HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09241991 - 2.2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY., CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO REZONING APPLICATION #2925-RZ
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 33034-90 AND
SUBDIVISION 7597; KAUFMAN AND BROAD, APPLICANT AND OIVNER
' PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) AND THE COUNTY CODE,
AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
I . INTRODUCTION
A. Certification and Overview.
1 . These findings are made by this Board of
Supervisors (this "Board" ) of Contra Costa County (the
"County" ) , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the County regulations promulgated
thereunder (collectively referred to as "CEQA" ) . These
findings include this Board' s re-certification of the
Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR" or "EIR" ) p epared
for the Evora Road General Plan Amendment (the "General Plan
Amendment" ) , including the proposed Boeger Ranch residential
project ( "the Project" or "Boeger Ranch" ) , which is the project
for which these Findings are made, and its determination
relating to the impacts, avoidance and mitigation measur s,
alternatives and overriding considerations regarding thi
.Board' s actions to approve Rezoning Application #2925-RZ, Final
Development Plan #3034-90 and Subdivision 7597, ( "the
applications") .
2. The Final EIR is the report previously
certified by this Board on October 23, 1990 , and is comprised
of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, the Notice of
Completion of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR circulated for
public review and comment, and additional studies conducted
during the public review process which provided technical data
which clarified and amplified some of the information in the
Draft EIR ( "Studies" ) , the written and oral public comments and
recommendations received on the Draft EIR during the public
review process, a list of the persons, organizations and public
agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, and the responses of the
County to the significant environmental points raised in that
public review and consultation process .
3 . This Board previously certified that the
Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. This Board
now re-certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance
with CEQA, finds that it is adequate for use by this Board in
deciding the applications, and certifies that it was presented
to, and reviewed and considered by, this Board prior to
approving the applications . In so certifying, this Board
1
G� � D0� o
recognizes that there may be differences between the
information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony
that make up the Final EIR and the administrative record.
Therefore, by these findings, this Board ratifies, clarifies
and/or modifies the EIR as set forth in these findings, and
determines that these findings shall control and that the Final
EIR shall 'be deemed to be certified subject to the
determinations reached by this Board in these findings,. which
are based on the substantial evidence in the administrative
record described below.
4 . The Final EIR is a "Project EIR" prepared - -
pursuant to ;CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and is intended to
serve as the environmental documentation for the General Plan
Amendment and the Boeger Ranch project and all subsequent
County, and,.other public agency actions, approvals, permits or
other entitlements granted or , issued in connection with the
planning, approval, construction, operation and development of
Boeger Ranch, including the applications .
5 . Unless otherwise indicated in the text of
the EIR or these findings, all recommended avoidance and
mitigation measures are determined to avoid or reduce to a
level of insignificance any significant- 'adverse environmental
impacts of the Project and all such measures - are determined not
to result themselves in any potentially significant adverse
impacts. .
B.. The Applications
1 . The County previously amended its General
Plan to allow development of not more than 304 units on the
150-acre Boeger Ranch site. Kaufman and Broad- of Northern
California, Inc. ( "Kaufman and Broad" ) has made application for
a rezoning from A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) to. P-1 (Planned
Unit Development) , for a Final Development Plan and for a
subdivision.
2 . ,; The purpose of the Boeger Ranch project is
, to: (i) create a .high quality, relatively low cost
single-family residential project; ( ii) dedicate 65 percent of
the property to public or private open space use.
C. Procedural History.
1 . Following the decision to comprehensively
plan the. 1900 acres comprising the Study Area, an Initial Study
was prepared and submitted on July 11 , 1989 . On the basis of
the Initial Study, it was determined that preparation of an
environmental impact report was .required.
2
2 . Thereafter, the County prepared a "Draft
EIR" dated July, 1990 (also referred to as the "DEIR" ) , filed a
"Notice of Completion" regarding the Draft EIR with the State,
and published the Draft ,EIR for public review and comment . The
public review period began July 27, 1990 and was closed
September 19, 1989, for a total of 52 calendar days . During
that period, oral and written comments were received from
state, regional and local agencies, along with environmental
organizations and residents . Public hearings on the DEIR were
conducted by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1990 and
September 10, 1990 .
