HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08081989 - 1.66 1-066
CO,f�;l}tra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cpsta
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon " jq /
Director of Community Development
DATE: 7-31-89
SUBJECT: Athenian School General Plan Amendment CEQA Findings
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the CEQA Findings for Athenian School as attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 11 , 1989 the Board approved the Athenian School General
Plan Amendment and instructed staff to produce findings consistent
with the Board approval. The attached findingsdo this and I urge
their adoption.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE-
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND I OFARD OMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 8, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x_ OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS'ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED August 8, 1989
all other distribution via PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Community Development THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COI ADMINISTRATOR
BY C1600cAND
AiDEPUTY
JWC:vpl
cgp/7-31-89.bos
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE ATHENIAN SCHOOL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (No . 12-87-SR)
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" )
I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Application, The Site, And Approval Of The
General Plan Amendment .
The Athenian School , a California non-profit
corporation ( "School" ) proposed and made application to
Contra Costa County '( "County" ) for approval of an amendment to
. the County' s general plan. The purpose of the general plan
amendment is to facilitate the sale of a portion of the
Athenian School ' s property to provide funds for the School ' s
endowment , to promote the continued viability of the School ,
and to provide funds for scholarships and other programs . The
general plan amendment ( as modified) will change the land use
designation of the northern portion of the Athenian School site
from "Public and Semi-Public" to "Single Family Residential -
Low Density" ( 1-3 units per net acre) , "General Open Space, "
and "Parks and Recreation" (County File No . 2-87-SR) ( the
"General Plan Amendment" ) .
The School initially applied for an amendment to
change the land use designation of the northern portion of the
School site to Single Family Residential - Low Density and
General Open Space (the "Application" ) . In response to the
Application, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
( "Board of Supervisors" or "Board" ) authorized a General Plan
Study and directed Community Development Department Staff
( "Staff" ) to include the entire 117-acre Athenian School Site
( "Site" ) in the General Plan Study. The Application was thus
expanded, and was also changed . to include the "Parks and
Recreation" designation .
The Site fronts 3 , 600 feet on the east side of
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, approximately 250 feet north of
its intersection with Diablo Road-Blackhawk Road . The Site is
located within the boundaries of the San Ramon Valley Area
General Plan and is located just outside of the Town of
Danville ' s sphere of influence . The existing Athenian School
facility is clustered on the southern portion of the Site
1
/ „ t
1
along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard . The Site is surrounded by:
( 1 ) the community of Diablo immediately to the west ; ( 2) open
soace and the first phase of Blackhawk Ranch to the east ;
(3 ) Mt . Diablo State Park to the north; and ( 4 ) low density
single family developments (either planned or developed) to the
south.
The general area in which the Site is located consists
of single family residential homes framed by Mt . Diablo
foothills to the north, and some open space . Although new land
use permits would be required for future school uses on the
Site, development of the northern portion of the Site has been
approved for over two decades pursuant to a 1964 Master Plan
adopted by the County ( " 1964 Master Plan" ) . In the 1964 Master
Plan, the area now proposed for residential development was
propose) to house seven campus buildings , a retreat ,
recreational facilities , dormitories and residences , a total of
approximately 44 structures ,
The Application seeks only a general plan amendment
for the Site. The Applicant has not applied for , and this
Board isnot presently considering, an application to develop
the Site or any other specific land use application . The
School or its successor intends to submit a subsequent Planned
Unit Development ( "PUD" ) application and other land use
approval applications which may be required for development of
the Site. The general plan amendment approved by this Board is
hereinafter referred to as the "General Plan Amendment , " and
the future development of the Site in accordance with the
General Plan Amendment and other land use approvals which may
be granted in the future is hereinafter referred to as the
"Project . "
Although this Board is currently approving only the
General Plan Amendment , the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" )
for the Project is intended to serve as the environmental
documentation for both the General Plan Amendment and
subsequent approvals for development of the Site . Subsequent
approvals may include planned unit development zoning, vesting
tentative and final subdivision maps , and other approvals ,
permits or entitlements .
The EIR recommends mitigation measures for the Project
as a whole, including mitigation measures which are designed to
be incorporated into specific development plans . As this
general plan amendment changes the designation of the Site and
does not include any specific authorization to develop the
Site, and as this Board may be presented with future specific
development proposals for the Site, some conditions of approval
and mitigation measures cannot be imposed in connection with
2
a
T4
1
y '
this general plan amendment but must instead be imposed in
connection with future land use approvals , if any.
B . The Environmental Impact Report .
After receiving the Application, the County prepared
an initial study dated May 28 , 1987 (the " Initial Study" ) . The
County determined that an EIR was required, and a notice of
preparation (the "NOP" ) was prepared . The NOP was circulated
to other agencies , and comments were received from those
agencies .
The County prepared a draft EIR dated March, 1988 (the
"DEIR" or "Draft EIR" ) . Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines , a
notice of completion (the "Notice of Completion" ) was filed
with the State Office of Planning and Research . The review
period for written comments on the DEIR was April 22 , 1988
through June 6 , 1988 ( 45 calendar days) . During the review
period, written comments were received from state, regional and
local agencies , various other parties , and the School .
Additionally, testimony was taken on the DEIR at a Planning
Commission hearing on July 20 , 1988 .
After receiving written and oral comments on the DEIR,
the County prepared a response to comments document dated
August 31 , 1988 (the "Response Document" ) . The Initial Study,
Notice of Preparation, DEIR, Notice of Completion, and Response
Document together comprise the final environmental impact,
report on the Project pursuant to CEQA (collectively, the "EIR"
or the "Final EIR" ) . The Final EIR analyzes the impacts of the
Applicant ' s proposed general plan amendment and a conceptual
development plan for 45 residential units on the 47-acre
portion of the Site proposed for residential use . The EIR
refers to this portion of the Site as 45 acres , but the actual
acreage is approximately 47 acres .
On February 15 , 1989 , the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and, after hearing public testimony from all who
wished to testify, directed Staff to prepare Resolution
No . 7-1989 , pursuant to which the Commission recommended
approval of the Athenian School general plan amendment as
recommended by Staff , with the exception that the Site would be
redesignated for "Country Estates (Single Family Residential -
Very Low Density) " and that the maximum number of units which
would be considered on the Site would be 45 units . ( PCR
No . 7-1989 )
On June 13 , 1989., the Board of Supervisors held a
properly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment .
After hearing testimony, the Board closed the public hearing
and deferred its decision until July 11 , 1989 .
3
1
t
A
At its July 11 , 1989 meeting, this Board indicated its
intent to amend the General Plan as originally recommend by
Staff , with modifications , and directed Staff to prepare these
Findings for approval of the Project . The General Plan
Amendment as adopted by this Board amends the land use,
circulation and recreation elements of the General Plan as
follows :
( 1) The land use amendment changes the land use
designation of the Site from Public and Semi-public to Single
Family Residential - Low Density, Parks and Recreation, General
Open Space and Public and Semi-public . The text of the land
use element of the General Plan Amendment specifies that
development shall be reviewed to provide for a buffer of
impacts on Mt . Diablo State Park, that special consideration
shall be given to the northern knoll area to resolve
compatibility and visual impact issues , that the land
designated for Parks and Recreation shall be offered for
dedication to Mt . Diablo State Park, that General Open Space
lands shall be permanently protected as open space either
through public ownership or enforceable restrictions , and that
the lands designated as Public and Semi-public shall reflect
the use of the Site for private school facilities .
( 2 ) The amendment to the circulation element
provides for a committee to attempt to develop a long-term
solution to the legal status of Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and
funding for improvements to bring the road up to current
standards .
(3 ) The recreation element of the General Plan
Amendment includes a bicycling trail along Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard and a riding and hiking trial along the east side of
the Site connecting the Blackhawk parcel to the south with
Mt . Diablo State Park to the north .
In approving this General Plan Amendment- on July 11 ,
the Board made the following modifications to the General Plan
Amendment as it had been previously recommended to this Board ;
( 1 ) deletion of a trailhead staging area in the
land use plan map and corresponding text references , in
response to community concerns about the location of this
staging area .
( 2) modification of the plan text relating to
Single Family Residential-Low Density lands to include special
language concerning the northern knoll area .
4
a ,
The Board also directed Staff to take two actions in
addition to the General Plan Amendment to address concerns
raised during the public review process :.
( 1) conduct a study with participation of
representatives of the City of Danville, the East Bay Regional
Park District , State Parks and the County to determine the
appropriate staging location for trails in the general area of
the Project; and
(2) establish a committee to attempt to resolve
issues regarding improvements to Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard .
This committee shall be chaired by a representative of the
County and shall include representatives of the State Parks
staff , the Athenian School , .Diablo Community Services District ,
and nearby residents . The Committee shall report to the Board
within six months regarding its recommended solutions to road
maintenance issues .
C. Description Of The Record.
The record before this Board relating to this action
includes , without limitation, the following :
1 . The School ' s Application for the General
Plan Amendment ;
2 . The Staff Report on the General Plan
Amendment (the "Staff Report'' ) ;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by the Planning Commission during the public
hearings on the Approvals , the Draft EIR, and the Project ;
4 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by this Board during the public hearings on the
Approvals and the Project;
5 . The Final EIR; and
6 . All matters of common knowledge, such as :
( a) the County General Plan, (b) the County Zoning Code , and
(c) other County policies and regulations .
The discussions which follow under the captions
"Facts" for each category recite some of the background
information relating to the General Plan Amendment and the
Project . The discussions under the captions "Findings '' contain
findings made by this Board, based on the entire record before
this Board, including without limitation the information which
is recited in the discussion of "Facts . "
5
This Board intends that any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
made if it appears in any portion of this document , and that
all of the text included in this docurient constitutes findings
and determinations by this Board, whether or not any particular
caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect .
Although the discussions under the captions "Facts"
below may be primarily or entirely based on the Final EIR, this
Board intends that each finding herein is based on the entire
record, including written and oral testimony to the Planning
Commission and this Board . The omission of any relevant fact
from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this
Board that a particular finding is not based in part on the
omitted fact . This Board ' s findings as set forth herein are
based on all of the facts in the record before this Board .
II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
This Board adopts and makes the following findings
regarding those certain potential environmental impacts of the
General Plan Amendment and the Project which were determined in
the Initial Study not to be potentially significant adverse
i environmental impacts .
A. Facts .
1 . The Site is not within a flood hazard area ,
the Project will not significantly reduce surface or
groundwater quality or quantity, the Project will not result in .
erosion of or sedimentation in a body of water , and the Site. is
not within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Studies Zone .
2 . The Project ' s impact on air quality will be'
negligible, the Project will result in negligible additional
consumption of energy, the Project will not significantly
affect natural resources ; and the Project will not increase the
risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other
dangers to public health and safety.
3 . The Project will not result in special
transportation problems , the Site is not located within an
Neighborhood Preservation Area, the Project is not growth
inducing, the Project will not degrade the environment or
curtail environmental diversity, the Project will not achieve
short term goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental
goals .
4 . No competent evidence was submitted to this
Board or to the Planning Commission contesting the conclusions
6
• set forth in the Initial Study. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15063 , as an E-IR was prepared, the Initial Study was
not required to be prepared .
B . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Board
finds that :
( i) With respect to the categories of
impact set forth above, the General Plan Amendment and the
Project will not have a potentially significant adverse impact
on the environment .
( ii) Because these impacts were
determined to be insignificant in the Initial Study, no
mitigation measures are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA
relating to the foregoing insignificant impacts .
( iii) To the extent that any of the
above impacts are significant , despite the conclusions of the
Initial Study as stated above , the environmental economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override
any such significant impact , as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
III . FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EVALUATED IN
THE EIR DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT, AVOIDED OR
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
The findings of this Board regarding unavoidable
impacts are set forth in Section IV below (Findings Regarding
Unavoidable Impacts) and in Section V below (The Statement of
Overriding Considerations) . The findings of this Board
regarding environmental impacts which are determined in the
Final EIR to be insignificant , avoided, or mitigated to a level
of insignificance are set forth in this Section III .
A. Land Use . `
1 . Facts .
( a) The land use designation for the Site
under the existing San Ramon Valley Area General Plan is
"Public and Semi-Public . " The use contemplated by the 1964
Master Plan for the area� now proposed for residential
development would present many of the same impacts as the
proposed residential development . Development of the
residential area constitutes a more intense use of the northern
section of the Site than the current open space use of this
area .
7
(b) The General Plan Amendment and the
Project would result in grading and development of residential
r uses on a portion of the Site. The loss of the current open
space land use is listed in the draft EIR as an unavoidable
impact of the Project . No other land use impacts of the
Project are listed as unavoidable impacts .
(c) As discussed in Section VII , the text
and map of the General Plan Amendment as originally proposed
were modified by Staff and by this Board to respond to
community and environmental concerns . These modifications
! include the addition of a Parks and Recreation designation in
the General Plan Amendment , giving special consideration to the
1 impact of any development approval on the knoll area , review of
future development to provide a buffer for the Mt . Diablo State
Park, and the addition and amendment of trail plans .
Designated open space was added to the area around the Athenian
School campus .
