide for a detention basin,
which is schematically depicted near lots 47 and 39 in the"Vesting Tentative Map
And Final Development Plan Prepared in Response To Planning Commission
Direction"dated April 1999, and which is referred to in these Findings as
"Detention Basin#3." The precise size and precise location of Detention Basin
#3 have not been established. The General Plan Amendment that the Profect is
intended to implement shows open space in the general vicinity of Detention
Basin#3. This General Plan designation is not precisely located, and is intended
to be flexible enough to accommodate the final configuration of Detention Basin
#3, such that the site of Detention Basin#3 shall be considered Open Space and
the site of any residential lots shall be considered Single Family Residential Low
Density.
6. This Board finds that the impacts from the amount of development allowed under
the 47-unit project can be extrapolated from the EIR's discussion of the impacts
of the alternatives to the 67-unit project. This Board further finds that the 47-unit
2
project proposes modifications to the 67-unit project to further reduce
environmental impacts.
7. These Findings are for approval of the 47-unit project. As used in these findings,
"Project" and"Stone Valley Oaks Project"refer to the 47-unit project.
. The Project site is 'Located on the north side of Stave Valley Road, approximately
two miles east from Highway 680 near Alamo in Contra Costa County. The
property has frontage of approximately 2,363 feet on Stone Valley Road. The
Project proposes no more development than is permitted by the land use
designations of the current General Plan. The site has been slated for infill
development since the County's current General Plan was enacted. This Project is
an infill development project, and is located within the spheres of influence of the
annexing agencies.
G Procedural Back roe und.
9. On April 14, 1997, Contra Costa County as Lead Agency issued a Notice of
Preparation and Initial Study for the proposed project and determined that an EIR
would be required. The Notice of Preparation identifies the potentially significant
effects that could result from the 67-unit project as initially proposed. A copy of
the Notice of Preparation and responses is included as Appendix A to the
Environmental Impact Report.
1€ . The Draft Environmental Impact Report was published for public review and
comment on January 12, 2998, and was filed with the State Office of Planning &.
Research under State Clearinghouse No. 97042069, The Draft Environmental
Impact Report was made available for review and comment by interested persons
and public agencies through February 26, 1998, and was extended through March
9, 1998. A noticed public hearing before the County Zoning Administrator to
receive comments on the DEIR was held on February 23, 1998.
11. The County prepared written responses to the comments received during the
comment periods The Draft Environmental Impact Report, the comment,$and
responses, as well as modifications to the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
were published in a volume entitled"Final Environmental Impact Report,
Response to Comments Document for the Stone Valley Oaks Project." The
Environmental Impact Report was made available for review by interested
persons and public agencies on November 18, 1998. On December 7, 1998, the
County Zoning Administrator recommended certification of the Environmental
Impact Report as having been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
12. On April 21, 1999, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
approved a vesting tentative subdivision map, and recommended approval for a
General Plan Amendment,Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan, and
3
Final Development Plan, all of which would implement a 47-unit project. The
applicant and four individuals appealed the Planning Commission's approval of
the vesting tentative subdivision snap to this Board.
D. Description Of Environmental Impact Report.
13. For purposes of these Findings, the Environmental Impact Report C'EIR")
consists of. the Draft Environmental Impact Report,the Final Environmental
Impact Report, and all appendices and all documents incorporated by reference in
these documents.
E. Record t f Proceedin s And Custodian Of Record.
14. The record upon which this Board's findings and determinations is based includes,
but is not limited to the following:
a) The Environmental Impact Report;
b) All County staff reports relating to the Environmental Impact Report and
proposed Mone Valley Oaks Project and its alternatives;
c) All other public reports and documents prepared for the Planning
Commission,Board of Supervisors or the County staff relating to the Mone
Valley Oalks Project, its alternatives, or the Environmental Iinpact Report;
d) All documentary and oral evidence received at public hearings or submitted to
the County prier to the time these findings are adopted relating to the Stone
Valley Oaks Project, its alternatives, or the Environmental Impact Report;
e) All documentary and oral evidence that is referred to or cited in the
Environmental Impact Report;or in any staff reports relating to Stone Valley
Oaks Project or its alternatives, including but not limited to the Agreements
with the San Ramon Valley School District,the owners of the Humphrey
property, and with the neighboring property owners to the northwest of the
Stone"Valley Oaks Project site; '
f) The General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
General Plan;
g) The Williamson Act Contract for the adjacent property owned by Humphrey;
h) All matters of common knowledge to this Board,including,but not limited to
the County's plans, codes,policies, guidelines and regulations; and
i) All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public Resources Code
21167.6(e).