3 . After receiving the written and oral
comments on the DEIR, the County prepared a document which
provided responses to those comments ( "C&R" ) . Although the C&R
did not provide significant new information requiring an.
amendment to, and/or recirculation of, the Draft EIR, it did
help to clarify and amplify some of the information and
discussions already contained in the Draft EIR.
4 . On October 2, 1990, at a properly noticed
public hearing, this Board approved a Development Agreement
relative to Boeger Ranch.
5 . On October 8, 1990, the Planning Commission,
at a properly noticed public hearing, voted to recommend to
this Board the certification of the Final EIR as adequate and
complete.
6 . On October 23 , 1990, the Board certified the
Final EIR. and adopted findings which are incorporated herein by
this reference.
7 . Kaufman & Broad filed the applications on
October 25, 1990 . On June 24, 1991, the Planning Commission,
at a properly noticed public hearing, considered the
applications . On July 2, 1991 at a duly noticed public �eeting
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution 31-1991
recommending approval of the applications.
8 . On August 13 , 1991 , the Board conducted a
properly noticed public hearing on the applications andave
direction to its staff to have prepared the appropriate
resolutions, ordinance and findings to approve the applications
with certain conditions.
D. Description Of The Record.
The record before this Board relating to this action
includes, without limitation, the following:
3
� ijjjDD �� o
1 . All Boeger Ranch applications, studies,
letters and other submittals to the County relating to `the
Project, including the applications and the Development
Agreement between the County and Kaufman & Broad, approved by
this' Board on October 2, 1990;
2. All staff reports, resolutions, conditions
of approval relating to the Project;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by County staff, the East Contra Costa Planning
Commission and this Board prior to and during all public
hearings relating to the Project;
4. The Final EIR,. as herein described;
5 . All matters of common knowledge, such as the
County General Plan, the County Zoning Code, and other County
policies and regulations.
In addition to the following specific findings, this
Board hereby incorporates by reference the entire record
relating to the Project and described above.
Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, contained in the entire record described above. The
fundings 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.
II . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED
OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED BY ADOPTION OR INCORPORATION
OF MITIGATION MEASURES
. This section II of these findings includes the
findings of this Board for the impacts of the Project that can
be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level . This
,Board finds that all potential impacts of this Project which
are not listed as potential significant unavoidable impacts in
Chapter III of the EIR or identified as unmitigable in Table 1
can and will be reduced to a less than significant level . The
specific findings of this Board for each category of such
impacts are set forth below in this section II .
A. Mitigation Measures.
Various. mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR.
With- respect to those mitigation measures, incorporation of
mitigation measures into this Project, or imposition of
mitigation measures as conditions of approval, this Board makes
4
the following findings :
J . The EIR recommends mitigation measures for
the Project . In some instances, the EIR presents alternative
mitigation measures addressing particular identified impacts.
2 . The mitigation measures recommended in the
EIR, except to the extent they are infeasible, have been
incorporated into the Project during the design phase or I by
inclusion in the conditions of approval of the applications
(the "Conditions of Approval" ) . Although the Conditions I of
Approval may not use the exact wording of the mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR, in each such instance, the
adopted Condition of Approval is deemed to be identical to or
substantially similar to the recommended mitigation mea ure.
Unless specifically stated to the contrary, all such measures
are, and are intended to be, equally effective in avoiding or
lessening the identified impact as are the mitigation m asures,
as worded in the EIR.
3 . In some instances, recommended mitig tion
measures maybe within the jurisdiction of other agenci s . In
each such case where mitigation measures are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency, and of this
County, such changes either have been adopted by the other ,
agency as a -part of its regulations ,or other enactments, or can
and should be adopted by such other agency in passing u on
approvals required for this Project .
4 . None of the recommended mitigation measures
themselves give rise to any significant environmental impacts,
unless such an impact is identified in the EIR. With respect
to the mitigation measures, this Board finds, as did the EIR,
that these measures themselves will not result in significant
adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated.