(d) In addition to the modifications to the
General Plan Amendment , the Board, when it approved the General
Plan Amendment , also instructed Staff to take two related
actions . A committee will be established to attempt to resolve
the maintenance and operation of Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard in
conjunction with all interested parties . Staff will
investigate the best location for a staging location for the
trails .
(e) The modifications to the originally
proposed general plan amendment will reduce land use and open
space impacts of the Project by devoting special consideration
to future development on the northern knoll , and by increasing
the amount of designated open space and dedicated park lands
within the Site . The modifications will not increase any
impacts of the Project , because they do not increase the number
of home sites or other facilities which could be developed.
( f) Prior to any development of the Site,
applicants would be required to obtain rezoning and approval of
development plans and/or a subdivision map . Additional
mitigation measures and conditions of approval may be attached
to these subsequent approvals .
(g) The Project includes a physical linkage
between the open space areas of Mt . Diablo State Park and
residential developments in the general area , because the
Project will include the provision of trails leading to the
Park as discussed further below.
(h) The designation of Single Family
Residential - Low Density is appropriate for the portion of the
8
•
Site which may be developed, because of the existing single
, family residential designations bn' surrounding lands .
( i ) Approximately thirty acres of land are
now proposed to be designated as Single Family Residential-Low
Density. In the- forty-five acre area, using the County ' s
standard density formulas , many more than 45 dwelling units
would be allowed. To reduce land use impacts , the Athenian
School proposed a density of one unit per overall acre of the
Site to accommodate environmental concerns . The General Plan
Amendment text also limits the use of that land to 45
residential units .
( j ) The EIR recommends as mitigation
measures designing for environmental concerns , fair share
funding for Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, compliance with land
use standards and controls .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record, this
Board finds that :
( a) This Board ' s findings regarding the
loss of open space are set forth in Section IV.D, below, and in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations .
(b) The mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR either have been incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment or will be incorporated into subsequent development
approvals for development of the Site. Specifically, design
mitigations must be considered with design plans and cannot
feasibly be imposed now. Road funding is incorporated into
this Project through the establishment of a study and committee
for road funding, and compliance with land use standards is an
inherent part of this Project .
(c) Although the loss of open space may be
unavoidable , the other Land use impacts either will be
insignificant or are mitigat.ed to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the
ETR, and by the modifications to the Project which have been
made by Staff and this Board in response to community and
environmental concerns including special consideration to
development of the northern knoll , review of future development
to provide a buffer for impacts to the Mt . Diablo State Park
and the addition and amendment of trail plans .
(d) Alternatively, to the extent that the
land use impacts of the Project are not insignificant , the
economic , social and other benefits of the Project outweigh any
9
such significant impact , as more fully stated in the Statement '
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
B . Private Streets ,
1 . Facts .
( a) The Project ' s impacts on private
streets such as Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard are discussed on
page 19 - 20 of the EIR and relate to design, maintenance and
enforcement . The Project ' s impacts on private streets are not
listed in the EIR as unavoidable impacts of the Project .
(b) Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard does not
meet design standards for public streets . Proper and timely
repairs often are not made, and the road is narrow and
decaying . Residents may ask the town to maintain this road if
extensive rebuilding is required.
(c) The EIR recommends that Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard be made a public road, that CC&Rs provide for
maintenance of roads within the subdivision, and that final
development plans provide adequate, conveniently located
parking spaces within the subdivision .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) The impact of the Project upon private
streets is not significant or will be mitigated to
insignificance by the imposition of mitigation measures in
connection with subsequent development approvals . The Project
is relatively small , the recommended mitigation measures either
have been incorporated into. this General Plan Amendment or will
be incorporated into subsequent development approvals for the
Site .
(b) The recommendation that Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard be made a public road has been substantially
incorporated into the General Plan Amendment , to the maximum
extent feasible at this stage of land use approval , by this
Board ' s direction to Staff to establish a committee to attempt
to resolve use and other questions regarding Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard .
(c) In the alternative, this recommendation
cannot be imposed as part of this General Plan Amendment , but
this measure or substantially similar measures may or will be
incorporated into the Project as a part of subsequent land use
approvals .
10
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
this recommendation is not equivalent to the aforementioned
committee and study, this recommended measure, by requiring
dedication of sections of Mt . Diablo Boulevard also owned by
third parties , is infeasible and incapable of .being achieved in
connection with this General Plan Amendment . Through this
General Plan Amendment , the Board cannot requirethird parties
to dedicate property.
(e) In the alternative, because the impacts
of this project .upon private streets are not significant , no
mitigation measures or conditions of approval are required to
be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to the impact of this
General Plan Amendment and the Project on private streets .
(f) It is not feasible to impose the
mitigation measures relating to CC&Rs and parking until final
development plans are considered . ' These mitigation measures
can and will be imposed as a part of subsequent land use
approvals .
(g) . To the extent that any of the impacts
of the General Plan Amendment or the Project on private streets
are not insignificant , despite the above conclusions , the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any such significant impact , as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
C . Public Services And Utilities - Sewer System.
1 . Facts .
_ (a) The Project ' s sewer impacts are
discussed on pages 21-30 of the EIR. These impacts are not
included in the list of unavoidable impacts .
(b) Annexation of a portion of the Site
into the Contra Costa County Sanitary Districts ( ''CCCSD" ) would
be required to provide sewer service to the entire Site . In
addition, the existing 8-inch main would need to be extended to
serve the Project , and access easements would be required to
accommodate CCCSD maintenance and repairs .
(c) The 45 units allowed by this General
Plan Amendment would generate an average sewage flow of 23 , 625
gallons/day, which represents approximately 0 . 0030 of the
CCCSD ' s remaining capacity.
(d) The Staff Report states that the Site
is within the sphere of influence of sewer , water and other
11
urban services , and the Site is thus planned for urbanization .
There are no known urban service constraints which would limit
the development of up, to 45 dwelling units on the Site .
(e) The portion of the Site which would be
annexed to the CCCSD is surrounded on three sides by developed
parcels , so the annexation and the Project can be viewed as an
" infill" project .
(f ) The EIR recommends low-flow toilets and
water-conserving sinks , shower , and lavatory faucets to reduce
sewer impacts , in accordance with California Energy Commission
standards for new buildings .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) Project impacts relating to sewer
service are insignificant , because the proposed residential
development would use approximately 0 . 0030 of the CCCSD ' s
remaining capacity and because sufficient collection capacity
to service the Project Site exists in nearby lines .
(b) To the extent any such impacts are
significant , they will be mitigated to a level of .
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR. These mitigation measures are
incorporated into this Project by the application to this
Project of the applicable energy and water conservation
standards .
(c) In the alternative, these mitigation
measures will be incorporatedinto the Project as conditions of
approval of development plans or subdivision maps . It is not
feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General Plan
Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to low-flow
toilets , sinks , showers , or lavatory faucets , because this
General Plan Amendment sets forth general designations for the
Site only.
a.
(d) In the alternative, the annexation of a
portion of the Site to the CCCSD is within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of other public agencies , namely the Contra
Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) and
CCCSD, and not this Board . The annexation can and should be
approved by LAFCO and CCCSD. To the extent that any changes
may be required as a result of the approvals by LAFCO or CCCSD,
LAFCO or CCCSD has authority to require those changes prior to
the annexation.
12
n
(e) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable impact byecreating a need for community services ,
the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project
relating specifically to sewers are either insignificant or
would be mitigated to a level of insignificance, as set forth
;y above .
( f) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the sewer-related impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
Project override any such significant impacts , as more fully.
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
D . Public Services And Utilities - Water .
1 . Facts .
( a) The Project ' s impacts on water supply
are discussed on pages 24-30 of the EIR and page R8 of the
Response Document . The Project Site is entirely within the
East Bay Municipal Utility District ( "EBMUD" ) and will be
supplied with water. from EBMUD ' s Scenic Reservoir . EBMUD
estimates that residential development of the Project will
require 45 , 000 gallons/day, which represents approximately
0 . 015% of the Reservoir ' s capacity. This level of demand would
not have a significant impact on the capacity of the Scenic
Reservoir . No new facilities would be needed to serve this
Project itself .
(b) The Site is within the sphere of
influence of sewer , water and other urban services as defined
by LAFCO, and is .planned for urbanization. There are no known
urban service constraints which would limit the development of
up to 45 dwelling units on the Site .
(c) Because of the rapid rate of
development in .the general project area, EBMUD is currently
reevaluating service requirements in the Scenic Reservoir zone
and adjacent zones , and it appears probable that new facilities
will be required to augment increasing water demand resulting
from large-scale projects .
(d) EBMUD regulations for water use during
the current water shortage require all applicants for water
service to agree to landscaping restrictions . (Response
Document page R8) .
13
(e) The EIR recommends as mitigation
measures drought tolerant plants , low flow watering systems ,
and water conserving plumbing.
( f) The EIR does not list any impact of the
Project relating to water as unavoidable. The discussion of
community services as an unavoidable impact on page 142 does
not mention water .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The impact of the Project upon water
supply is not significant , because EBMUD currently has excess
capacity to serve the Project which would require only
approximately 0 . 0150 of that excess capacity.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent any
such impacts are significant , they will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the imposition of the recommended
mitigation measures as conditions of approval to subsequent
development approvals . These include incorporation into the
Project of drought-tolerant vegetation, low water use
irrigation systems , and water conserving plumbing equipment to
help reduce water consumption. Any development of the Project
Site will be subject to then-existing restrictions on water use
imposed by EBMUD in response to water shortages , such as the
current requirement that developers agree to restrictions on
water use as a condition of receiving water service . It is
infeasible to incorporate such specific measures into this
General Plan Amendment because such measures relate to specific
development plans and not to the general designations which
constitute this General Plan Amendment .
(c) In the alternative , the various actions
of EBMUD as summarized above are within -the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not this Board. The
mitigation measures summarized above can and should be adopted
by EBMUD .
(d) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable impact in creating a need for public services , the
Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project
relating specifically to water are either insignificant or will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance, as set forth above .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the water supply impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance, the
14
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any' such significant impact , as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
E. Public Service And Utilities - Natural Gas ,
Electricity And Telephone' Service.
1 . Facts
( a) The Site ' s gas and electric services
are provided by PG&E and telephone service is provided by
Pacific Bell . Facilities for all of these services are
available along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard. No significant
impacts on these services are anticipated as a result of the
Project .
(b) According� to the Staff Report , the Site
is planned for urbanization and there are no known urban
service constraints which would limit the development of up to
45 dwelling units on the Site .
(c) The EIR ' s listing of unavoidable
impacts does not include impacts on gas , electricity, or
telephone service . The discussion of community services as a
potential unavoidable impact does not specifically refer to
gas , electricity, or telephone service . No mitigation measures
are proposed.
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) Impacts of this Project relating to
natural gas , electricity and telephone service are
insignificant .
z:
(b) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable, adverse impact in creating a need for public
service, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this
Project relating specifically to gas , electricity, and'
telephone service are insignificant .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the impacts of the Project upon gas , electricity, or
telephone service are not insignificant or mitigated to
insignificance, the environmental , economic, social , and other
benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
15
F . Public Services And Utilities - Schools .
1 . Facts .
( a') The Project ' s .impacts on schools are
discussed on pages 26-31 of the EIR. The Site is located
within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District . The
Project is expected to generate approximately 34 public school
students : 17 at the elementary school level , 5 at the
intermediate school level and 12 at the high school level .
Each . of the three schools serving the proposed residential area
is located in the Green Valley Road area, which is two to three
roadway miles west of the Site.
'(b) Based on current enrollments , the
Project would not increase intermediate or high school
enrollments beyond capacity, but the estimated 17 elementary
students would add to existing over-capacity enrollment at the
Green Valley Elementary School . Currently, approximately 100
elementary school students are diverted to Vista Grande
Elementary School , approximately 3 miles southwest of the
proposed residential development . The Project may not be fully
occupied until after the fall of 1992 . The new Canyon Lakes
Elementary School , which will open in fall 1989 , will relieve
some of the enrollment pressure on Green Valley School . This
school will provide interim relief from enrollment pressure on
Green Valley School by accommodating a number of students from
the south Blackhawk area . Long-term relief is anticipated in
five to seven years with construction of Blackhawk Elementary
School .
(c) The Site is planned for urbanization
and there are no known urban service constraints which would
limit the development of up to 45 dwelling units on the Site .
(d) Sections 65995 and 65996 of the
California Government Code limit this Board ' s ability to impose
mitigation measures relating to schools .
(e) The recommended mitigation is the
School District ' s one-time impact fee . This would provide
funding of $168 , 750 , assuming a project of 45 residences
averaging 2 , 500 square feet each, to mitigate the impacts of
the Project on schools . This total could be higher because the
fee is increased in January of each year in accordance with
increases in the Construction Cost Index. The actual dollar
amount of the fee will be determined when the square footage of
each approved residence is known.
( f ) The EIR does not include school impacts
in the listing of unavoidable impacts . The discussion of
16
community services as a potential .unavoidable impact does not
specifically refer to ; school impacts ..