4
15. The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located
in the offices of the Community Development Department, 551. Pine Street, 2nd
Floor,North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553. The custodian of these documents is
the Director of the Community Development or his designee,
F. l`3o SinifZcaqt New Information.
15. This Board recognizes that the Final Environmental Impact Report contains
additions, clarifications,modifications and other changes in response to comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. This Board finds that the changes and
additional information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report are
not significant new information. They do not indicate that any new significant
environmental impact not already evaluated would result from the Project and
they do not reflect any substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impact. Further, although the Project proposes a minor reduction in the amount of
development which would further reduce environmental impacts, no feasible
alternative or mitigation measure materially different from others analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report has been proposed that would clearly or
substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts of the Project. The
Project would not produce any significant new impacts,nor substantially increase
the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore, no additional or more
extensive mitigation measures are required for the approval of the Project.
17. This Board also finds that there is no significant new information that has been
discovered since the FEIR was prepared. The apparent sale of the Humphrey
property to Greystone does not affect the analysis of environmental impacts. No
development applications have been submitted for the Humphrey parcel. Any
suggestion that the Humphrey parcel might eventually be developed at densities
that exceed those currently permitted by the General Plan would be based on
nothing but speculation. The EIR already included in its analysis of cumulative
impacts potential development of the Humphrey property under the General Plan
designations that apply to that property. CEQA Guideline 15130 b)(1)(B)(2)
provides that"probable future projects"may be limited to those for which an
application was submitted at the time the Notice of Preparation for the Stone
Valley Oaks project was released. CEQA Guidelines 15134(d) and (e)both
confirm that no further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project
does not increase densities beyond those consistent with the General Plan.
G. Consideration of the Environmental Impact Report
18. This Board certifies that the Environmental Impact Report was presented to this
Board, which reviewed and considered the information in the Environmental
Impact Report prior to its decision and recommendations on the Project.
5
H. Severability
19. If any term,provision, sentence,phrase or portion of these Findings or the
application of the same to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid,
void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings,or the
anplic 36or of samo to sit"l atiors, Shall corf uel in; f1ill forclle a"'i eflf'ct
unless amended or niodified by the County.
II CEQA FINDINGS AND RECQMMENDATK3NS
A Findings Related to Stone Valley Oaks Project Impacts
24. The Environmental Impact Deport represents the independent judgment of this
Board. This Board certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality.Act.
21. The Environmental Impact Report identifies certain potentially significant
environmental impacts that may result from the Stone Valley Oaks Project and
recommends specific mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-
significant level. As provided by Public Resources Code § 210851, the County of
Contra Costa must make one of the following findings for each potentially
significant impact. (1)that changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment; (2)that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be,
adopted by that other agency; or(3) specific economic, legal social, technological;
or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report.
22. By these findings, this Board ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis,
explanation, findings,responses to comments and conclusions of the
Environmental Impact Deport, as further explained and clarified in staff reports,
except where they are specifically modified by these Findings. For the reasons set
forth in the EIR, in the staff reports presented to this Board and in these Findings,
this Board finds that all potentially significant impacts of the Stone Valley Oaks
Project will be reduced to a less than significant level by the mitigation measures
adopted by this Board.
23. Some mitigation measures require the applicant to adhere to the regulations of,
obtain approval from, or obtain a permit from another governmental entity,
including the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with such
mitigation measures will be monitored by the County to the extent set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in Exhibit A. However,
to the extent the cooperation of such other agencies is required or desirable to
determine compliance,this Board finds that such other agencies can and should
undertake the activities necessary to ensure compliance.