5 . The status of implementation of the
mitigation measures which are incorporated into or imposd upon
this Project shall be included in the mitigation monitor'ng and
reporting program as set forth below. Compliance with these
mitigation measures is subject to the continuing control of the
County.
6 . This Board hereby incorporates into t ese
findings, and adopts as its own findings and conclusions, the
findings and conclusions set forth in the EIR; except that this
incorporation of the EIR' s findings and conclusions shall not
apply in any case where the EIR' s findings and conclusions are
contradicted by a finding or statement in these findings.
5
7 . In adopting mitigation measures for the
Project, this Board is subject to Public Resources Code
section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , which
require that this Board not reduce the proposed number of
housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that
there is any other feasible mitigation measure available that
:,., ,,, will provide a comparable level of mitigation.
III . POTENTIALLY .SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE- IMPACTS.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain - -
environmental impacts of the Project set forth below.
A. Impact on Landfill Crisis .
1. Facts.
(a) The. EIR states on page 183 that the
Project will contribute - to the County landfill crisis . The EIR
lists this impact as potentially significant and unavoidable.
'.(b) The EIR states on page 155 that the
Project, by itself, .would not significantly affect the County
landfill crisis. However, as a cumulative impact, the Project
would contribute to the waste stream thereby exacerbating the
landfill crisis .
f
(c) The EIR recommends mitigation measures
relating to recycling at pages 155-156 to alleviate this impact .
2. Findings .
This Board finds that:
(a) The impact of this Project on the
County landfill crisis may be substantially lessened by the
continuation or implementation of recycling programs .
Nevertheless, thi& impact is still potentially significant and
-unavoidable.
(b) This impact, while potentially
significant, is small in comparison with the remainder of the
County' s waste stream.
(c) The impacts of this Project on the
County landfill crisis which remain, despite the recommended,
mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the
environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the
Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of overriding
Considerations" below.
6
D .lJ D
B. Removal of Grazing Land.
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 183 that the
Project will result in the loss of grazing land within the
County. The EIR lists this impact as potentially significant
and unavoidable.
(b) The EIR states on page 18 that the
Project site, represents a relatively small percentage of all
grazing land in the County. However, as a cumulative impact,
the Project would contribute to the loss of grazing land.
. (c) The EIR notes that the biotic va ue of
the Project site has been degraded due to overgrazing. he
Boeger Ranch is not subject to Williamson Act agricultural
preserve contracts . Other surrounding lands are used for
grazing.
(d) Other agricultural lands surrounding
and in the area of the Project site are subject to Willi amson
Act agricultural preservation contracts . Williamson Act
contracts remain binding and in effect for at least ten Fears,
unless proper cancellation findings can be and are made.
Pursuant to the Williamson Act, these contracts are
automatically renewed each year for an additional ten year
remaining term, unless a notice of non-renewal is filed.
2 . Findings.
(a) The value of the Project site as
agricultural land has been reduced by overgrazing, and t ere
are additional lands in the vicinity of the Project devo ed to
agricultural and grazing uses. It is likely that many of these
surrounding lands will remain in agricultural and grazing uses,
especially those lands governed by Williamson Act preservation
contracts. The significance of the loss of grazing acre ge on
this site alone, is substantially reduced because . other
surrounding lands are likely to remain in agricultural u e for
some time. Nevertheless, this impact is potentially
significant and unavoidable.
(b) The impacts of this Project on t e loss
of grazing land are overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
7
ENE N 8
C. Visual Impacts,
x ,
1 . Facts .
(''a) The EIR states on page 183 that the
Project, without redesign of the Boeger Ranch' Subdivision will
create significant visual impacts . These visual impacts relate
to the Project ' s proposed grading on scenic corridors. The EIR
lists these impacts as potentially significant and unavoidable.
(b) The EIR recommends various mitigation
measures on pages 141-144 to alleviate these impacts .
2. Findings.
(a) The visual impact of this Project will
be substantially reduced through the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures and through redesign of the
Project . Nevertheless, this impact is still potentially
significant and unavoidable.