2 . Findings .
i Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) By operation of County and School
District ordinances and policies , the payment of school impact
fees is imposed upon this Project , and the School or the
School ' s successor will pay the required school impact fees as
and when required by these ordinances and policies .
(b) Pursuant to state law, this Board may
not impose school mitigation fees or requirements , except as
set forth above .
(c) The Project ' s impact upon schools will
be insignificant .
(d) In the alternative, the Project ' s
impact upon schools will be mitigated to insignificance by the
payment of the school impact fees .
(e) . Although this Project may have an
unavoidable impact by creating a need for public services , the
Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project
relating specifically to schools are either insignificant or
will be mitigated to insignificance, as set forth above .
( f) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the school-related impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or reduced or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the economic , social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts , as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
G. Public Services And Utilities - Police And Fire
Protection .
a:.
1 . Facts .
( a) The Project' s impacts on Police Service
are discussed on page 28 -of the EIR and on page R47 of the
Response Document . The Sheriff ' s Department has indicated that
the proposed project would not have significant impacts on
police services but would contribute to long-term cumulative
demand which may require future adjustments in, beat areas or
17
additional. police-service resources . No mitigation measures
are recommended relating to police services .
(b) The EIR on page 142 states .that the
Project will result in the need for a variety of community
services including services of the Sheriff ' s Department and the
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District , This impact is
listed as an unavoidable impact of the Project .
(c) The Project ' s impacts upon fire
protection are discussed on pages 28-31 and 142 of the EIR and
several places in the Response Document . Fire protection in
the area is provided by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District .
(d) The Fire Department ' s concerns
regarding firefighting access and water supply will be
addressed by the San Ramon Valley Fire .Protection District in
conjunction with review of the subsequent development approvals
for the proposed residential development .
(e) According to the Staff Report , the Site
is planned for urbanization and there are no known urban
service constraints which would limit the development of up to
45 dwelling units on the Site .
(f) The EIR recommends a plan for a "fire
protection strip'' 30 to 40 feet wide between State Park land
and the nearest proposed residential units to reduce the
potential for the spread of fire from the residential site to
State Park land. The plan could include designation of areas
to be regularly cultivated, irrigated landscaping using fire
resistant species , segments of project roadway, a combination
of such methods , or other method which the San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District would find adequate .
(g) The EIR also recommends that any
tentative subdivision map for the Site be refereed to the Fire
District for comments on Project design.
(h) The EIR also recommends that the
developer contact the State Department of Parks and Recreation
about a lot line adjustment to provide greater separation
between the planned improvements and Mt . Diablo State Park , and
that the County consider requiring fire sprinklers in
residential units , or in those units nearest the park boundary .
( i ) Any additional restrictions placed on
development of the knoll sites will further mitigate any fire
danger by providing greater separation between the park and
residential development .
18
(j ) Although not discussed in the EIR, the
generation of higher property takes will be an additional
mitigation measure. This is an inherent aspect of the Project ,
and is not required to be adopted as a condition of approval
now or in connection with any future development approvals by
<r, this Board. These additional revenues will help to fund fire
and police services .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) This Board ' s findings relating to
cumulative impacts on community services as a potential
unavoidable impact are set forth below in Section IV. B, below.
(b) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable cumulative impact by creating a demand for
additional public services , the Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to police services are
insignificant . The Project specific and cumulative impacts
relating to fire services either are insignificant or will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the
aforementioned mitigation measures as conditions of approval or
Project modifications at the time of approval. of subsequent
development permits .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the police service impacts or fire service impacts of
this Project are not insignificant or mitigated to
insignificance, the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
H . Open Space .
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project upon open
space are discussed in the EIR on pages 32-37 and 143 . The
Site is bounded by open space and residential areas .
Development of the proposed residential units would result in
grading and development along the Mt . Diablo State Park
boundary. A buffer of 100 feet in width is recommended for
fire protection and visual separation.
(b) The presence of humans and domestic
animals may have an adverse impact on wildlife habitat within
19
the portion of the State Park that is in proximity to
residential development .
(c) The developed area of the Athenian
School ' s campus occupies approximately 20 acres , within which
substantial open space is interspersed among existing
structures . The remaining approximately 95 acres of the campus
area currently are undeveloped.
(d) As discussed on page 34 of the EIR,
with campus expansion and subdivision development as proposed,
open space area would be preserved as follows . ( i ) The
proposal for the 47-acre residential site calls for 18 acres of
private open space, which includes all of the area along the
northeast and east site boundary, and a narrow open-space strip
connecting these two areas . With proposed deed restrictions
limiting fencing and development on each parcel , the
undeveloped area would actually be approximately 28 acres ;
( ii) The proposed 15-year Master Plan for the campus shows an
open space ( "campus reserve" ) area of about 42 . 6 acres , which
would allow future development to occupy a total area of
approximately 31 . 6 acres , about 42 . 60 of the proposed campus
parcel . Under this plan, campus expansion could include
" infilling" within the existing campus . The developed area
would be restricted to the portion of the Site below an
elevation of +650 feet . . This would result in preservation of
most of the higher-elevation, and the easterly half of the
Site, including the prominent hill east of the developed campus .
(e) The EIR recommends a lot line
adjustment as a mitigation measure . The State Department of
Parks and Recreation has stated that it does not wish to
proceed with such a lot line adjustment ..
( f) The EIR states on page 143 that the
loss of open space and visual impact resulting from this loss
of open space will be a significant and unavoidable impact of
the Project . The EIR also states on page 143 that the loss of
wildlife habitat may be a significant unavoidable impact of
this Project .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire .record, this Board
finds that :
( a) This Board ' s findings relating to loss
of open space and wildlife habitat as potentially unavoidable
impacts are set forth in Sections IV. D and IV.E, below. As set
forth there, the loss of open space, while unavoidable, is not
a significant impact .
20
(b) The recommended lot line adjustment
cannot be imposed as a mitigation measure, and is rejected as
infeasible. and undesirable, because the State Parks Department
must consent to any adjustment and does not wish to obtain such
an adjustment .
(c) In the alternative, the design of the
Project and the imposition of mitigation measures in connection
with subsequent approvals will provide substantially the same
environmental benefit as the recommended lot line adjustment ,
by providing a buffer zone.
(d) The modification of the plan text under
Single-Family Residential - Low Density to include text which
states a special consideration shall be given during Project
review to development of the northern knoll area , may result in
a development plan which avoids residential development which
is incompatible or visually impacts the adjacent park .
(e) The impacts of this Project on open
space will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR
and by the changes in the General Plan text which were
recommended by Staff and have been adopted by this Board as
part of this General Plan Amendment . Further mitigation
measures will be ,evaluated during review of subsequent
development approvals for the Site .
(f) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the above impacts on open space are not insignificant or
reduced to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits to the Project override any
such significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
I . Trails .
1 . Facts .
( a) The Project ' s impacts on trails are
discussed in the EIR on pages 32-37 . The East Bay Regional
Park District ( "EBRPD" ) ,has expressed interest in a trail
between Diablo Road/Blackhawk Road and Mt . Diablo State Park .
(b) The EIR recommends as a mitigation
measure a trail along the alignment favored by the East Bay
Regional Park District ( "EBRPD" ) , if the County decides a trail
is necessary. The State Park Department may be unwilling to
allow development of the portion of this route which would
cross State Parkland . If so , the EIR recommends that no
official trail route be designated , Lack of such designation
21
would not preclude horseback riding along Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard, but designation of such a route, without the
short-cut into the Park at the Athenian School boundary, would
encourage riders to use the route without providing an
alternative to the narrow, curving stretch of roadway above the
school property.
(c) The list of unavoidable impacts of the
Project on pages 142-144 of the EIR does not include any
impacts relating to trails .
2 . Findings .
Based on the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The project specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to trails are insignificant .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
the impacts of this Project relating to trails are not
insignificant , such impacts are mitigated to insignificance by
the recommended mitigation measures , which is imposed as part
of the changes in the General Plan Amendment . The General Plan
Amendment text includes a trail from the Blackhawk parcel to
the State Park .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the impacts of this Project relating to trails are not
insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts , as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
J. Traffic And Circulation - Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the Project ' s impacts
upon traffic and upon Mt :•• Diablo Scenic Boulevard on page 40-66 .
(b) Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard is a
private road, serves through traffic as well as traffic from
adjacent properties , and has experienced a gradual growth in
traffic volumes . The roadway has narrow, unpaved shoulders , an
inadequate base, and is too narrow to meet modern standards .
It is in poor condition and there is no formal repair and
maintenance program. Diablo residents have expressed
increasing concern regarding the combination of ( 1) Athenian
22
• 1
Y
School and Mt . Diablo State Park traffic , ( 2 ) the capacity and
deteriorating condition .of the roadway, and• (3 ) the effects of
increased traffic on vehicle movements at the Diablo Road-Mt .
Diablo Scenic Boulevard intersection . (Staff Report , page 5 ) .
The General. Plan Amendment includes a committee to implement
improvements to this road.
(c) Because of Mt . Diablo Boulevard ' s
existing narrow width, poor pavement condition, and the
geometry of its intersection with Diablo Road - Blackhawk Road,
traffic from the proposed Project could have significant
cumulative impacts on traffic safety and pedestrian/bicyclist
safety.
(d) The proposed subdivision would generate
450 trips/day. Estimates for peak-hour trips are 36 vehicle
trip ends in the morning peak (29 outbound vehicles ; 7 inbound)
and 45 vehicle trip ends in the evening peak (30 inbound
vehicles ; 15 outbound) . For the proposed subdivision, trip
distribution is expected to be 10% to and from the east on
Blackhawk Road and 90% to and from the west on Diablo Road .
(e) The Campus 15-Year Master Plan
discusses two possible sources of minor additional future
traffic generation, beyond the established rate of generation
for the existing, campus . These minor increments of additional
traffic will not have a significant impact on Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard, the Diablo Road intersection, or other routes . The
projects which might generate additional traffic from the
School are not funded and are not likely to be constructed in
the near future .
(f) The "environmental capacity'' for
streets similar to Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard can normally be
considered to be 3 , 000 to 4 , 000 vehicles per day in areas that
have yards fronting on the street . On a daily basis ,
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard currently experiences its highest
traffic volumes on weekends . School-year weekend volumes are
presently below, 2 , 000 vehicles per day, and would be about
2 ,300 vehicles per day with development as proposed, which is
within the physical and environmental capacity of a street with
residential frontage . ' Road improvements in connection with the
Project will improve Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard .
(g) Traffic generated by the proposed
Project would not changethe existing a .m . or .p . m. levels of
service (LOS) at any intersections , although the
volume-to-capacity ratios would increase slightly. This is
attributable to the relatively small number of peak hour trips
associated with 45 residential units ( 36 a .m. trips and 45 p . m.
trips) . Study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D
23
( indicating tolerable delay) or better with the exception of
the Diablo Road/Green valley Road intersection, which currently
operates at LOS' F ( indicating jammed conditions ) in the a .m.
peak hour . The proposed residential project will have a
cumulative impact on this intersection .
(h) The proposed residential development
would. not generate traffic volume sufficient to warrant a
traffic signal at the Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard/Diablo Road
intersection, for existing-plus-project traffic volumes and
cumulative-plus-project volumes .
( i ) The EIR concludes that the Project
would not have a significant effect on freeways , roads , or
intersections located any distance away from the Site, because
the traffic generated by the Project will be a very small part
of the background existing level of traffic . However ,
virtually any use of the Site will generate traffic and,
therefore, have a cumulative impact on regional traffic .
(j ) In the listing of unavoidable. impacts
of the Project on page 142 , the EIR includes as an unavoidable
impact the increase in traffic volumes on roadways linking the
Site 'to Interstate 680 , but the EIR characterizes this increase
as "minor . "
(k) To mitigate impacts of the Project , the
normal condition for development of the Project would be
improvement of the roadway along the half of the roadway
fronting the Site . As an alternative, however , the Project
offers an opportunity for all users of the roadway to reach an
agreement regarding the desired level of roadway improvements ,
the mechanism for funding these improvements , and the
resolution of maintenance and legal issues .
( 1) As a mitigation measure, the Final EIR
pages 66-67 recommends implementing one of two alternatives for
roadway improvement between .Diablo Road/Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard intersection to the north boundary of the Athenian
School property. The first alternative is construction of
roadway' improvements pursuant to a cooperative funding
arrangement withsurrounding property owners , and the second
alternative is minimum required roadway improvements alongside
the side of Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard bordering the Site .
(m) According to the Staff Report , page 7 ,
development of the Project will permanently preclude an
alternative access road to Mt . Diablo State Park , but that road
already has been rejected as environmentally and economically
infeasible .
24
(n) Impacts of the Project on traffic will
be offset by payment.of, area benefit fees pursuant to existing
County ordinances and policies .
. 2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) Based in part upon the EIR' s conclusion
that increases in traffic will be minor , the Project will have
an insignificant impact upon traffic and circulation .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
the traffic-related impacts are significant , the impact of the
Project upon Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and the. cumulative
impacts of the Project on traffic safety and pedestrian/bicycle
safety will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
arrangement of cooperative funding" of roadway improvements or
by the construction of improvements along the side of the
roadway bordering the Site . Furthermore, impacts of the
Project on traffic will be offset by payment of area benefit
fees pursuant to existing County ordinances and policies .