6
24. These Findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts
contained in the Environmental Impact Report. The facts regarding the
environmental impacts are set forth in full in the Environmental Impact Deport
and staff reports submitted to this Board. The impacts,mitigation measures, and
level of significance are summarized in Exhibit A to these findings,which is
incorporated by this reference. Exhibit A also includes the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program. This Board hereby adopts all analysis of environmental
impacts, and incorporates all mitigation measures as they are set forth in the EIR,
as supplemented by Staff Reports, except as changed or supplemented by the
following. This Board finds that the conditions of approval for the Stone Valley
Oaks Project implement all required mitigation measures that are suggested by the
Environmental Impact Report, except as changed or supplemented by the
following:
a) The language of some of the measures recommended in the EIR.has been
modified by this Board for purposes of clarification and consistency,to
enhance enforceability, or to summarize or strengthen their provisions. This
Board finds and determ. Ines that each of the mitigation measures that has been
so modified will be as effective, or more effective, than the language
suggested in the EIR.
b) The EIR.contemplated that the Project would be constructed in two phases,
with the development of the western portion of the site occurring in phase 1
and the eastern portion in phase 2. The applicant now indicates that the
Project may be constructed in one phased If the applicant obtains one final
map, rather than phased final maps,then the measures designed to ensure that
mitigation measures for phase 1 were implemented at the same time or before
construction of phase 1 will not be necessary. This Board determines that the
change to construction in one phase would be a minor and insignificant
change that does not materially affect the environmental analysis.
c) This Board clarifies that the Project,including its General flan Amendment,
will result in a transfer of general Plan allowed densities,with no net increase
in allowed general Plan densities. Hillsides with a grade oftwenty-syx
percent or greater are adequately protected by the Project. The,siting of units
is sensitive to steep slopes and open space values. This Beard finds that any
impact from the general Plan Amendment and Rezoning(impact 4.051) is
less than significant.
d) The EIR recommended that, on lots 1-10 of the 67-unit proposal,homes be
limited to a single story or 22 feet in height. The Project already incorporates
elimination of lots 9 and 10 of the 67-unit proposal. Moreover, lots 1, 2 and 3
are restricted to one story and 22 feet; lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are restricted to 2
stories and 30 feet. This Board finds that these restrictions are sufficient to
avoid significant impacts to views from the EBRPD trail, in light of the
7
landscaping that will screen views from the trail,the 50 foot height of the trail,
and the low elevation of the houses compared to both the trail and the ridge
that comprises the horizon viewed from the trail. (Mitigation Measure
5.072.2)
e) This Board imposes a requirement that a finished cul-de-sac be constructed at
the end of Drive`°A,"regardless whether the cul-de-sac is termed part of the
project or a mitigation measure. (See Mitigation Measures 4.055.1 and
8.094.1)
The EIR concludes that the 67-unit proposal would result in certain potentially
significant adverse impacts which could be mitigated to a level less than
significant with certain mitigation measures. The EIR further concludes that
some of these potentially significant impacts will not result from the
Developer's Modified Plan. This Board finds that such potentially significant
impacts will not result from the Project, and therefore no mitigation for these
impacts is necessary. Accordingly,mitigation measures that the EIR
concludes were necessary to mitigate impacts of the 67-unit proposal and
which the EIR.concludes were not necessary to mitigate impacts of the
Developer's Modified flan, are not adopted by this Board. The mitigation
measures not adopted for these reasons include the fallowing:
(1) The EIR includes Mitigation Measure 5.071--Remove Court"E"
and relocate lots 12 and 14 away from the northwest section of the
project that face the adjacent development on the west. The Project
already incorporates elimination of Court"E"and lots 12 and 14 of the
67-unit proposal.
(2) Mitigation measures and portions of mitigation measures that
apply to the entire Project site, such as use of Best Management
Practices during grading, are not necessary for portions of the Project
site that will not be graded or developed pursuant to the Project. This
Board imposes such mitigation measures only insofar as they ertain
to the areas of the Project site that will be developed or grade under
the Project.
g) Mitigation Measure 6.053.1 requires the developer to demonstrate that there
will be adequate school facilities and obtain a will-serve letter from the San
Ramon Valley Unified School District. The developer and the School District
have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement,which obligated the
developer to pay higher school fees than may be imposed by law. Moreover,
the School District has agreed that the developer has fully mitigated the
impacts on school facilities.
h) Mitigation Measure 8.097 requires the developer to contribute a pro-rata share
of the cost of construction of a signal at the intersection of'Roundhill Road
8