• (b) -The recommendation that certain lots be
split level is rejected because specific economic
considerations and physical restraints make the measure
infeasible.
(c) The visual impacts of this Project
which remain, despite the recommended mitigation measures and
redesign of the Church Facility, are overridden and outweighed
by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of
the,-Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of.
Overriding' Considerations .
IV. GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS.
1. Facts
(a) The EIR discusses the growth inducing
impacts of the Project on page 186, C&R pages 34 through 36 .
The EIR states that the Project would encourage potential
development of adjoining lands with an open space designation,
indicating that the designation is enforceable only if this
Board is committed to retain those lands in open space. The
extension .of sewer and water lines and annexation into the
sewer district could provide .an impetus for potential growth in
the study area.
(b) The General Plan designates as open
space much of the lands adjoining the Boeger Ranch.
8
Do
(c) The EIR describes the vicinity of the
Boeger Ranch on pages 3-6 . Development to the north of the
Boeger Ranch is rendered infeasible by the presence of the
Concord Naval Weapons Station. The lands to the east are the
site of Mota Ranch subdivision. Development to the west of
Boeger Ranch is inhibited by the steepness of the land.
(d) As discussed in the EIR, C & R pages 37
(Figure 7) , 107 through 11, development of most of the s' udy
area west of the residential and church sites is limited by
underground gas fields .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that:
(a) The EIR' s suggestion that the op n
space designation of agricultural lands in the study are will
not be enforced due to a lack of this Board' s commitment to
maintain those lands and open space is pure speculationnd
unjustified by any facts in the record. Any growth ind4, ing
.- impacts from the Project will be insignificant. The ext?nsion
iof sewer' and water lines and annexation into the sewer d strict
may be one of the many necessary conditions to further
development, however, such extensions and annexation are not
sufficient to create such development.
V. OTHER CEQA FINDINGS
A. Irreversible Environmental Changes.
1. Facts.
(a) The draft EIR lists irreversible
impacts resulting from the extensive grading, alteration of
existing drainage swales and reconfiguration of the topography
of the sites designated for development on page 187 . The EIR
does not state that these impacts are significant and
unavoidable.
(b) The impacts listed in the EIR as
irreversible environmental changes are similar or idential to
the impacts listed in Sections IV.A and I.V.B of the EIR.� The
impacts listed in these sections can be avoided or reduced to
insignificance by the imposition of mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
2 . Findings.
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this Board
finds that :
9
(a) The impacts listed in the EIR as
irreversible are not unavoidable significant impacts .
(b) All of these irreversible impacts will
be avoided or reduced in significance by the imposition of
mitigation measures, as more fully stated in these findings .
(c) Any irreversible impacts which remain,
despite the imposition of mitigation measures, are overridden "
and outweighed by the environmental , economic, social and .other
benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations below.
B. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses
of the Environment and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity.
1 . Facts .
(a) The Project ' s relationship between
short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity
is discussed on page 187 of the EIR. Relevant characteristics
of the site are discussed on pages 17 through 18 . Benefits of
the proposed Project are discussed on page 183 . This Board
also notes that the Project will result in the creation of 300
homes .
(b) The EIR recognizes eventual.,:development
of three parcels, permanently removing 194 acres of grazing
land from the County. However, only 4 . 5 acres of prime soil
will be converted.
(c) . The General Plan amendment applied a
more restrictive land use designation on the remainder .of the
Study Area, discouraging. the early development of those lands .
The permanent retention of open space land within the Boeger
Ranch will provide a buffer between residential and
agricultural land uses, deterring conflicts between the .two
distinctive land uses.
(d) The EIR does not list any general
ry significant impacts of the Project regarding the relationship
between short-term and long-term uses "of the environment and
provides only the above general discussion.
2. Findings .
This Board finds that:
(a) The Project ' s influence on long-term .
Ro uses of the environment is not significant relative to the
similar impacts .that any residential development Project would
10
have on short-term and long-term uses of the environment.
(b) Alternatively,, to the extent that these
impacts are significant, they are mitigated at this time by the
mitigation measures adopted in these applications and
conditions of approval .