These improvements and other traffic-related mitigation
measures will be achieved in connection with subsequent project
approvals, after considering any recommendations of the
committee appointed by this Board to resolve traffic problems .
(c) Issues relating to Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard beyond the northerly boundary of this property were
raised during hearings on the General Plan Amendment , but this
Project and the General Plan Amendment will have an
insignificant effect upon Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard beyond
the northerly boundary, and the resolution of traffic issues
beyond this boundary is not a part of this Project , but is a
pre-existing condition unrelated to this Project and which will
not be exacerbated by this Project .
(d) 'to the extent that any of the impacts
of the Project , including minor unavoidable cumulative traffic
impacts relating to traffic and circulation are not
insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
environmental , economic; social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh any such significant impact , as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
25
K. Traffic And Circulation - Subdivision
Circulation, Parking And Access .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR discusses the Project ' s impacts
on subdivision circulation, parking and access on pages 38-68 .
The originally proposed combination of 24-foot street width,
long driveways without parking bays to certain lots , limited
parking bay spaces for the northerly cluster of lots , and lack
of convenient parking bay spaces for several other lots , could
result in parking and access problems . Specifically parallel
parking on one or both sides of the subdivision streets could
result in restricted travel lane width, congestion, and
impaired vehicle access .
(b) The Final. EIR recommends that the final
development plan for the subdivision present a combination of
roadway width and on- and off-street parking spaces which will
provide four spaces/unit , in addition to two ( 2) garage spaces
(total of six ( 6) spaces/unit ), and maintain 20 feet of
unobstructed travelway width. On-street spaces , either
parallel or in perpendicular bays , should be well distributed
for the convenience of residents and guests . Driveway spaces
should not be in tandem , The CC&Rs should preclude long-term
storage of recreational vehicles on streets and driveways .
(c) The EIR suggests redesigning the site
plan to provide two ( 2 ) separate access/circulation roads , with
access points north and south of the proposed access .
(d) The EIR lists on pages 142-144 the
significant and unavoidable impacts of this Project . The EIR
does not list any impacts relating to subdivision circulation,
parking and access as significant unavoidable impacts .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the 'EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The impact of the Project upon
subdivision circulation, parking and access and related traffic
matters is insignificant ,
(b) In the alternative , to the extent that
such impacts are not insignificant , such impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
mitigation measures in connection with approval of specific
development permit applications in the future .
26
(c) It is not feasible to impose the
recommended mitigation measures `as conditions of approval to
this General Plan Amendment because the recommended measures
relate to specific development plans .
(d) In the alternative, with respect only
to the recommendation that this Board consider an alternative
with two access roads , that recommended measure is identical or
substantially similar to the access alternative discussed in
Section VI .D, below. That recommendation is rejected for the
same reasons as the access alternative is rejected .
(e) To the extent that any of the above
traffic impacts are not insignificant or mitigated to
insignificance, the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project outweigh any such significant impacts ,
as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .-
L. Traffic And Circulation - Construction Impacts.
1 . Facts . ,
( a) The EI_R discusses construction impacts
on pages 68-70 . The lists of unavoidable impacts does not
include construction impacts .
(b) The EIR recommends a road closure or
detours , time restrictions on construction, flagging traffic ,
and roadway maintenance as mitigation measures .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The impact of Project construction on
traffic is not significant .
(b) In the alternative, the construction
impacts of the Project on traffic will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance. by the imposition of mitigation measures as
conditions of approval to subsequent development approvals . It
is not feasible to impose these mitigation measures in
connection with the General Plan Amendment , because the General
Plan Amendment contains general designations and policies for
the Site, but does not contain or constitute approval of
specific roadway or circulation plans .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any construction impacts on traffic are not insignificant or
27
mitigated to insignificance, the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project outweigh any such
significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
M. Traffic And Circulation - Town Of Danville
Capital Improvement Program Fees .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR discusses the Project ' s impact
on Danville ' s fees on page 70 . The town of Danville has
requested that per-unit fees for the town ' s capital improvement
program be levied in connection with this Project . The EIR
states that. a cooperative solution to traffic problems on
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard would be a major contribution to
mitigation of traffic problems , and that the Applicant should
not be required make additional payments if this solution is
achieved. If it is not achieved, the County can consider the
Town of Danville ' s request for fees . The EIR does not
recommend payment of these fees , or suggest any other
mitigation relating to Danville fees .
(b) The EIR lists significant and
unavoidable impacts of the Project on pages 142-144 , and does
.not include within this listing any impacts relating to
Danville Capital Improvement Program fees .
. 2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The impacts of this Project relating to
Danville Capital Improvement Program fees are not significant .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
any such impact of the Project is significant , the
environmental , economic ," social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh any such significant impacts , as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) . -
N. Geology And Grading .
1 . Facts .
,
( a) The Final EIR discusses the Project ' s
impacts on slope stability on pages; 71-83 . The Project
proposes considerable grading which may affect stability .
Available information suggests the rock is competent and large
28
a '
failures of the entire, slope are unlikely. A proposed 50-foot
slope would require construction• of a drainage terrace .
(b) According to the Staff Report , although
issues of policy and planning would need to be resolved with
respect to Site constraints on the Project , there are few
direct limits on the use of the Site . The intermittent stream
valley on the east of the property and its associated riparian
vegetation limits the use of that area . However , the remainder
of the Site is developable with modern construction techniques .
(c) The proposed grading may encroach on
the driplines of several large oaks . The School intends to
preserve as many of these trees as possible .
(d) The use of alternatives to standard cut
and fill slopes could avoid or minimize intrusion into the
dripline of many oaks . During preparation of the, rough grading
plans, the EIR recommends specific measures to protect the
oaks . Any oaks that are to be removed should be clearly
labeled ( including species and breast high diameter) on the
tentative subdivision map prior to approval .
(e) Drainage terraces are needed on any
major cut and fill slopes , although such terraces may have an
adverse visual impact . This possible adverse impact is not
listed as a significant unavoidable impact or characteristic as
significant . In the absence of surface drainage facilities ,
the slopes would be subject to erosion during episodes of heavy
runoff ; especially on steep, engineered slopes .
(f) The County Grading Ordinance includes
requirements regarding drainage terraces , and other engineering
characteristics , which requirements would be imposed on the
Project prior to subsequent development approvals .
(g) The Final EIR discusses the Project ' s
grading impacts on Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard on pages 71-84 .
The grading concept includes fill in a drainage ditch on the
east side of the roadway.
(h) .Earthquake shaking is listed on
page 143 of the EIR as an unavoidable impact . No other
geologic impacts are listed as unavoidable .
( i ) The EIR recommends several geology and
grading mitigation measures . These are wall designs in grading
plans to reduce the height of graded slopes , protection of
trees , drainage terraces or benches , adequate drainage and
compact fill on Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard , an erosion control
plan, hydroseeding, and geologic consultation in preparing
29
grading plans . The EIR recommends that these mitigation
measures be imposed when specific grading or development plans
are developed .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) As stated in Section IV. H , below, the
impact of earthquake shaking, while unavoidable, is not
significant .
Y
(b) The remaining impacts of the Project
relating to geology and grading are insignificant .
I (c ) In the alternative, the geology and
grading impacts of the Project will be mitigated to
insignificance by design practices and other mitigation
measures which will be adopted as conditions of approval to
future development approvals . These measures relate to
specific grading or development plans , and it is not feasible
to impose them in connection with a general plan amendment .
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
the geology and grading impacts of this Project are not
mitigated to a level of insignificance, such impacts are
overridden and outweighed by the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project as more fully set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V,
below) ,
{ O. Visual Quality And Design .
i 1 . Facts . '
(a) Although the view of the site may
change from rural to suburban, the 1964 Master Plan for school
expansion would also change the visual views .
(b) The ridges on the site are not
identified in the General Plan as scenic ridges . The landforms
on the site are similar to those of Diablo to the west ,
Blackhawk to the east , and Danville to the south prior to their
development .
( c) Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard is
designated a "scenic rural recreation route, " and. the Site is
adjacent and acts as a buffer between Mt . Diablo State Park and
residential areas of Danville/Diablo . The County' s Scenic
Routes Element provides that development along scenic routes
30
k
should be sensitive to •their effect on views from the road .
This Project is of a •similar density as surrounding development
and is compatible with the area and consistent with the road
designation .
(d) Some existing residences opposite the
Athenian School have setbacks as little as 25 feet from
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard. However , existing residences in
Diablo that are opposite the proposed entrance to the
residential Project have setbacks of 40 to 100 feet from the .
road.
(e) A few of the Project ' s proposed
residences would be relatively close to the roadway, but most
would be setback approximately 100 feet or more .
( f) Drivers on Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard
will, see intermittent glimpses of•�the highest lots in the
proposed Project, but some lots will be screened by topography
or trees .
(g) There are no views of the Project from
the Diablo-Blackhawk Road traffic corridor , and only momentary
glimpses of the Site are available from segments of Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard that are inside the State Park boundary.
These long-range views have permanent open space in the
foreground and the Site in the middleground .
(h) The EIR recommends height limits ,
earth tone colors , elimination of certain lots , contour
grading, spot plantings , and bonding to guarantee plant
survival as mitigation measures . These mitigation
recommendations can be imposed in connection with specific
development approvals .
( i ) In adopting mitigation measures for
this General Plan Amendment or subsequent development
approvals , this Board is,•,,subject to State CEQA
Guideline 15092(c) , which states that , for a project including
housing development , this Board "shall not reduce the proposed
number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it
determines that there is,,,-another feasible specific mitigation
measure available that will provide a comparable level of
mitigation . "
( j ) The visual impact of the loss of open
space is listed on page 143 of the EIR as an unavoidable impact
of the project . The EIR notes that , after landscaped plants
become established and graded slopes are revegetated, short
range views of the site will be similar to views of existing
31
residential projects nearby. The EIR also states that there
are almost no long range views of the site .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) As set forth below in section IV . D,
below, the visual impact of the loss of open space, while
unavoidable, is not significant. Alternatively, this visual
impact is mitigated to insignificance . The findings of this
Board relating to this potentially unavoidable impact are set
forth in section IV.D, below.
(b) With the exception of the reduction in
the number of lots , the mitigation measures recommended in the
EIR will be adopted .as conditions of approval to future
development approvals . The recommended mitigation measures
relate to specific development plans , and it is not feasible to
impose such mitigation measures in connection with .the general
designations contained in this General Plan Amendment .
(c) Based in part upon the EIR' s conclusion
that short range views of the project will be similar to views
of surrounding developments , and the conclusion that there are
almost no long range views of the Site, and based upon the
recommendation that appropriate planting be included in
landscape plans , this Board concludes that landscape mitigation
measures are available and will provide a level of mitigation
comparable to the proposed reduction in the number of lots .
This Board accordingly rejects the reduction in the number of
lots as a specific mitigation measure in connection with this
General Plan Amendment .
(d) The visual impacts of the Project apart-
from the visual impact of the loss of open space are not
significant .
(e) In the alternative, the visual impacts
of the project will be mitigated to insignificance by
mitigation measures and conditions of approval which are
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment or which will be
incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions of
approval in connection with future development approvals , at
the time that this Board considers such future development
applications .
( f ) In the alternative, to the extent that
the visual impacts of this project are not mitigated to a level
of insignificance, such impacts are overridden and outweighed
32
by the environmental , economic , social and other benefits of
the Project as more fully set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
P . Drainage And Flood Hazards .
1 . Facts .
( a) The Final EIR discusses the Project ' s
impact on drainage and flood hazards on pages 108-118 and
page R2 of the Response Document .
(b) The Site ' s surface soils are relatively
impermeable with a low infiltration rate and a high ratio of
runoff/rainfall . Development of the Site will result in
increased speed and volume of runoff .
(c) Because residential development of the
Site will be served by domestic water service (EBMUD) and
sanitary sewers (CCCSD) , the development will have a negligible
effect on groundwater recharge and groundwater quality.
(d) The EIR recommends as a mitigation
measure that runoff be detained onsite so that peak runoff will
not increase downstream flows . The Flood Control District
favors large, regional detention basins maintained by the
District , rather than small privately maintained basins to
mitigate drainage and flooding impacts . No regional detention
basins are planned by the Flood Control District in the
community of Diablo , or on the Athenian School property.
Oversized storm drainage pipes in the right-of-way of
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard can be used as an alternative
System.
( e) The cumulative impact of the Project on
the Green Valley Creek and San Ramon Creek will be mitigated by
drainage fees which will be used by the Flood Control. District
to fund needed improvements . New developments are required to
mitigate the cumulative effect of increased runoff by
constructing improvements to Green Valley Creek commensurate
with the development ' s impact . Alternatively, developers are
required to contribute to a drainage deficiency fund for Green
Valley Creek at a rate of $500/lot . To mitigate this increased
runoff on San Ramon Creek , a drainage fee of $0 . 10/sq. ft . of
new impervious surface created is charged to new development .
( f ) The listing of unavoidable impacts in
the EIR does not include any impact relating to drainage and
flood hazards .
33
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The recommended mitigation measure ,
detention of runoff onsite, will be incorporated into the
Project or imposed as a condition of approval in connection
with future development approvals . This mitigation measure
relates to specific development plans , and it is not feasible
or desirable to impose this mitigation measure as a condition
of approval until this Board is considering a specific
development plan application ,
(b) The impact of the Project on drainage
and flood hazards is insignificant .
(c) In the alternative, the impacts of this
Project on drainage and flood hazards will be mitigated to
insignificance by the recommended mitigation measures .
(d) In the alternative , to the extent that
the Project ' s impacts on drainage and flood hazards are not
insignificant or reduced to insignificance , the environmental ,
21 economic , social , and other benefits of the Project override
and outweigh any such significant impacts , as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V,
below) :
Q. Cultural Resources .
1 . Facts .
( a) A literature search found that there
are no known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Site .
The archeologist ' s field work found no evidence of
archaeological resources .
(b) No sites or buildings in the vicinity
of the Site are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places or in the California Inventory of Historic Resources .
However , Staff has located six historic sites/structures of
local significance which are located within two miles of the
Site and which are listed in the EIR.
(c) - The EIR recommends as a mitigation
measure that if prehistoric materials are uncovered during
development of the Site, all work done within 100 feet of the
find should be stopped, and the Community Development
Department should be notified within 24 hours . The Developer
should be required to retain a qualified archaeologist to
34
evaluate the significance of the find, who should advise Contra
Costa County and the developer of any mitigation measures
de?med necessary.
(d) The listing of unavoidable impacts of
the Project in the EIR does not include any impacts relating to
cultural resources.
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) The impacts of this Project upon
cultural resources are not significant .
(b) To the extent that any impacts of this
Project upon cultural resources may be significant , such
impacts will be mitigated to insignificance by the imposition
of the recommended mitigation measure . The mitigation measure
recommended in the EIR will be incorporated into the Project or
imposed as an condition of approval in connection with
subsequent development applications . The mitigation measure
relates to specific development plan applications , and it is
not feasible to impose the recommended mitigation measure until
specific development plans are applied for and considered .
(c) In the alternative , to the extent that
any of the project impacts on cultural resources are not
insignificant or reduced to insignificance, the environmental ,
economic , social and other benefits of the Project override and
outweigh any such significant impacts , as more fully stated in
the Statement of overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
R. Air Quality.
1 . Facts .
( a) During construction activities , dust
will be generated by equipment and vehicles , and as a result of
wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces . Clearing and
earthmoving activities will comprise the major source of
construction dust , but traffic and general disturbance of the
soil contribute as well . The effects of construction
activities will be increased dust-fall and locally elevated
levels of total suspended particulates . Dustfall will be a
nuisance on the neighboring properties where it would soil
exposed surfaces,, requiring more frequent washing during t1:e
construction period.
35
(b) The long term effect of the Project and
Air Quality would be a minor cumulative increase in vehicular
emissions . Althcugh increases would not be considered
significant by themselves , they would contribute to the
cumulative degradation. of regional air quality. Combustion of
natural gas for heating and other household uses (dryer.$ ) would'
also generate small amounts of pollutants (primarily nitrous
oxide) . Use of fireplaces would increase total suspended
particulate levels . Sewage generated by the Site would be
responsible for a proportionate share of emissions from the
t CCCSD sewage treatment plan in Martinez . These impacts are not
significant .
(c) Watering is the normal method of dust
control on construction sites . An effective watering program
(complete coverage twice daily) could reduce emissions by about
50% . In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
r District ' s ( "BAAQMD" ) Regulation 2 includes dust control
requirements . BAAQMD inspection for compliance only occurs if
a complaint is received . The County Building Inspection
Department will have responsibility for processing the grading
and building permits and for enforcing dust control
requirements .
(d) The Project ' s .local and regional
impacts can be reduced by traffic flow improvements .
(e) Liberal planting of street trees and
other roadside landscaping would have a minor beneficial
effect . Chimney devices which trap ash would also help .
i
( f) The listing of unavoidable impacts on
page 144 of the EIR includes increased vehicular emissions for
traffic generated by Project residents'. The EIR states that
these vehicular emissions will be "minor . "
2 . Findings .
Based upon the' EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) As set forth in Section IV. J , below,
the increased vehicular emissions that will be generated by
Project residents , while an unavoidable impact , are not
significant . This Board ' s complete findings regarding this
unavoidable impact of the. Project are set forth in Section IV . J .
(b) The remaining air quality impacts of
the Project are insignificant .
36
( c) In the alternative, the impact of this
Project upon air quality will be reduced to insignificance by
the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures
(watering, traffic flow improvements , and tree planting) . The .
recommended mitigation measures are either incorporated into
r., this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into the
Project or imposed as conditions of approval in connection with
subsequent development approvals which will be considered by
this Board in the future , To the extent that the recommended
mitigation measures are not incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment , the recommended mitigation measures relate to
specific development plans , and it is not feasible to impose .
these mitigation measures until this Board is considering
specific development plans .
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
the Project impacts on air quality are not insignificant or
reduced to insignificance, the environmental , economic , social
and other benefits of the Project override and outweigh any
such significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
S . Noise .
1 . Facts . .
( a) The primary source of noise on the Site
is automobile traffic along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard , the
western boundary of the Site . At night , noise from local
traffic decreases due in part to closure of the State Park .
The residential properties west of the Site would be exposed to
temporary sources of noise during grading and construction .
(b) After the Site preparation phase and
foundation laying, the primary noise sources are material
delivery trucks and power tools used for carpentry. Because
work will be done primarily during normal working hours and
would be of short duration, construction will not create a
serious noise problem.
(c) Future traffic noise levels within the
Site are within the ''normally acceptable" category of the
California Office of Noise Control ' s recommended noise levels .
(Page 128) .
(d) Noise impacts of the Project ( excluding
construction noise impacts) are minor , and no mitigation
measures are required .
(e) Construction is unlikely to create a
serious noise problem. The EIR recommends as mitigation
37
a
measures limits on road construction activity, shielding and
noise quieting equipment for construction activities , and
y supervision by the grading section of the County Building
l Inspection Department .
I
( f ) The listing of unavoidable impacts of
the Project in the EIR does not include any noise related
impact .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) The noise impacts of this Project are
not significant .
i
(b) In the alternative, the noise impacts
of this Project will be mitigated to insignificance by the
imposition of the recommended mitigation measures . Supervision
of construction by the Building Inspection Department is
incorporated into the Project by operational County rules and
regulations . The remaining mitigation measures will be
incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions of
approval in connection with subsequent development
applications . To the extent that the recommended mitigation
measures are not incorporated into this General Plan Amendment ,
the recommended mitigation measures relate to specific and
final development plans rather than the general designations of
this General Plan Amendment, and it is not feasible to impose
these mitigation measures in connection with this General . Plan
Amendment .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
the noise impacts of the Project are not insignificant or
reduced to insignificance, the environmental , economic , social
and other benefits of the Project override and outweigh any
such significant impacts,, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
T . Biologic Resources .
1 . Facts .
(a) Field surveys of the site ' s vegetation
and wildlife were conducted . The Project would require grading
and removal of vegetation from approximately 21 . 5 acres of the
site . Grading would be largely confined to areas of grassland
and savanna vegetation. Much of the grassland which would be
removed is currently disced each year .
38
(b) Four large trees are within, or on the
perimeter , of the graded area proposed for residential
development may be removed to accommodate the roadway alignment
in the northern portion of the Site. Depending on the final
location of the proposed residences , large trees located within
certain designated building envelopes may be removed or
adversely affected by grading and construction activities .
(c) The Final EIR discusses the Project ' s
impacts on wildlife on pages 131-138 . Portions of the annual
grassland and savanna habitat on the Site would be removed as a
result of the Project but most significant habitat on the Site
would be preserved. Extension of suburban development would,
however, reduce the habitat value of the Site and adjacent
areas . Unless measures are implemented to protect the
intermittent creek on the Site, the homeowners association may
construct fences along and across the stream, obstructing
movement corridor for some wildlife.
(d) The EIR recommends as mitigation
measures preservation of stream areas , preservation of large
trees, landscaping with native species, treating the riparian
corridor as an environmental feature and not as a grading and
drainage easement, final development plan review for building
site setbacks, a sensitive plant survey prior to construction,
retention of certain trees when improvements to Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard are installed, and accommodation of oak trees
if the school site itself is expanded.
(e) The Final EIR also recommends that.,
prior to construction, the Site should again be surveyed for
sensitive plant species during the flowering period in early
spring.
(f) The riparian corridor which is
recommended for special environmental consideration is located
largely or entirely within the lands designated as Parks and
Recreation. These lands will be offered for dedication to the
State. This riparian corridor also may be subject to the
jurisdiction of the State Department of Fish and Game. The
General Plan Amendment does not designate the riparian corridor
as a grading and drainage easement .
(g) A field reconnaissance was completed,
and no sensitive plant or animal species were found or observed
on the Site. Although one individual stated at the public
hearing that Alameda whipsnakes could be present on this type
of land, this study indicates that they are not .
(h) The listing of unavoidable impacts in
the EIR states that loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable
39
impact . The EIR states that the cumulative impact of an
increased presence of people and domestic animals will result
in a loss of wildlife habitat value, and that the effect of the
Project on the creek channel will depend upon grading,
setbacks, and landscape materials .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) As set forth in section IV.E, below,
the Project ' s impact on wildlife habitat , while unavoidable,
are not significant .
(b) The remaining impacts of the Project
upon biologic resources are not significant .
(c) In the alternative, the impact of the
Project upon biologic resources are mitigated to insignificance
by the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures . The
recommended riparian corridor is incorporated into this General
Plan Amendment because of the Parks and Recreation designation,
as set forth below. The remaining mitigation measures either
will be incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions
of approval in connection with subsequent development
applications . To the extent that the recommended mitigation
measures are not incorporated into this General Plan Amendment ,
the recommended mitigation measures relate to specific and
final development plans , and it is not feasible to impose these
mitigation measures in connection with the general designations
contained in this General Plan Amendment .
(d) With refer-ence to the recommendation
that the riparian corridor be treated as an important
environmental feature pursuant to text in the General Plan
Amendment , the General Plan Amendment was modified to include
Parks and Recreation lands and this corridor is largely or
entirely included within such designated lands . This
modification is substantially similar to, and accomplishes the
purpose of , the EIR' s recommendation . Accordingly, this
recommended mitigation measure has been incorporated into the
Project . In the alternative , this modification to the General
Plan Amendment incorporates this recommended measure into the
Amendment and accomplishes the goals of this measure, thereby
diminishing or obviating any mitigating benefits of adopting
this measure . In the alternative, to the extent that this
measure is not incorporated into the General Plan Amendment it
is infeasible to adopt this mitigation measure because the
lands are designated Parks and Recreation and will be offered
for dedication.
40
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the above impacts on biologic resources are not
insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance, th=
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
Project override any such significant impacts , as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, .below) .
U. Ener
- 1 . Facts .
(a) The Final EIR discusses the Project ' s
impact on energy on page 139 . Development of the residential
subdivision will involve direct use of energy for construction
and indirect use for production of materials .
(b) Based on a 20-year study period, the
most substantial use of energy for the subdivision will be for
residential operation (heating, cooling, lighting, etc . ) . This
is estimated to amount to about 50% of the total long-term
energy use. The second highest energy use will be a fuel
consumption for travel to and from the subdivision . This is
estimated to be about 31% of long-term input .
(c) The estimated 20-year level of energy
consumption for the subdivision is not unusual for the level of
development proposed, and no extraordinary energy demand is
anticipated . Therefore, subdivision development will not have
significant impact on energy resources , although it will have a
minor , long-term incremental impact .
(d) The EIR recommends as a mitigation
measure that later stages of development review include efforts
to reduce long-term energy consumption .
(e) In the listing of unavoidable impacts ,
the EIR states that development of the Project will involve
increased energy consumption for construction, production of
materials , and household and automobile activities by residents .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) As set forth in section IV. I , below,
the energy related impact of the Project , while unavoidable, is
not significant . The impact of the Project is not significant
relative to similar impacts that any residential development
project has on energy consumption .
41
(b) The remaining impacts of the Project
relating to energy are not significant .
(c ) In the alternative, the energy impacts
of the Project will be mitigated to insignificance by the
imposition of the recommended mitigation measure. This
mitigation measure will be incorporated into the Project or
imposed as a condition of approval in connection with
subsequent development applications . To the extent that this
mitigation measure is not incorporated into this General Plan
Amendment , this mitigation measure relates to specific and
final development plans , and it is infeasible to impose this
mitigation measure in connection with the general designations
contained in this General Plan Amendment . The recommended
mitigation measure specifically refers to later stages of
subdivision review.
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
the Project ' s impacts on energy are not insignificant or
reduced to insignificance, the environmental , economic , social
and other benefits of the Project override and outweigh any
such significant impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
V. Growth Inducing Impact .
1 . Facts .