(c) To the extent that the impacts on
short-term versus long-term uses in the environment are not
�
insignificant, the environmental, economic, social and other
benefits of the Project outweigh and override any adverse
impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding.
Considerations below..
Vi . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The EIR discusses the three alternatives to the
proposed project: (1) The "no project" alternative;
(2) Alternative B incorporating a reduced density and a
. north/south arterial in the residential subdivision, and
reducing the square footage of the Church Facility; and
(3) Alternative C, an alternative site proposal . This Board
finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Project.
A. The "No Project" Alternative.
1 . Facts .
(a) The "no project" alternative is
consistent with current zoning. However, since the General
Plan amendment was adopted, the designation of the Boeger, Ranch
property
rty is less restrictive permitting limited development on
the agricultural lands.
(b) The no project alternative would avoid
development in the short term. Geologic and hydrologic.
conditions would remain in their present state. There 1, :n
existing deficiency in the portion of the watershed that , in
West Pittsburg, and in contributing to the drainage area
established by the county, the development of Boeger Ran I h will
indirectly assist in ameliorating this deficiency. This
assistance will not be forthcoming under the no project
alternative.
(c) Traffic,
air quality, noise, visual
quality, levels of public services and utilities, and
biological resources of the study area would remain unchanged
under the no project alternative. The present land use of
grazing would continue in the grassland portions of the Study
Area, thus the greatly diminished floral and faunal conditions
D
J71k
would continue to exist. No lands would be dedicated as
permanent open space, and the opportunity to improve the
habitat value of the' Study Area by restoring some of the
original grassland biotic community would be lost .
(d) Kaufman & Broad is required to assist
. , .in the financing of the Evora Road/Driftwood Road extension, an
improvement designed to alleviate existing circulation
problems. This assistance would not be forthcoming under 'the �
no project alternative.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the no project alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the proposed Project, and
rejects the.,no project alternative for the following reasons:
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project, or as conditions of approval, have avoided or
substantially mitigated or will substantially avoid or mitigate
most of the environmental effects of the Project, thereby
diminishing or obviating- the perceived mitigating benefits of
approving the no project alternative.
(c) Approval of the no project alternative
would eliminate the benefits to be 'obtained from the Project.
In particular, approval of the no project alternative would
result in the loss of up to 300 homes, and of any contribution
towards 1.1) improvements to reduce existing downstream drainage
problems'
north, of the Boeger Ranch site, and 2) the Evora
Road/Driftwood Road extension.
' (d) Approval of the no project alternative
would eliminate a potential source of funding for drainage and
traffic improvements, along with other fees and dedications.,
which would be collected or made in connection with the .
Project.
(e) In sum, approval of the no project
:`alternative would preclude obtainment of the environmental ,
social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project,
as discussed in the Statement of overriding Considerations,
below.
B. Alternative B.
1 . Facts .
(a) This alternative proposes reduced
density from 319 to 292 lots , on the Boeger Ranch subdivision,
proposes a north/south arterial through the subdivision.
12
�� DUIG
f (b) The EIR describes Alternative B as the
environmentally superior alternative. However, although the
elimination of 27 lots would reduce certain impacts, other land
use impacts of this alternative would be similar to those
identified for the proposed project.
(c) The arterial roadway would serve as a '
buffer between the landslide mapped by Neilson and the
residential lots in the Boeger Ranch subdivision. However, it
will be constructed adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood. Adverse environmental effects could be minimized
by lowering the load grade as much as feasible where it
parallels the eastern property line.
(d) Drainage patterns would remain
basically -the same as with the proposed project. However, the
amount of drainage fees contributed to future improvements
would be reduced.
(e) This alternative would reduce
residential project traffic generation by 8% . Implementation
of this alternative would result in approximately 9,390 total
daily trips including those generated from other project .
Traffic impacts at affected intersections would be
approximately 71% of those with the proposed project.
(f) Notwithstanding the reduction in number
of vehicle',trips, this alternative would result in incre sed
air quality emissions and noise levels over project emis ion
levels, because of the construction of the north/south a terial .