(a) The Final EIR discusses the potential
growth inducing effects of the Project on Page 141-142 .
(b) The Site is bounded on the west by
lands designated "single family residential - low density on
the north by lands designated "general open space'' ; on the east
by lands designated "general open space" and "single family
residential - low density" ; and on the south by an open space
parcel that has been offered to Contra Costa County for a park ,
along with Blackhawk Road. South of Blackhawk Road are lands
within the Town of Danville that are designated "single family
residential - low density" ( 1 to 3 units/net acre) .
(c) The open space lands in Blackhawk and
Magee Ranch are deed restricted, so that further development is
not feasible . Similarly, lands in Mt . Diablo State Park that
are north of the Site are not subject to development pressures .
(d) The Site is in the existing ''sphere of
influence'' of sewer and water districts .
(e) The 1964 Master Plan showed 18
residences , along with private recreation facilities and 7
42
campus buildings , in the area that is now proposed for
residential development .
( f) The listing of unavoidable impacts of
the Project in the EIR does not list growth inducing impacts as
unavoidable .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) The Project will not have a growth
inducing impact , and any growth inducing impacts will be
insignificant . There are no sizeable parcels of land that have
the potential for subdivision within the vicinity of the Site ,
and substantial land within the vicinity of the Site is
restricted by deed or by inclusion in the state park from
further development . The portion of the Site to be developed
will be surrounded by open space land, parklands , and Mt .
Diablo Scenic Road ,
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
the Project will have any growth inducing impact or to the
extent that any growth inducing impact of the Project is
significant , the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project override and outweigh any such growth
inducing or significant impact , as more fully stated in the
Statement, of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain
environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the Final EIR
which may be determined to be significant , unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts ofthe Project .
A. Loss Of Agricultural Productivity .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 142 that the
Site is currently used as visual open space . The Site is not
currently used for agricultural production . The Site is
suitable for grazing and portions are suitable for dryland
farming of small grains . Development of the Site would result
in an incremental loss of these potential agricultural lands .
The Important Farmland Map issued by the State indicates that
the Site is not designated prime farmland . The agricultural
43
value of the Site is comparable to lands that occur throughout
the hills of the Diablo Range . In Contra Costa County, the
areas of "prime farmlands" and "farmlands of statewide
importance" are located in the Brentwood area .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) The incremental loss of potential
agricultural lands , while unavoidable, is not significant . The
Project primarily is an in-fill development , and the
differences in character between this Project and the
immediately adjacent developed areas , are insignificant . The
Site is currently used primarily for the School and as open
space , and is not primarily used for agriculture .
(b) In the alternative , to the extent that
this impact is otherwise significant , this impact is mitigated
to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures which are
incorporated into this General Plan Amendment or will be
incorporated during subsequent development approvals , will
. reduce the impact of the Project on the character and open
space appearance of the Site by preserving additional open
space, possibly including the northern knoll , and by placing
additional restrictions on the appearance, siting and
characteristics of residential units .
(c) In the alternative , to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible incremental adverse impact of
the Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures which are incorporated into
this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated during
subsequent development approvals , the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project override this
potentially significant , adverse impact as more fully stated in
the. Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under the alternatives to the Project ,
except under the No-Project alternative, which alternative is
rejected as more fully described in Section VI below.
44
B . Community Facilities .
1 . Facts .
(a) The development of residential
subdivisions on the Site would require a variety of community
services . The added burden on the Sheriff ' s Department , San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District , and other services
represents a cost to the community. Approval of the project
implies a commitment to provide the services required by a
suburban population. There could be long-term costs to the
Town of Danville, such as the cost of providing park and
recreation facilities without adequate revenues .
(b) State law limits the ability of this
Board to reject or modify this Project based on school impacts
and the developer of this Project will be required to pay a
school impact fee which may be used to fund school improvements .
(c) The utilities and other service
providers who will serve the Project have sufficient capacity
to provide service to the Project .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) The Project' s impact on demand for
municipal services , while unavoidable, is insignificant . As
discussed above in the EIR and in Section III of these
findings , the Project ' s sewer and water supply impacts are
insignificant . With respect to schools , school fees would be
applied to each residence to mitigate the impacts of
residential development on over-capacity at the elementary
school level . With respect to other public services , there is
sufficient capacity to serve the Project .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
the Project ' s impact on demand for community services is
potentially significant , this impact of the Project will be
mitigated by several features which are a part of , or which
will be incorporated into , the Project during subsequent
development approvals . These features include the mitigation
measures for water , sewer , schools , fire protection and police
protection, and other services discussed in Section III of
these findings .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
the impact of the Project on community services is not
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
45
economic , social and other benefits of the Project override
this potentially significant adverse impact , as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(d) The above-described adverse impact of
the Project would similarly be an unavoidable and irreversible
significant impact under any of the alternatives to the Project
identified in the Final EIR, except under the no-project
alternative, which alternative is rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
C. Traffic And Circulation .
1 . Facts .
( a) Development of the property would
generate an estimated 450 average daily trips , nearly all of
which would be oriented toward the west . This would represent
a "minor" increase in traffic volumes on roadways linking the
Site to I-680 . (Final EIR, page 142 )
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable, is not significant . The Project ' s impact on
traffic is "minor , " and the Project will lead to improvements
of Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, thus mitigating the Project ' s
impacts and also helping to relieve a preexisting traffic
problem. Such improvements to Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard are
a benefit of this Project .
(b) Any conditions of approval and
mitigation measures discussed herein and imposed upon future
development approvals would further reduce the initial
Project ' s impacts upon traffic to a level of insignificance .
Thus , to the extent that this impact of the Project is
potentially significant , this impact may still be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by several features which could be
incorporated into the Project during subsequent development
approvals . These features include the various mitigation
measures discussed in Section III , above .
(c) To the extent that this impact of the
Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance , despite
the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic , social and other benefits
of the Project override this adverse impact , as more fully
46
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
minor adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an
unavoidable and irreversible impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative, which alternative is rejected
as more fully described in Section VI , below.
D. Loss Of Open Space .
1 . Facts .
(a) The development would be visible from
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and from some locations within the
community of Diablo . Following development , short-range views
of the Site would be dominated by engineered slopes and
residential development . After landscaped plants become
established, and with revegetation of graded slopes ,
short-range views of the Site would be similar to views of
residential projects in the vicinity. There are almost no
long-range views of the Site, with the exception of glimpses of
the Site from the upper segment of Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard. (EIR, page 143 . )
2 . Findings .
Based upon EIR and the entire record, this Board finds
that :
( a) The loss of open space and the visual
impact of that loss , while unavoidable, will not be
significant . After landscaped plants become established and
graded slopes are revegetated, short range views of the site
will be similar to views of existing nearby residential
projects , and there are almost no long range views of the site
from nearby areas . The Project will help to preserve
substantial open space on the Site, and the actual loss of open
space, after landscaping and revegetation, will be limited to
the residential lots themselves .
(b) In the alternative, the above-described
unavoidable adverse impact of the Project will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance by several features which are a part
of , or which would be incorporated into , the Project including
Project changes made subsequent to the preparation of the EIR
and mitigation measures adopted pursuant to subsequent
development approvals . These features include the utilization
of grading techniques , landscaping, placement of residential
47
lots and other design features which have yet to be approved by
this Board . These features also include review of final maps
and landscape plans by the appropriate County officials .
(c) These factors also include further
consideration of development of the northern knoll pursuant to
this Board ' s modification of the General Plan text under Single
Family Residential-Low Density and designation of open space
land in both the northern and southern sections of the Site .
These modifications to the Project ' s design substantially
reduce the visual impact of the Project such that the visual
impact of the Project would be further reduced .
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
impact of the Project is not mitigated to a level of
insignificance, despite the mitigation measures discussed
herein and despite mitigation measures attached to subsequent
development approvals , the environmental , economic , social and
other benefits of the Project override the significant adverse
impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
(e) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project ,, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative , which alternative is rejected
as more fully described in Section VI , below.
E . Loss Of Wildlife Habitat .
1 . Facts .
(a) Although rare and endangered species of
animals and plants are not known to occur on the property, it
is a good wildlife habitat for deer , small mammals , reptiles ,
and insects . The cumulative impact of the increased presence
of people and domestic. animals on the site, along with grading,
may result in loss of wildlife habitat value . The effect of
the project on the creek channel would depend on the grading
concept , setback of structures from the creek , and the wildlife
value of landscape plant materials . There is already a human
and domestic animal presence on the Site .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
48
( a) These impacts of the Project , while
unavoidable ,, are not significant . Overall , the impact of the
Project on the value of the wildlife habitat and plant habitat
will depend in part on the final tentative map, grading and
a development plans which may ultimately be approved by this
s=' Board. . Humans and domestic animals are already present on the
Project Site and there is substantial development on properties
surrounding the Site .
(b) To the extent that these unavoidable
and irreversible adverse impacts of the Project are not
insignificant .. The environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project override these adverse impacts , as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) ,
(c) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impacts of the Project would similarly be an
unavoidable and irreversible significant impact under any of
the alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR,
except under the no-project alternative, which alternative is
rejected as more fully described in Section VI , below .
F. Water Quality.
1 . Facts .
Surface runoff from the site will contain detergents ,
grease , oil , litter , and other substances . Such impurities are
not toxic to fish and wildlife in concentrations common to
suburban development . However , they do constitute a minor ,
adverse cumulative impact . (EIR, page 143 . )
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable , is not significant . Any impurities which are
released into surface runoff as a result of the Project would
not be toxic to fish and wildlife in concentrations common to
suburban development . The EIR concludes that these impacts are
"minor . "
(b) In the alternative , to the extent that
this impact is significant , this impact of the Project will be
mitigated by measures which will be made a part of the Project
during subsequent development approvals by this Board .
49
(c ) To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible minor adverse impact .of the Project is not
mitigated to insignificance, the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project override this adverse
impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
no-project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section VI , below.
G. Construction-Related Problems .
1 . Facts .
These problems include noise, dust , erosion,
siltation, and construction traffic . Through use of best
management practices , these problems can be controlled. and kept
to a minimum. (EIR page 143 . )
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable, is not significant . Proper management practices
should control any problems associated with construction noise,
dust , erosion, siltation and traffic to a minimum.
Furthermore, most of these impacts would only be temporary.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
these impacts are potentially significant , these impacts of the
Project can be mitigatedby measures discussed in the EIR and
previously in these findings . These measures will be
implemented in connection with future project approvals , and it
is not feasible to implement mitigation measures relating to
specific construction practices in connection with a general
plan amendment .
(c ) To the extent that these impacts of the
Project are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
Project override this impact , as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
50
e
4
(d) The above-described impacts of the
Project would similarly be an unavoidable and irreversible
impacts under any of the alternatives to the Project identified
in the Final EIR, except under the No-Project alternative,
which alternative is rejected as more fully described in
Section VI , below.
H. Earthquake Hazards .
1 . Facts .
Potential earthquake-caused damage may be
unavoidable . Some buildings could be damaged by the
groundshaking and the secondary effects of a nearby
earthquake . The extent of damage would depend on many factors
including characteristics of earthquake shaking, design and
construction of the buildings , and height and steepness of .
engineered slopes .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) . This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable, is not significant . The risk is not significant
relative to other developed areas because the entire region is
subject to earthquake risk , and routine construction practices
minimize this risk .
(b) In the alternative, this impact of the
Project will be mitigated by a level of insignificance by
several features which should be incorporated into the Project
by this Board during subsequent development approvals . These
features include proper grading, design and construction
practices and compliance with provisions of the Uniform
Building Code relating to seismic safety, which compliance is
required of all developments such as this Project . Further ,
the economic impact of earthquake shaking may also be mitigated
by owners of developed lots who purchase earthquake insurance
on the new homes as that insurance will cover most of the cost
of any damage .
(c ) To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures
discussed herein which should be imposed by this Board on
future development approvals , the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project will provide this
adverse impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
51
e,
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
no-project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more
fully described in Section VI , below. In addition, the risk of
ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is a risk of almost
any residential or other development within the seismically
active San Francisco Bay Region .
I . Energy Consumption .
1 . Facts .
Development of the site will involve direct use of
energy for construction and indirect use for production of
materials . Also , long-term energy input will be required for
the operation of households , operation of public utilities ,
maintenance of project facilities , and operation of automobiles .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
( a) This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable , is not significant . The impact of the Project is
not significant relative to the similar impacts that any
residential development project would have on energy
consumption .
(b) To the extent that this impact of the
Project is not insignificant , the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project override any adverse
impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
. ( c) The above-described impacts of the
Project on energy conconsumption would similarly be an
unavoidable and irreversible impact under any of the.
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative , which alternative is rejected
as more fully described in Section VI , below . In addition , the
impacts of the Project on energy consumption is an impact of
almost any residential or other development project .
52
J . Air Quality.
1 . Facts .
The vehicular emissions from the traffic generated by
Project residents are a minor , cumulative impact .
2 .' Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable, is not significant . The vehicular emissions are
considered to be "minor'' impacts.
(b) To the extent that these impacts of the
Project are not insignificant , the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project override this impact ,
as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
(c) The above-described impacts of the
Project would similarly be an unavoidable and irreversible
impact under any of the alternatives to the Project identified
in the Final EIR, except under the no project alternative,
which alternative is rejected as more fully described in
Section VI , below .
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , this Board
adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding any unavoidable environmental impacts
of the Project , as discussed above, and the anticipated
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
General Plan Amendment and Project . To the extent that any
impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the Project may be
significant adverse impacts , this Board finds that such impacts
are overridden by the benefits of the General Plan Amendment
and the Project as set forth below .
M:
A. Generally. '
This Board finds that , to the extent that any impacts
( including cumulative impacts ) attributable to. this Project
remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the
environmental , social , economic and other considerations set
forth herein because these Project benefits outweigh any
significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
the Project . This Board also finds that the mitigation
53
r
measures which were recommended in the EIR but were not or will
not be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment or the
Project are infeasible with respect to the Project , because
such measures would impose limitations and restrictions on the
development of the Project so as to prohibit the attainment of
specific social , economic and other benefits of the Project
which this. Board finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts of the
Project . This Board further finds that the alternatives to the
General Plan Amendment and the Project set forth in the EIR are
infeasible because such alternatives would prohibit the
attainment of specific social , economic and other benefits of
the Project which this Board finds outweigh the environmental
benefits of the alternatives . Specifically, this Board finds
that the following social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Project
notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts of the
Project : .
1 . Provision of needed housing ,
The Project will provide needed executive housing for
Diablo area residents and the region, which will indirectly
stimulate economic growth in the area as more local employees
are able to find suitable housing. Purchasers of homes on the
Site are likely to include local residents who are move-up
homebuyers desiring a larger , more upscale home . Therefore ,
construction of the Project will make existing housing in
different price ranges available to the surrounding community
and the region . In addition, the Project will not
substantially affect the jobs/housing balance and will help
meet the housing needs and goals identified in the Contra Costa
County General Plan.
2 . Public services and facilities .
The Project will contribute substantial in-lieu park
dedication fees , school fees , applicable County traffic
mitigation fees , and funding for other improvements , as
indicated in the EIR. The Project also provides a means for
the Athenian School and other neighbors to arrange for a
cooperative effort to improve Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard .
Numerous local residents testified that this road currently is
a problem area .
3 . Viability of the Athenian School .
The Project will improve the viability of the Athenian
School . As a private secondary school , the School is a
valuable resource to the local and regional community, as well
as to a broader constituency. Approximately one-half of the
School ' s 250 day students come from local families . The
54
r
i
School ' s Board of Trustees has determined that it would be best
for the School to turn the northern part of the Site into a
productive endowment directed toward ( a) financial aid for
students , (b) benefitting faculty, and (c) eliminating the
school ' s debt and improving the school ' s financial position .
These benefits to an educational institution which serves the
community and provides a unique alternative for some families
are substantial social and economic benefits of the General
Plan Amendment and the Project .
4 . Funding for moderate income scholarships .
A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the
northern portion of the Site will be used by the school to fund
additional scholarships for low and moderate income students .
This sale is conditioned upon approval of a general plan
amendment . This funding for low and moderate income
scholarships would not be available if the General Plan
Amendment is not approved. This funding represents a
substantial social and economic benefit of this Project .
5 . Traffic improvements and public services .
The Project includes construction of improvements on
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, to the extent that such
improvements can be implemented through a cooperative effort
between the Athenian School and other adjoining neighbors . If
such improvements cannot be implemented through such a
cooperative approach, then this project will include
construction of improvements to that portion of Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard which is within the Site .
The General Plan Amendment thus presents an
opportunity to resolve the long-standing problems associated
with responsibility for maintenance and public use of
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard .
6 . Provision of construction jobs .
This General Plan Amendment , and development of the
Project pursuant to subsequent land use approvals which may be
granted, will provide construction jobs over a period of one or
more years .
7 . Environmental benefits and open space .
The Project includes a number of environmental
benefits . The General Plan Amendment will eliminate the
possibility of the intensive campus expansion envisioned in the
1964 Master Plan . This intensive development would include
55
more buildings , more population, more additional traffic , and
less open space than the Project .
The Project will increase designated open space, site
homes in a manner which will preserve the natural landscape;
minimize grading; and preserve the majority of oak trees . The
Project will permanently preserve major portions of the Site as
open space, with no cost to the public for acquisition .
Project plans and Conditions of Approval for subsequent
development approvals will call for improving public access to
these preserved open space areas , and also include plans for
connections between the nearby trail system and the network of
regional trails .
In addition, the Project addresses the use of the
northern knoll . This Board, in approving this Project ,
instructed staff to carefully review any proposed development
of the northern knoll to be sure that the impact on the knoll
is minimized .
8 . Public revenues ,
The General Plan Amendment and the Project will
substantially increase the assessed valuation of the Site and
beneficially impact property values in the vicinity, thereby
creating additional property tax revenue for the county on a
long-term basis . During construction of the Project ,
additional public revenues will result from sales taxes on
building materials and payroll taxes for construction workers .
9 . Child care .
If the Site is developed pursuant to future land use
approvals , the developer applying for such approvals will be
required to comply with the provisions of the Contra Costa
County Child Care ordinance . Compliance with this ordinance
may involve a payment from the developer at that time for the
funding of child care programs . Such funding pursuant to
future development approvals would not be available without
approval of this Project .
The benefits listed in these Subsections A. 1-A. 9 ,
together with all other 'applicableinformation in the record,
are the basis for the additional specific findings of
overriding consideration set forth below.
B . Agriculture And Land Use Impacts .
With respect to any unavoidable impacts of the Project
on agriculture and land use { including reduction of visual open
space and incremental loss of land suitable for grazing and
56
dryland farming of some grains) , this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of
the Project may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and conditions of approval which are imposed or would
be imposed on the Project prior to subsequent development
approvals . This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be
avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which
Alternative would eliminate the Project benefits as set forth
above .
C . Visual Impacts .
With respect to any unavoidable visual impacts of the
Project , this Board finds that the social , economic and other
considerations set forth above warrant approval of the General
Plan Amendment and the Project notwithstanding the fact that
these impacts may not be avoided despite the numerous
mitigations measures and Conditions of Approval which are
imposed or would be imposed on the Project prior to subsequent
development approvals . This Board also finds that these
impacts cannot be completely avoided except by approval of the
No Project Alternative, which Alternative eliminates the
Project benefits as set forth above .
In addition, this Board finds that a change in visual
character of a portion of the Site from open space uses to
residential use is a largely subjective one which will be
perceived by some as an insignificant and/or positive change .
In addition, the preservation of the open space is a visual
benefit of the Project .
D. Geology/Grading Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable potential hazards of
earthquake shaking, including building damage, disruption of
utilities , road failure and fire, this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts may
not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed or would be imposed on
the Project prior to subsequent development approvals . This
Board also finds that these impacts cannot be avoided except by
approval of the No Project Alternative which alternative
eliminates the Project ' s benefits as set forth above .
57
E . Traffic And Circulation Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts
of the Project , this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Project
notwithstanding the fact that these impacts may not be avoided
despite the numerous mitigation measures and conditions of
approval which are imposed or would be imposed on the Project
prior to subsequent development approvals . This Board also
finds that these impacts cannot be entirely avoided except by
approval of the No Project Alternative , which alternative
eliminates the benefits of the Project as set forth above .
F . Vegetation And Wildlife Habitat .
With respect to unavoidable cumulative impacts of
grading and the increased presence of people and domesticated
animals on the Site on loss of wildlife habitat value , this
Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , social ,
economic and other considerations warrant approval of the
General Plan Amendment and the Project notwithstanding the fact
that these impacts which cannot be avoided despite the numer.ous
mitigation measures and conditions of approval which are
imposed or will be imposed on the Project prior to subsequent
development approvals . This Board also finds that these
impacts cannot be entirely avoided except by approval of the No
Project Alternative, which Alternative would eliminate the
Project benefits as set forth above . Further , the effect of
the Project on the creek channel would depend on the grading
concept , setback of structures from the creek and wildlife
value of landscape plant materials , and this effect may not be
an unavoidable significant impact .
G. Community Facilities Impacts .
With respect to the Project ' s impact on the need for
additional public services , including fire and sheriff
services , and, possibly, provision of park and recreation
facilities by the Town of Danville , this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Project notwithstanding these impacts of the Project
may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed or would be imposed on
the Project prior to subsequent development approvals . This
Board- also finds that these impacts cannot be entirely avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative , which
alternative eliminates the Project benefits as set forth above .
58
r'
H . Water Quality.
With respect to any possible cumulative unavoidable
impacts of the Project on water quality (specifically, possible
contamination of surface runoff) , this Board finds that the
aforementioned environmental , social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment
and the Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of
the Project may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and conditions of ,approval which are imposed or would
be imposed on the Project prior to subsequent development
approvals . This Board finds that these impacts cannot be
avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative , which
Alternative eliminates the Project benefits as set forth
above .
I . Construction-Related Problems .
With respect to unavoidable construction-related
impacts of the Project (including noise , dust , erosion,
siltation and construction traffic) (most of which, through use
of best management practices, can be controlled and kept to a
minimum) , this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , social, economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Project
notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of the Project may
not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and
conditions of approval which are imposed or would be imposed on
the Project prior to subsequent development approvals . This
Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided except by
approval of the No Project Alternative, which alternative would
eliminate the Project benefits as set forth above .
J . Energy Consumption.
With respect to unavoidable impacts of the Project on
direct energy consumption for construction, indirect energy
consumption for production of materials , and long-term energy
input for operation of households , public utilities ,
automobiles and maintenance of project facilities , this Board
finds that the aforementioned environmental , social , economic
and other considerations:,•warrant approval of the General Plan
Amendment and the Project notwithstanding the fact that these
impacts of the Project may not be avoided despite the numerous
mitigation measures and conditions or approval which are
imposed or would be imposed on the Project prior to subsequent
development approvals . This Board finds that these impacts
also cannot be avoided except by approval of the No Project
Alternative, which Alternative eliminates the Project benefits
as set forth above .
59
K . Air Quality.
With respect to any unavoidable cumulative impacts of
the Project on air quality due to vehicular emissions , this
Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , social ,
economic and other considerations warrant approval of the
General Plan Amendment and the Project notwithstanding the fact
that these impacts of the Project may not be avoided despite
the numerous mitigation measures and conditions of approval
which are imposed or would be imposed on the Project prior to
subsequent development approvals . This Board finds that these
impacts also cannot be avoided except by approval of the No
Project Alternative, which Alternative eliminates the Project
benefits as set forth above .
VI . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The EIR discusses three (3 ) alternatives to the
General Plan Amendment . The no-project alternative would
retain the existing General Plan designation of Public and
' Semi-public . The designated environmental alternative consists
of the School ' s development concept with certain mitigation
measures included. Finally, the access alternative would
incorporate two intersections providing access to the homesites
on the Site .
The EIR also sets forth an integrated project
alternative, although this apparent alternative is actually the
same as the Project , as the cross references in the text reveal .
- With respect to the scope of the alternatives
considered, this Board finds that the EIR sets forth a
reasonable range of alternatives to the General Plan Amendment
and the Project . Specifically, this Board finds that an
analysis of alternate sites for the General Plan Amendment is
not desirable, feasible, or required, because the purpose of
this. General Plan Amendment , pursuant to the expanded General
Plan Study which was ordered by this Board, was and is to
provide a master plan for the Athenian School land, which is
dominated by the Athenian School as an existing facility . It
is infeasible to evaluate alternate sites for a.- General Plan
Amendment designed to provide planning for an eisting
facility, as the existing facility will remain in its current
location . It is also infeasible to evaluate alternate sites
for a development which is proposed to be adjacent to ,
accompanying and corollary to an existing facility .
This Board also finds that analysis of alternate sites
is infeasible because this site is uniquely able to provide -
funding for the Athenian School , while also providing for open
space dedication and private use by homeowners . The use of any
60
alternate sites .could not attain the basic objectives of the
Project , as they are not located adjacent to , or owned by the
School , and' accordingly, the use of alternate sites is rejected
by this Board.
A. The "No-Project" Alternative .
1 . Facts .
( a) The ''no-project" alternative would
retain the existing general plan designation of "public and
semi-public" for the entire Site . This alternative would
preserve existing open space , wildlife habitat and watershed,
but could also allow development of the Site under the existing
1964 Master Plan designation, which calls for relatively
intense school uses . These uses , if developed, would create
more development and more traffic than this Project .
(b) This alternative, together with a
gradual phased expansion of Athenian School facilities which
could occur if this alternative is approved, does not provide
for correction of the existing deficiencies of Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard . Problems with Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard
include ( i ) uncertain responsibility for road maintenance;
( ii ) unresolved questions about access rights ; ( iii ) traffic
safety and liability concerns ; and ( iv) drainage problems .
( c) This alternative does not include any
designation for park and recreation lands . This alternative
does not include any designation of open space land to be
preserved by enforceable private restrictions .