Z
(i) 'This alternative would have effe is on
sewer and water services similar to that of the proposed
project. There would be a slight decrease in the number of
school age. children, but not a sufficient decrease to av id the
impact on the school district without the avoidance and
mitigation measures referenced in section II of these
findings . Similarly, fire and water services will experience
slightly less impact. Impacts on parks would remain
approximately the same.
(j ) As stated elsewhere in these findings,
many of the environmental impacts of the proposed project have
been or will be mitigated to a less than significant level .
The EIR describes only four potential unavoidable significant
impacts, all of which will remain the same under this
alternative, with the possible exception of the visual impact
of the church, part of another project considered in the EIR,
on the two scenic corridors .
13
2. Findings .
The proposed 319-lot Boeger Ranch. Project
shall be reduced to a maximum of 300 units . This unit
reduction substantially reflects a portion of Alternative B.
However, other than this unit reduction, this Board finds that
..., at this stage, Alternative B is infeasible and less desirable
than the proposed Project, and rejects the alternative for the
following reasons.
(a) Avoidance and mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the applications and conditions of
approval . . These measures have substantially mitigated the
environmental effects of the Project, except those impacts
which are . l-isted in the final EIR as unavoidable, thereby
diminishing..or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of
approving this alternative.
(b) Further, approval of this alternative
would reduce the environmental, social, economic and other
benefits derived from the Project, as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, below.
.(c) Kaufman and Broad is required to assist
in the funding of the Evora Road/Driftwood Road extension in
the Development Agreement approved by this Board, further
rendering infeasible and obviating any advantage of this
alternative.,
C. -Alternative C.
1 . Facts.
(a) This alternative involves development
of an alternative site of 639 acres located in the southwest
hills of Pittsburg, south of Highway 4 . Although substantially
smaller than the proposed project site, it was chosen as the
only undeveloped land in the region that enjoyed similar access
to job centers while of a sufficient size to accommodate
- projects similar. to the proposed Boeger Ranch and Church
Facility projects.
(b) Development of Alternative C will
involve land use and geological impacts similar to those of the
proposed project. Mitigation of drainage impacts would be
somewhat greater at the alternative site, but the impacts could .
be acceptably reduced.
(c) This alternative would generate
approximately the same number of daily and peak hour vehicle
trips as the Project, however these trips would be chiefly on
Willow Pass Road instead of Evora Road. Air quality impacts
1.4
1��11UU � llU �.
would be generally the same as the proposed Project . There is
a potential for greater noise impacts on this site, because of
the proximity to Highway 4 .
(d) Development of Alternative C has the
potential for significant visual impacts, due to alteration of
the existing visual character of undeveloped ranch lands.I
Although the location of the impact would be different, the
impacts would be similar in kind to that of the proposedl
Project. Habitat/biotics impacts would be similar to those of
the proposed Project .
(e) This alternative would generate
increases in demands for sewer service, and police and tire
protection. There are no schools and parks located within the
alternative site area, accordingly there would be greater
demands forthesefacilities than if the Project is deve oped.
2. Findings .
This Board finds that development of
Alternative C is infeasible and less desirable than the
proposed and rejects the alternative site for the following
reasons :'
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the applications and conditions of approval for subseque It
development approvals have substantially mitigated most if not
all of the 'environmental affects of the project, thereby �
,diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of
approving the alternative site development.
. . . I . 4 (b) Further, the cost of mitigating
drainage impacts will be greater, and this increase would be
reflected in, the sales price of the houses. Accordingly,,
approval of the development of the alternative site would
reduce the environmental, social, economic and other benefits
would could be derived from this project, as discussed further
in the statement of overriding considerations below.
(c) Kaufman and Broad is required to
contribute toward the cost of the Evora Road/Driftwood Riad
Iextension and to dedicate a minimum of 65% of the Boeger Ranch
site as permanent open space. These benefits would not be
achieved under Alternative C.
VII . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Generally.