(d) As stated elsewhere in these findings ,
many of the environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment
and the Project have been will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance, and this General Plan Amendment and this
Project will provide many benefits , including dedication of
park lands , preservation, of additional open space land,
continued viability of the Athenian School , funding for
scholarship programs , public revenues , and construction jobs .
2 . Findi*nqs .
This Board finds that the no-project alternative is
infeasible and. less desirable than the General Plan Amendment ,
and rejects the no-project alternative for the following
reasons :
( a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment , or which will be incorporated into
future development approvals as conditions of approval , have
61
J
1
substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most of
the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the
Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived
mitigating benefits of approving the no-project alternative .
(b) The no-project alternative would
effectively prevent the Athenian School from proceeding to sell
the northern portion of the Site to raise money for the
School ' s endowment , to provide for the continued viability of
the School , and to provide funding for programs such as
scholarships for low and moderate income students .
(c ) The no-project alternative would
eliminate the special study for traffic improvements on
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, which in addition to mitigating
local impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the Project ,
would help to improve a roadway which has been a problem in the
past .
(d) Approval of the no-project alternative
would result in the loss of 45 homesites which would be
developed on the Site, and. the loss of available housing in
other price. ranges as the "move-up'' market for this Project
would not be created. Approval of the no-project alternative
would also result in the loss of construction jobs which would
be created by development of the northern portion of the Site
over a period of several years .
(e) Approval of the no-project -alternative
would eliminate a potential source of funding for traffic
.improvements along with other fees and dedications which would
be collected or made in connection with the General Plan
Amendment and the Project .
( f ) The environmental , social , .economic and
other benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment and the
Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations would not be obtained .
B . Environmental Alternative .
1 . Facts .
( a) This alternative is based on the
School ' s development concept , but incorporates various changes
developed in the EIR . This alternative attempts to reduce the
height of graded slopes and to protect the driplines of oaks .
Residences in proposed lots 1-9 and 25-32 would be limited to
one story in height . Lots 4 and 29 would be eliminated to
provide ( a) a greater setback from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard,
(b) more flexibi.lity in the siting of the remaining lots , ( c ) a
62
Na
i
less crowded entry to the development and (d) more space for
landscape screening along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard. This
alternative envisions that rearyard . fence ; would be set back 25
feet from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and that this buffer
strip would be landscaped, using primarily native California
vegetation, including trees and brush .
(b) This alternative includes widening
Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard to provide twin 10-foot-wide travel
lanes , with 4-foot-wide paved shoulders on each edge of the
road (total width 28 feet) , a new "T" intersection to be
constructed on the old Calle Cresp easement at Blackhawk Road,
and various improvements to Diablo Road - Blackhawk Road to
accommodate this new intersection . The widening of Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard would be done exclusively on the Athenian
School side of the roadway, except at the extreme north end of
the property, where widening is recommended on the west side of
the road ,
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Environmental Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment
and the Project , and rejects the Environmental Alternative for
the following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Project or which will be
adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent development
approvals have substantially mitigated or will substantially
mitigate most of the environmental effects of the General Plan
Amendment and the Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating benefits of approving this alternative .
(b) The Environmental Alternative is
legally questionable because it requires almost all of the
improvements to Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard be made upon the
School ' s property adjoining the Boulevard, thus requiring the
School to bear a burden for making these improvements which
goes beyond the impacts which are created by the General Plan
Amendment and development of the Project .
(c) Approval of this alternative would
reduce the benefits to be obtained from the General Plan
Amendment and development of the Project by restricting the
ability to develop homesites on the Site . Accordingly ,
approval of this alternative would reduce the environmental ,
social , economic and other benefits which could be derived from
this General Plan Amendment and the Project as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations . For example, the
amount of funds which may be available to promote the continued
63
<#
viability of the School and provide funding for programs such
as scholarships may be reduced.
(d) In the alternative, this Board finds
that this alternative cannot be imposed or adopted at this
stage in the land use approval process , because this Board is
approving only a general plan amendment , and those aspects of
this alternative which are different from the proposed general
plan amendment and Project do not relate to land use
designations such as are setforth in general plan amendments ,
but instead relate to mitigation measures and conditions of
approval should and will be considered during the review of
subsequent land use applications and which, if feasible , may be
imposed as conditions of approval . Accordingly, it is
infeasible for this Board to adopt this alternative as an
alternative to the General Plan Amendment . .
C . Integrated Project Alternative.
1 . Facts .
The " Integrated Project Alternative'' described on
page 148 of the EIR is actually a reference to the General Plan
Amendment and the Project , rather than an alternative to the
Project . The Project ' s description is based on the preliminary
development plan for the School ' s conceptual development , with
added discussion of the planting of graded slopes , and a
potential lot line adjustment with the state park , which are
also discussed elsewhere in the EIR.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Integrated Project
Alternative is identical to or substantially similar to the
General Plan Amendment and the Project . Accordingly, the
Integrated Project Alternative, to the extent it is included or
incorporated in the General .Plan Amendment as approved by the
Board, has been adopted and is not rejected .
In the alternative, to the extent that the Integrated
Project Alternative is not identical to or substantially
similar to the General Plan Amendment and the Project , the
Board finds that the Integrated Project Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment
and the Project , and rejects the Integrated Project Alternative
for the following reasons :
( a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Project , or which will be
incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval to
subsequent development approvals , have substantially mitigated
64
or will substantially mitigate most of the environmental
effects of the General` Plan Amendment and the Project ,
excepting only those impacts which are listed in the final EIR
as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived
mitigating benefits of approving this alternative .
k
4{
(b) To the extent that this alternative
would reduce the number or location of homesites within the
Site, approval of this alternative would reduce the possibility
of obtaining traffic improvements to Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard, and would reduce the environmental , social , economic
and other benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment and
the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations .
D . Access Alternative .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR at page 148 identifies an
access alternative, a project redesigned with two entrance
roads and a located park access road . The north entrance would
intersect South Gate Road. This connection could allow Park
traffic to bypass a particularly hazardous segment of Mt .
Diablo Scenic Boulevard . Lots on the western portion of the
Site could be accessed from a roadway intersecting Mt . Diablo
Scenic Boulevard 300 feet north of the Project ' s proposed Mt .
Diablo Scenic Boulevard intersection .
(b) The revised park access road would turn
east from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, near the north boundary
of the property, would curve to the right , climbing the
hillside in an open area . This would bypass a segment of the
existing Southgate Road that has sharp curves and would be
expensive to improve . The presentation by Staff at this
Board ' s hearing indicated that the State has rejected any new
access route through the Site as environmentally insensitive .
This alternative' includes such a new route .
(c) The revised access road would be
located substantially on property which is not a part of the
Site, and which is not owned by the School . Figure 41 in the
draft EIR also shows that the location of the subdivision road
pursuant to this alternative requires a lot line adjustment
with the State of California . The State of California has
indicated it does not wish to pursue or obtain a lot line
adjustment .
65
r•
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Access Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project , and rejects the
Access Alternative .for the following reasons :
( a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the General Plan Amendment and the Project , or which will be
adopted as conditions of approval at the subsequent development
approvals , have substantially mitigated or will substantially
mitigate most of the environmental effects of the General Plan
Amendment and the Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating benefits of approving this alternative.
(b) The access alternative is not feasible
because it requires the State of California to agree to a lot
line adjustment affecting the boundary between the Site and the
Mt . Diablo State Park, and the State of California has stated
that it does not wish to pursue or obtain a lot line
adjustment . This alternative also is undesirable because of
the adverse environmental impact of a new access road —
(c)
oad —(c) Approval of this alternative would
reduce the benefits to be obtained from the general plan
amendment and development of the Project by restricting the
ability to develop home sites on the Site. Accordingly,
approval of this alternative would reduce the environmental ,
social , economic and other benefits which could be derived from
this General Plan Amendment and the Project as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations . The amount of funds
which may be available to promote the continued viability of
the School and provide funding for programs such as
scholarships will be reduced.
(d) In the alternative, this Board finds
that this alternative cannot be imposed or adopted at this
stage in the land use approval process , because this Board is
approving only a general plan amendment , and those aspects of
this alternative which are different from the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Project do not relate to land use
designations such as are set forth in general plan amendments ,
but instead relate to mitigation measures and conditions of
approval which could still be imposed upon subsequent land use
approvals relating to the Project . Accordingly, it is
infeasible for this Board to adopt this alternative as an
alternative to the General Plan Amendment .
66
VII . ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. Modifications To The Project ,
1 . Facts .
( a) The text and map of the General Plan
Amendment were modified by Staff and by this Board to respond
to community and environmental concerns . These modifications
include the addition of a Parks and Recreation designation in
the General Plan Amendment , directing that special
consideration be given to the impact of any development
approval on the knoll area, review of future development to
provide a buffer for impacts to the Mt . Diablo State Park, and
the addition and amendment of trail plans . In addition,
designated open space was added to the area around the Athenian
School campus .
(b) In addition to the modifications to the
General Plan Amendment , the Board, when it approved the General
Plan Amendment , also instructed Staff to take two related
actions . First , a committee will be established to attempt to
resolve the maintenance and operation of Mt . Diablo Scenic
Boulevard in conjunction with all interested parties . Second,
Staff will investigate the best location for a staging location
for .the trails .
(c) The General Plan Amendment
modifications will help to reduce land use and open space
impacts of the Project by devoting special consideration to
future development on the northern knoll , and by increasing the
amount of designated open space and dedicated park lands within
the Site . These modifications to the General Plan Amendment
will not increase any impacts of the Project , because the
modifications to the Project do not increase the number of home
sites or other facilities which could be developed pursuant to
future development approvals after approval of this General
Plan Amendment . There was no evidence submitted to this Board
or to the Planning Commission specifically stating or
suggesting that the changes incorporated into the approved
General Plan Amendment will increase or worsen any impacts of
the Project .
2 . Findings .
Based on the entire record before this Board, this
Board finds that :
( a) The modifications to the General Plan
Amendment do not result in any significant environmental
impacts which were not considered in the Final EIR, and do not
67
h
increase the severity of any environmental impacts considered
in the Final EIR. The General Plan Amendment modifications may
reduce adverse environmental impacts of the General Plan
Amendment and the Project . Therefore, the modifications to the
General Plan Amendment do not constitute changes which require
major or important revisions to the Final EIR.
(b) The modifications to the General Plan
Amendment do not constitute substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the General Plan Amendment or the
Project is undertaken requiring major or important revisions to
the Final EIR. The modifications are changes in the General
Plan Amendment itself , not in the circumstances under which the
General Plan Amendment is being considered.
(c) The modifications to the General Plan
Amendment do not constitute new information relating to the
General Plan Amendment or the Project which shows any
additional significant affects , or more severe significant
affects , when compared to the impacts analyzed in the Final
EIR. Nor do the modifications to the General Plan Amendment
constitute new information creating a need for further
consideration of mitigation measures .
(d) Based on its review of the standards
set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162-15164 , this Board finds that there is
no basis in the record to support requiring the Applicant to
prepare an addendum to the Final EIR, a supplemental EIR, or a
subsequent EIR to address the modifications to the General Plan
Amendment .
VIII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings , This Board adopts the following program in
fulfillment of this requirement :
The developer shall file a written report
with the County Community Development
Department approximately once every six
months , beginning six months following
approval of this Project by the Board of
Supervisors and continuing until the Project
Site is developed pursuant to additional
land use approvals which may be granted by
the County. The written report shall
briefly state the status in implementing
68
,L
each mitigation measure which is adopted as
a Condition of Approval or which is
incorporated into this Project .
Community Development staff shall review the
written report and determine whether there
is any unusual and substantial delay of over
one year in, or obstacle to , implementing .
the adopted or incorporated mitigation
measures which requires action by Department
staff . If the developer requests it , the
result of this review will be provided to
the developer in writing .
If the staff determines that action. is
required, the staff and the developer shall
consult and, if possible, agree upon
additional actions to be- taken to implement
the mitigation measure(s) which is subject
to the delay or obstacle . If and only if
the staff and the developer are unable to
agree upon the additional actions to be
taken, then either staff or the developer
may bring the matter before the Zoning
Administrator for decision whether any
action should be taken and what that action
should be . Staff and the Zoning
Administrator shall be limited to imposing
reasonable actions as permitted by law which
will implement the existing mitigation
measures . In reviewing the timeliness of
the implementation measures , staff shall
consider the project timetable, subject to
reasonable but unanticipated delays due to
weather and the like .
IX. GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this General Plan Amendment and to all findings and
determinations as a whole contained herein .
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings ,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the "applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies , oral and
written evidence submitted into the record , oral and written
evidence submitted into the record, the ETR, resolutions ,
conditions of approval , and the information submitted by the
School , all relating to the Project .
69
v
p
•
B . This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations , that any finding and/or determination required
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject matter of the Project shall be deemed made
if it appears in any portion of these findings and
determinations . All of the foregoing constitute findings and
determinations by this Board whether or not any particular
sentence or clause states such,
C . Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record
relating to the Project , including, without limitation, that
evidence presented in hearings on the Project before the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors . The findings
and determinations constitute the independent findings and
determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully and
completely supported by competent and substantial evidence in
the record as a whole .
70