This Board finds and determines that, to the extent
that any impacts ( including cumulative impacts) of the Ge neral
15
D
MEN ID
Plan Amendment and the Project are unavoidable, such impacts
are overridden by, and acceptable in light of, the
environmental, social, economic and other overriding
considerations set forth herein. These benefits outweigh any
such impacts of this Project.
x, Specifically, this Board finds that the following
environmental, social, economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any unavoidable
or unmitigated impacts. This Board finds that each of the
matters set forth below is, independent of the other matters,
an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project.
This .Board also finds that those avoidance and
mitigation measures and alternatives which were discussed in
the EIR, public comments, County responses or other portions of
the administrative record, but which have not been incorporated
into the Project or made conditions to future Project
approvals, are "infeasible" given these Project benefits .
Lastly, this Board finds that to the extent that the
alternatives discussed in the EIR would reduce any Project
impacts, - said reductions-.are infeasible and overridden by the
benefits of the Project.
1. Environmental Benefits and Open Space.
- The Project will result in the dedication of a
substantial amount of the property to permanent open space. On
the Boeger...Ranch site 65 percent will remain. open space. This
dedication will provide an opportunity for the grassland to
.recover, thereby providing a habitat for certain prey species.
These species will in turn support the return of certain bird
and mammal predators to this area and may reestablish the
grassland food chain at this site. The retention of open space
on the' Boeger Ranch site will also provide a buffer between the
residential community and the grazing lands to the west of the
site.
2. Jobs and Economic 'Development.
The development of Boeger Ranch will provide local and
regional employment opportunities . These opportunities will
include positions in construction, landscaping, home design,
and the retail and service industries . Furthermore, these
employees and the eventual Project residents will patronize
local businesses, thereby contributing to local economic growth.
3 . Public Revenues.
Development of the Boeger Ranch will substantially
increase the assessed valuation of the property, thereby
creating additional property tax revenue for the County on a
16
long-term basis. The patronage of local businesses by
employees, and Project residents will result in an increase in
sales tax revenue.
4 . Provision of Needed Housing.
Development of Boeger Ranch will provide ndeded
housing for the area and region. Purchasers of the homes on
the site are likely to include both "first-time" and "move-up"
buyers. Construction of the Project will therefore make �a
available some affordable housing in the surrounding community
and region.
5 . construction of Evora-Driftwood Arterial .
Development of Boeger Ranch provides the opportunity
to construct a needed north-south arterial . This will a low
more convenient access to the surrounding community, including
certain schools and businesses, and would remove some vehicle
trips from Evora Road.
6 . Development Agreement.
Kaufman and Broad, the developer of Boeger Ranch has
entered into a Development Agreement with the County. With
approval of the applications, and construction on the property,
the applicant is obligated to provide -funding for the pr8posed,
arterial and retain over 65% of the property as permanen open
space. These' obligations are in excess of what the applicant
would normally have to provide.
Approval of the General Plan Amendment willlZ111w the
County to obtain the benefits of this Development Agreem nt.
VIII . FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING OR REP RTING
OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 .6 of the California Public Resour es
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings.
The County' s Community Development Department shall be
responsible , for monitoring the implementation of each
mitigation measure. The Community Development Department may,
in its discretion, delegate this responsibility with respect to
specific mitigation measures to another County department respect
agency with that department or agency' s consent.
In addition, in order I to assure implementation of the
mitigations, the Community Development Department will rl ort,
as follows :
17
E D
D
A 1
A. .. The applicant shall file a written report with
the County Community 'Development Department annually beginning
one .year following approval of the applications by the Board of .
Supervisors and continuing until this requirement terminates as
set forth below. The written report shall briefly state the
status in implementing each mitigation measure which .is adopted
nas a Condition of Approval or which is incorporated- into this
Project.
B. If any interested party makes a written request,
the report will be provided to .such party.
C. 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 applicant
requests it, the result of this review will be provided to the
applicant in writing.
D. If the staff determines that action is required,
,the staff and the applicant 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. I-f and only .if the staff and the applicant are
unable to agree upon the additional actions to be taken, then
either -staff or the applicant may bring the matter to 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 taking reasonable actions as
permitted by law which will implement the existing mitigation
measures .. . In reviewing the timeliness of the implementation
M measures, staff and the Zoning Administrator shall consider the
project timetable, subject to reasonable but unanticipated
delays due to weather and the like.
E. . This mitigation monitoring shall continue until
two years following complete buildout 'of the project, unless
,staff determines that. one or more mitigation measures have not
been implemented, .,.in which-case the monitoring program shall
continue until staff determines that the required mitigation
measures have been implemented. Determinations of staff may be
appealed to the Zoning Administrator .
F. . The Director of Community Development may direct
that this mitigation monitoring be combined with any other
requirement of periodic review by the County which is imposed
upon this Project pursuant to the Conditions of Approval or
pursuant to any other permits which are obtained for this
Project, including the annual review of the Development.
. Agreement
18
MEW
:�
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
1 . In adopting mitigation measures for this
General Plan Amendment or subsequent development approvals,
this Board is subject to Public Resources Code section 21085
and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , which require that this
Board not reduce the proposed number of hou§ing units as a
mitigation measure if it determines that there is other
feasible specific mitigation measures available that will
provide a comparable level of mitigation.
2 . This Board intends that these finding3 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 b,
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations, that any finding or determination requir d or
permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed made ' f it
appears in any portion of this document . All of the text
included in this document constitutes findings and
determinations by this Board, whether or not any particular
caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect .
3 . This Board intends that each finding herein
is based on the entire record, including written and orad
testimony to the Planning Commission and this Board. The
omission of any relevant fact from this document is not an
indication,.by, this' Board that a particular finding is not based
in part on the omitted fact.
4 . Any modification or deletion of avoidance or
mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR is based on this
Board' s determination that the implementation of .the measure as
originally proposed is undesirable, impractical or otherzise
infeasible. The reasons for each such particular determination
are explained in these findings, and the record as a who e.
5 . The General Plan text calls for permanent
open space protection of the lands between the project and
Evora Road (the northerly portion of the Shriner property) .
This goal and policy does not require that the applicant
acquire the Shriner property or development rights associated
with that property nor is such acquisition a condition
precedent to the development of the project.
6 . No changes have been made to the Project
description subsequent to preparation of the EIR which require
important revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts. Any changes that have been
made in the Project are minor, technical and do not result in
new significant environmental impacts or impacts of increased
severity.
19
7 . There are no substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the 'Project will be
undertaken which changes would require important revisions in
the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
impacts .
8. There is no new information of substantial
importance showing that the• Project will have significant
impacts not previously analyzed in the EIR, impacts which are
substantially more severe, mitigation measures or alternatives
which are newly determined to be feasible, or additional
mitigation measures or alternatives not previously considered
which substantially lessen one or more significant impacts .
X. FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE APPROVALS
Based on the Final EIR and the entire record, this
Board makes the following general findings and. determinations
and intends them to be generally applicable to the approvals of
the applications and to all findings and determinations as a
whole contained herein.
A. Findings Pursuant to Contra Costa Code
Section 26-2. 1846 .
t
1 . This Board finds that the re-zoning from
Agricultural Preserve ( "A-4" ) to Planned Unit District (."P-1" )
I
nd the applications hereby approved are consistent with the
General Plan.
2. This Board finds that the uses authorized or
proposed in the P-1 district are compatible within the district
and with uses authorized inIadjacent districts . Land uses
authorized in the vicinity of the Project include similar
single-family. residential development projects of equivalent
density.
3 . This Board finds that community need for the
residential use proposed. has been demonstrated. The Final EIR
and the General Plan identify the .need for single-family -
residential development in the County in general and in the
West Pittsburg area in particular .
B. Findings Pursuant to Contra Costa County Code
Section 84-66 . 1406 .
1 . This Board finds that the applicant intends
to start construction within two and one-half years from the
effective date of .the rezoning and preliminary development plan
approval .
20
2 . This Board finds that the proposed Project
is consistent with the County General Plan:
3 . This Board finds that the Project will
constitute a residential environment of sustained desir bility
and stability and will be in harmony with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and commun'ity.
0953I/8
09.05.91
73116-002
21
FKH�8�7 !D