Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12011987 - 1.125 - -� Awo Iro: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Harvey E.' Bragdon, Contra FROM: Director of Community Development - October 23 , 1987 Costa DATE: C0^West Branch Project, Tassajara Area SUBJECT: SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Request for Rezoning ( 2663-RZ) ) Final Development Plan ( 3008-86) ) Tentative Subdivision Approval (SUB 6725) ) RESOLUTION NO. 87/711 (SUB 6725 ) - Certification of Related ) Environmental Review Documentation for ) the West Branch Project, Tassajara Area ) WHEREAS, on March 26, 1987 the Board of Supervisors received Resolution #5-1987 (SR) from the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission concerning a development proposal known as the West Branch Project involving rezoning/preliminary develop- ment plan 2663-RZ, final development plan 3008-86 and subdivision 6725; and WHEREAS, said resolution certified the adequacy of using an environmental impact report previously certified on an earlier development proposal for the subject property as well as certain traffic mitigation and creek enhancement programs; and WHEREAS, said resolution also recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve and adopt the project applications subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the Commission' s approval action, the private group known as Tassajara Now and Tomorrow filed an appeal of the Commission' s action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the Commission' s approval action, the applicant submitted a proposed development agreement between Shapell Industries and the County of Contra Costa for the West Branch project which was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who recommended approval of said agreement to the Board of Super- visors; and WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held before the Board of Supervisors on May 5, 1987 and afforded a-11: present,an oppor- tunity to testify on the applications. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: :K YES SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ON OF VO D COMMITTEE TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 1 , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development ATTESTED December 1 , 1987 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Paul Speroni Town of Danville M3824T8� S- ppell Industries BY DEPUTY 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors finds the previously certified EIR prepared for the 1984 West Branch General Plan Amendment is adequate for the present appli- cations based on the following reasons: WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors has previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in connection with the previously approved project for the subject area, which FEIR consists of the FEIR for the West Branch General Plan Amendment, previously certified by the Board of Supervisors on November 27, 1984; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for the following applications for West Branch: 1. Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan 2663-RZ) ; and 2. Final Development Plan ( 3008-86) ; and 3. Tentative Subdivision Map ( 6725 ) ; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Initial Study, staff concluded that the previously certified West Branch General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the general environmental setting of the West Branch project, and significant environmental impacts of the project, and alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant effect; and staff recommended, pursuant to Section 15153 (b) of the State and County CEQA guidelines, the use of the 1983 West Branch General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report as the EIR for the West Branch project; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Use Previously Certified EIR for Later Project was published in accordance with State and County CEQA Guidelines, taking into account the recent preparation and drafting of the West Branch General Plan Amendment Final Environ- mental Impact Report which was approved after extensive public review and comment, pursuant to which Notice written comments were solicited and accepted until November 3 , 1986; and WHEREAS, a notice of application for the project and request for written comments was sent to all public agencies having juris- diction by law and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals, which comments were solicited and accepted until November 3 , 1986; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff made avail- able to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for its review and consideration copies of the relevant environmental materials as set forth in Commission Resolution No. 5-1987 (SR) adopted February 18, 1987 ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65091 and County Ordinances, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Commission on November 19, 1986 and continued to December 17, 1986 and January 7, 1987, at the request of Appli- cant, to gain approval of the aforesaid applications; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed and considered all materials made available to the Commission by the Community Development Department as set forth above, and all oral and written comments with respect to certification of the previously certified FEIR presented to the Commission during the hearing on January 7, 1987, and all responses thereto; and 87/711 3 . WHEREAS, the Commission, by Resolution No . 5-1987 (SR) , adopted February 18, 1987 by a vote of 7-0, found and certified that Final Environmental Impact Report for the West Branch General Plan Amendment is adequate and has been prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA and State and County Guidelines; and WHEREAS, by the aforsaid Resolution, the Commission made further findings and statements of overriding considerations as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, by the aforesaid Resolution, the Commission instructed the Director of Community Development to prepare the necessary transmittals and to submit them to the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has made available to the Board of Supervisors for its review and consideration copies of the following materials : 1 . A traffic study prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, entitled "Crow Canyon Corridor Transportation Study/prepared for the County of Contra Costa", dated July 1986; 2 . A report prepared by Larry Seeman Associates Inc . , entitled "Riparian Vegetation Establishment / West Branch Alamo Creek", dated February 1986; and 3 . A soils and geological study for the proposed project, prepared by Berloger Geotechnical Consultants, entitled "Geotechnical Investigation / West Branch, Gale Ranch, Dougherty Road / Contra Costa County", dated June 21, 1985 . The County has concluded that any changes to the EIR made by the addition of said studies do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment and that the above studies indicate that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the above indicated studies are hereby made an addendum to the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amendment . WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered all materials made available to the Board of Supervisors by the Director of Community Development as set forth above, and all oral and written commments with respect to certification of the previously certified FEIR presented during the Board hearing on May 5, 1987 . NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, CERTIFIES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The Board has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the West Branch General Plan Amendment consisting of all materials made available to the Board by the Director of Community Development as set forth above, and all oral and written comments with respect to certification of the previously certified FEIR presented during the Board hearing on May 5, 1987 and all responses thereto, together with this Resolution. 2 . The Final Environmental Impact Report for the West Branch General Plan Amendment is adequate and has been prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA and State and County CEQA Guidelines . 87/711 FAA 4.. 3 . The Board hereby adopts as its environmental findings with respect to the application of Shapell Industries, Inc. , for the West Branch project approval or recommendations for approval by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and the findings and determinations as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the West Branch General Plan Amendment as hereinafter modified. 4. The Board hereby makes further findings and statements of overriding considerations as follows: A. Land Use: 1 ) EIR Impact 1: The project would convert 310 acres to agricultural and open-space lands to residential use, adding 1, 325 dwelling units. The project would also convert approxi- mately 64 acres to commercial and office uses. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: In the approved project, only 100 acres of agricultural and open-space lands will be converted to residential use, adding only 668 residential units. The project will convert only 13 acres to commercial and office uses. Out of a total of 400 acres, 256 acres will be devoted to parks and open-space and will be made available to East Bay Area Regional Park District for continued use for grazing and hay producing purposes and other agricultural uses under the stewardship of East Bay Regional Parks which assures the preservation of long term agricultural lands in the area. Furthermore, the County has adopted Tassajara Rezoning ( 2218-RZ) which severely restricts development on property adjoining the project in order to preserve open space in the County while permitting development on property which is most suitable for development, including the West Branch property. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the decrease in agricultural lands due to the proposed project, the County Board of Super- visors finds such impact justified by the need to increase the housing . supply in the County (in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income level s. .and age groups) in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employ- ment base. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future (short-fall of 25 ,000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. c) Finding: The project shall partially meet the County' s need for additional housing while maintaining open space and reducing the agricultural lands impact to an acceptable level by limiting the conversation of agricultural lands to residential units and commercial development. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2) EIR Impact 2: The project would contrast with existing agricultural uses that border the site. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: A buffer zone of 256 acres of parks and open space has been established along the periphery of the proposed project. 87/711 5. b) Finding: This impact is adequately miti- gated. 3 ) EIR Impact 3 : The project could conflict in intensity and location with approved development plans to the west and northwest. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The projects to the north and west have been approved for a higher density (number of dwelling units per gross acre) than the subject project. Canyon Lakes has been approved with 3 ,100 units per 1,700 acres; the subject project is planned with 668 units per 400 acres. All mitigation recommendations have been followed with the exception of a small section of the 100 ' buffer zone between the project and contiguous property being developed to the north. The proposed commercial site on the western boundary has been elimi- nated. The project will supply more than 100 acres of open space between the project' s developed area and sites on the western border. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be adequately mitigated and no longer significant. 4) EIR Impact 4 : The proposed location of the 4 acre community park at the proposed intersection of Crow Canyon and Dougherty Roads would create a potentially high traffic volume at the intersection. Development could necessitate additional widening of Dougherty Road. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: , The 4 acre community park has been increased in size to 7 acres and relocated to a site easterly of the proposed intersection of Crow Canyon and Dougherty Roads. A 124 ' wide right of way (6 lanes) is reserved for the southerly extension of Dougherty Road through the project. The grading of Dougherty Road to six lanes is a condition of approval placed on the project by the County. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be adequately mitigated and not significant. 5) 2 EIR Impact 5: The proposed project would increase pressure to develop adjacent lands to the north and west at a higher density than presently approved. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The projects to the north and west have already been approved at a higher density because of the greater need for housing in the County. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be no longer significant. B. Zoning: 1) EIR Impact 1: The project should conform to all provisions of the P-1 Zoning District and County Subdivision Ordinance. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project does conform to all provisions of the P-1 Zoning District and County Subdivision Ordinance. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be no longer significant. 87/711 6. 1) EIR Impact 2: The project may be required to comply with the Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District, SD-1. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The approved project contemplates no development of ridgelines or slope areas. Density in areas proposed for residential development have been reduced to comply with the provisions of the SD-1 district. Also, residential development has been substituted on the proposed site plan for some of the proposed office and commercial uses in the more level, central portion of the project site. b) Finding: This impact is adequately miti- gated. C. Conformance with Plans and Policies: 1) EIR Impact 1 : The project would not comply with the General Plan objective of providing the highest residential densities nearest the existing centers of San Ramon, Alamo and Danville. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project has reduced the density of residential development by almost 50o in order to comply with the stated objective. The project is located near the existing center of San Ramon. Located near the center of the project is the intersection of two planned major six lane traffic arterials. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be no longer significant. 2) EIR Impact 2 : The amount of space provided for commercial and office land use could exceed neighborhood and regional demands for same. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The retail commer- cial component has been consolidated on one 13-acre site and reduced in size while still providing a sufficient amount of square footage to develop an economically viable neighborhood commercial center. b) Finding: This impact is adequately miti- gated. 3 ) EIR Impact 3 : Impacts on open space, agriculture, hilltops, natural tree cover and vegetation, grazing land, hillsides and ridges; growth inducing impacts. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project no longer provides for the removal of 400 acres of agricultural grazing land. The project preserves 256 acres of agricultural land and open space. The hilltops, hillsides, and ridges will not be developed. The project proponents have initiated a riparian revegetation program that has been endorsed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Native vegetation should improve once overgrazing is controlled. In the approved project, only 144 acres of agricultural and open-space lands will be converted to residential use. The project will convert only 13 acres to commercial and office uses. Out of a total of 400 acres, 256 acres will be devoted to parks and open-space and made available to East Bay Municipal Parks for continued use for grazing purposes and other agricultural uses under the steward- ship of East Bay Municipal Parks which assures the preservation 87/711 7. of long term agricultural lands in the area. Furthermore, the County has adopted Tassajara Rezoning ( 2218-RZ) which severely restricts development on property adjoining the project in order to preserve open space in the area while permitting development on property which is most suitable for development, including the West Branch property. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the decrease in agricultural lands due to the proposed project, the County Board of Super- visors finds such impact justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the county (in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employ- ment base. ABAG predicts a major short-fall of housing ( short-fall of 25, 000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. Mitigation of other aspects are described elsewhere in this document. c) Finding: The project shall partially meet the County' s needed for additional housing while maintaining open space and reducing the agricultural lands impact to an acceptable level by limiting the conversion of agricultural lands to resi- dential units and commercial development. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 4) EIR Impact 4 : Beneficial impact on circulation objectives of the General Plan. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: No mitigation necessary. b) Finding: This impact is beneficial. 5) EIR Impact 5 : Crow Canyon and Dougherty Roads would lose some of their scenic quality. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project has been required to provide extensive landscaping along Crow Canyon and Dougherty Roads, together with structural set-backs along Crow Canyon Road. b) Finding: This impact is adequately miti- gated. 6) EIR Impact 6: The project would constitute skip-development until approved projects located north and west of the site are built out. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Final approval has been delayed until adjacent properties to the northwest and west have been developed, thus avoiding skip-development. b) Finding: This impact is adequately miti- gated. 7) EIR Impact 7 : The design of the project conforms to the Specific Plan. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: No mitigation necessary. b) Finding: No mitigation necessary. 87/711 8 . 8) EIR Impact 8 : Development of slopes and hilltops. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project will avoid development of hilltops and slopes. b) Finding: No mitigation necessary. D. Williamson Act Issues: 1 ) EIR Impact 1: The Williamson Act contract has been cancelled. Development of the project could result in a discontinuous pattern of development. See Subsection C above ( Conformance with Plans and Policies, Impact 6. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: See mitigation measure for Subsection C above (Conformance with Plans and Policies) , impact 6. 2 ) EIR Impact 2: The project would be inconsistent with the General Plan in effect on October 1, 1981, unless that Plan were amended. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: A General Plan amendment was approved thus making the project consistent with the General Plan. Other projects have also been approved. b) Finding: No mitigation necessary. 3) EIR Impact 3 : The project may stimulate develop- ment of adjacent agricultural lands. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The incorporation of buffer zones will reduce the project' s impacts on adjacent agricultural lands. The project development is planned for a lower density than was originally approved, thus alleviating this impact. b) Finding: The impact is seen to be adequately mitigated. 4) EIR Impact 4: The purpose of the Williamson Act is to preserve agricultural and open space.-uses. The cancella- tion of the Act may undermine this purpose. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project preserves 256 acres of agricultural land and open space. The hilltops, hillsides, and ridges will not be developed. The project proponents have initiated a riparian revegetation program that has been endorsed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Native Vegetation should improve once overgrazing is controlled. In the approved project, only 144 acres of agri- cultural and open space lands will be converted to residential use. The project will convert only 13 acres to commercial and office uses. Out of a total of 400 acres, 256 acres will be devoted to parks and open-space and made available to East Bay Regional Parks District for continued use for grazing purposes and other agricultural uses under the stewardship of East Bay Regional Parks which assures the preservation of long term agricultural lands in the area. Furthermore, the County has adopted Tassajara Rezoning ( 2218-RZ) which severely restricts development on property adjoining the project in order or preserve open space in the area while permitting development on property which is most suitable for development, including the West Branch property. 87/711 9. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the decrease in agricultural lands due to the proposed project and the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impact justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County ( in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommo-` date the County' s growing population and employment base. ABAG predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future (a short-fall of 25, 000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. c) Finding: The project shall partially meet the County' s need for additional housing while maintaining open space and reducing the agricultural lands impact to an acceptable level by limiting the conversion of agricultural lands to resi- dential units and commercial development. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. E. Cumulative Agricultural Viability: 1) EIR Impact 1: Project approval would result in the removal of 400 acres of Williamson Act contract land from agricultural use. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project preserves 256 acres of agricultural land and open space. The hilltops, hillsides, and ridges will not be developed. The project proponents have initiated a riparian revegetation program that has been endorsed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Native vegetation should improve once overgrazing is controlled. In the approved project, only 144 acres of agri- cultural and open-space lands will be converted to residential use. The project will convert only 13 acres to commercial and office uses. Out of a total of 400 acres, 256 acres will be devoted to parks and open-space and made available to East Bay Municipal Parks for continued use for grazing purposes and other agricultural uses under the stewardship of East Bay Municipal Parks which assures the preservation of long term agricultural lands in the area. Furthermore, the County has adopted Tassajara rezoning ( 2218-RZ) which severely restricts development on property adjoining the project in order to preserve agricultural uses and open space in the area while permitting development on property which is most suitable for development, including the West Branch property. b) Statement of Overriding Consideration: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the decrease in agricultural lands due to the proposed project and the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impact justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County ( in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommo- date the County' s growing population and employment base. ABAG predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future (a short-fall of 25,000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. 87/711 10. c) Finding: The project shall partially meet the County' s need for additional housing while maintaining open space and reducing the agricultural lands impact to anacceptable level by limiting the conversion of agricultural lands to resi- dential units and commercial development. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2) EIR Impact 2 : Expanding urban growth could directly limit the viability of agriculture in the region. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project incor- porated open space buffer zones which will reduce agricultural/urban-development conflicts. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. F. Community Services: Water 1) EIR Impact 1 : A major supply line would be required together with additional storage and pumping facilities. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project site will be annexed to the East Bay Municipal Utility District which already has several large water lines, up to 48" in diameter, in place which traverse the site. If additional storage capacity is necessary, EBMUD will conduct environmental assessments for proposed tank sites. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. Waste Water 1) EIR Impact 1 and 2: A pump station would be required. Current Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District policy does not allow approval of such a facility. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project site will be annexed to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District concurrently with annexation by!." East Bay Municipal Utility District. The Sanitary District has agreed to pump effluent to the north and has sized sewer pipes accordingly. The Sanitary District has also recently prepared an EIR for a new expansion of current facilities in the San Ramon area and has designed its current expansion plans so that this project' s effluent will eventually gravity flow to the south. b) Finding: The impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. Police Protection 1) EIR Impact 1: The Contra Costa County Sheriff ' s Department anticipates that an additional beat would be required to serve the project. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: It is anticipated that the project will be annexed to the City of San Ramon and served by that police department. Until that time, the project will be served by the Contra Costa County Sheriff ' s Department. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 87/ 711 11. Fire Protection 1) EIR Impact 1 : Adequate fire protection could not be provided to the project by the Tassajara Fire Protection District. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project has .been transferred to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The site will be served by a new fire station at Black Hawk located less than 1 mile from the project site. The project has been conditioned to pay to the District a fire impact fee of approximately $120 per residential unit. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. Park and Recreation 1 ) EIR Impact 1 and 2 : Development of the project, together with other approved development in the area signifi- cantly increase the demand on regional park facilities. The project would generate the need for about 3 . 6 acres of community park land and about 6 acres of neighborhood park land. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project will offer 256 acres to the East Bay Regional Park District. An additional 14 acres have been offered for dedication to appropri- ate park districts. The project is conditioned to pay a park dedication fee of $1 , 100 per residential unit. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. Public Schools 1) EIR Impact 1 and 2 : Note: The public school impact is no longer an issue under CEQA. Some temporary. class- rooms may be necessary. The project would have a negative impact on the financial resources of the school district. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project has been conditioned to pay a school fee of $1. 50 per square foot of residential space and $0. 25 per square foot of"commercial space. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. G. Socio-economics and Market Demand: Housing 1 ) EIR Impacts 1, 2 : A total of 626, 000 sq. ft. of retail and commercial space on 36 acres would be provided by the project. A commercial center of this size would require a population base much larger than that provided by the project in order to be economically viable and would thereby be growth inducing. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The commercial center has been scaled down to the larger range of a "neighbor- hood shopping center" in order to remain of high quality and remain economically viable. The acreage devoted to the commer- cial development has been reduced from 36 acres to 13 acres with approximately 150, 000 sq. ft. of retail/commercial/office space. 87/711 12 . b) Finding: The impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2 ) EIR Impact 3 : There is potential for over-supply of office space by the project. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project has been scaled down to one 13-acre site with 100-120, 000 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space and 30-50, 000 sq. ft. of office space. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 3 ) EIR Impact 4 : The project would provide office and commercial employment but not provide adequate affordable housing for these employed persons, thus creating greater demand on traffic facilities needed for commuting purposes. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The retail/commercial source has been reduced substantially. Furthermore, the project will provide a broad range of housing types, some of which would be available to meet the demands of the new employees. The project is conditioned to build greater traffic facilities and to pay $5,377 per residential unit and $3 . 50 per sq. ft. of office/commercial space for area-wide traffic improvements. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 4) EIR Impact 5: The project would commit 400 acres to residential and commercial/office development, making the land unavailable at a later time for lower cost, affordable resi- dential development. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project would commit only 100 acres to residential and commercial/office development and will provide a wide range of housing, some of which would be in the range affordable to moderate wage earners in the area. b) Finding: This impact As, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. " H. Air Quality: 1 ) EIR Impact 1: Earthmoving and construction activities would affect air quality. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Sprinkling, revege- tation, and phase grading procedures will be employed during construction. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2) EIR Impact 2 : Paints and asphalts utilized during construction could emit hydrocarbons. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Use water-based paints; use emulsion-type asphalts. Design project with minimal paved surfaces. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 87/711 13 . 3 ) EIR Impact 3 : The project would increase emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, etc. The project' s emissions would represent a very small addition to existing emissions, but would retard attainment of federal air quality goals slightly. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: See Mitigation to Impact 4 and 5, below. b) Finding: See Finding to Impact 4 and 5, below. 4) EIR Impact 4 and 5: The project traffic would increase vehicular emissions along existing roads in the project area; cumulative increases in traffic from the project and other development in the vicinity would add to regional emissions, but would have little effect on local concentrations of pollutants. a) Mitigation of Avoidance: Mitigation measures for reducing congestion and delays for project traffic and cumulative traffic in the San Ramon Valley area would reduce emissions of air pollutants. The project is conditioned to build expanded traffic facilities and to pay $5,377 per residential and $3 . 50 per sq. ft. of office/commercial space for area-wide traffic improvements. A 134 ' wide right of way (6 lanes) is reserved for the southerly extension of Dougherty Road through the project. The grading of Dougherty Road to six lanes is a condition of approval placed on the project by the County. This will reduce congestion and delays for project traffic. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the decrease in air quality due to the proposed project, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impact justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County ( in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommo- date the County' s growing population and employment base. ABAG predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future (a short-fall of 25, 000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. C) Finding: The project shall partially meet the County' s need for additional housing while minimally impact- ing air quality within an acceptable range by limiting traffic congestion and delay. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. H. Noise: 1) EIR Impact 1 : Construction noise would occur during development. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Prohibit noise-generating construction activities between 5 and 8 A.M. Use power construction equipment equipped with noise shielding and muffling devices. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2) EIR Impact 2, 3 , and 4 : Roads on-site, resi- dential noise, and vehicular traffic would be the chief sources of noise on the site. 87/711 14 . a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Noise studies are being conducted on the project site to determine the location and type of sound attenuation devices necessary to ensure that the residents do not experience excessive noise. Devises under study are sound walls, thicker residential wall, and dual glaze windows. The results of the studies shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the issuance of building permits. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the increase in noise due to the proposed project, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impact justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County ( in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommo- date the County' s growing population and employment base. ABAG predicts a major short-fall of housing (a short-fall of 25, 000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. c) Finding: The project shall partially meet the County' s need for additional housing while maintaining negative noise impact to an acceptable level. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. I . Ener 1) EIR Impact 1 : Project construction would consume substantial amounts of energy that is derived primarily from non-renewable resources. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Minimize grading and contouring of site. (In the approved project, only 144 acres of agricultural and open-space lands will be converted to resi- dential use, adding only 670 residential units. The project will convert only 13 acres to commercial and office uses. Out of a total of 400 acres, 256 acres will be devoted to parks and open-space and made available to East Bay Regional Parks District for continued use for grazing purposes and other agricultural uses under the stewardship of East Bay Regional Parks. Thus the grading and contouring of the site has been, greatly minimized. ) Avoid construction on the ridges and upper slopes of the site, thus substantially reducing grading operations (the approved project contemplates no development of ridgelines, hilltops, hillsides, or slope areas) . Select those construction materials that require the least energy for their manufacture. Select materials that are available locally, reducing the energy costs of transportation. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2 ) EIR Impact 2 : Project residents would consume substantial amounts of energy. a) Mitigation of Avoidance: All houses in the project will be designed with the highest and best energy saving devices and practices in conformance with current U.B.C. guide- lines and requirements. 87/711 15. b) Finding: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amendment and Addenda thereto find that there remain unmitigated environmental impacts on the use of resources such as gas and electricity to serve the proposed development, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impacts justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age -groups, in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employment base. This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 3) EIR Impact 3 : Energy consumed by additional vehicle traffic. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: See traffic miti- gation elsewhere. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be adequately mitigated. J. Visual and Aesthetic Issues: 1) EIR Impact 1 : The project would alter the visual character of the site. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: Development in the lower portions of the site will be screened. There will be no development on the upper elevations of the site. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2) EIR Impact 2 : The project would develop the higher ridges. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: There will be no development on the ridges of the site. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be avoided. 3 ) EIR Impact 3 : The project., and other approved development would eliminate the rural, pastoral character of the area. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: In the approved project, only 144 acres of agricultural and open-space lands will be converted to residential use. The project will convert only 13 acres to commercial and office uses. Out of a total of 400 acres, 256 acres will be devoted to parks and open-space and made available to East Bay Municipal Parks for continued use for grazing purposes and other agricultural uses under the steward- ship of East Bay Municipal Parks which assures the preservation of long term agricultural lands in the area. The project developer is undertaking extensive tree planting and a riparian planting reconstruction program which has been endorsed by the California Department of Fish and Game. The hilltops, hillsides, and ridges will not be developed. Native vegetation should improve once overgrazing is controlled. Furthermore, the County has adopted Tassajara Rezoning ( 2218-RZ) which severely restricts development on property adjoining the project in order to preserve open space in the County while permitting development on property which is most suitable for development, including the West Branch property. 87/711 16. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remain unmitigated environmental impacts on visual and aesthetic values by the proposed development, including open space, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impacts justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups, in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employment base and by the need to preserve open space and agricultural land within the County on a permanent basis. c) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. K. Biotic Resources: 1) EIR Impacts 1, 2, and 3 : The project would alter the biotic resources of the site. The project construction could affect riparian habitat, drainage patterns, and grassland. a) Mitigation of Avoidance: The project is undertaking extensive tree planting and a riparian planting reconstruction program which has been endorsed by the California Department of Fish and Game. The developer has assumed the commitment to undertake extensive riparian replacement and to extensively limit grazing practices in the project area. Furthermore, the County has adopted Tassajara Rezoning ( 2218-RZ) which severely restricts development on property adjoining the project in order to preserve open space in the County while permitting development on property which is most suitable for development, including the West Branch property. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remain unmitigated environmental impacts on biotic resources by the proposed development, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impacts justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups, in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employment- base and by the need to preserve open space and agricultural land within the County on a permanent basis. c) Findings: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. L. Hydrology/Drainage/Water Quality: 1) EIR Impact 1: The project would increase the run-off which might add to flooding downstream. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The reconstructed Alamo Creek channel has the capacity to handle more than the 100 year storm run-off. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. 2) EIR Impacts 2, 3 , 5, 6 : Increased stream discharge could increase side bank erosion; construction activities could increase sedimentation. 87/711 17 . a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The stream bed will be reconstructed pursuant to the riparian revegetation program. Rip-rocking will be placed according to engineering standards and coordinated with the revegetation of the creek banks. The downstream incremental increase of storm water run-off will be handled through the construction of detention basins approved by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District and the California Department of Fish and Game. As a further mitigating fact, the developer is committed to undertaking a master plan for the drainage area of the West Branch of Alamo Creek. Such West Branch project will mitigate any incremental increase in storm water run-off through the use of retention basins and other drainage measures. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remain unmitigated environmental impacts on hydrology, drainage, and water quality by the proposed development, the County Board of Supervisors finds such impacts justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups, in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employment base and by the need to preserve open space and agricultural land within the County on a permanent basis. c) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. M. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: 1) EIR Impacts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 : The concerns include expansive soils, landsliding, seismic shaking, surface displace- ment, and erosion. a) Mitigation of Avoidance: An extensive geological report has been prepared for the site and reviewed by the County. All slopes will be graded to slope ratios of 3 . 25/1. 00, i.e. , substantially less than the natural angle of response for the sites with expansive fill material. All seismic set-back zones are established. All slide repair will be constructed to the latest geological standards. All exposed regraded slopes will be revegetated. b) Finding: This impact is, therefore, seen to be adequately mitigated. N. Traffic: 1) EIR Impact 1 : The project would require that roadway improvements be undertaken by the developer. a) Mitigation or Avoidance: The project has been conditioned to grade the two major arterials of Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty Road to a 6 lane width and to construct all improvements necessary to accommodate 4 paved lanes of traffic. The project has been conditioned to pay $5, 377 per residential unit and $3 . 50 per sq. ft. of commercial/office space as traffic impact fees. b) Statement of Overriding Considerations: To the extent that the EIR for the West Branch General Plan Amend- ment and Addenda thereto find that there remains an unmitigated environmental impact reflected in the increase in traffic from the proposed project, the County Board of Supervisors finds such 87/711 18 . impact justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups, in order to accommo- date the County' s growing population and employment base. b) Finding: This impact is seen to be adequately mitigated. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 1. No Project: The No Project alternative would not meet the County' s immediate need for increased housing and employment in the area. The County Board of Supervisors finds that there is a need to increase the housing supply in the County ( in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employment base. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future (short-fall of 25, 000 units) in the area if more land is not converted to housing. The County Board of Supervisors finds that the No Project alternative is not acceptable. 2 . Lower Density: Reduced residential density on the site. The Lower Density alternative would conform the project to the requirements of the slope density and hillside development district; it would permit a maximum of 430 residential units; the amount of commercial and office space would remain the same as in the proposed project. This alternative would enable the steeper slopes to remain undeveloped, with concomitant beneficial effects. The revised project has conformed the project to the requirements of the slope density and hillside development district. The revised project has reduced the number of residential units from 1, 325 to 670 units. The revised project proposes that the steeper slopes remain undeveloped. The number of acres converted from agricultural land to residential land is reduced from 310 to approximately 100. The number of acres converted from agri- cultural land to commercial is reduced from 64 to approximately 13 . Thus, although the number of residential units has not been reduced to the figure proposed by the Lower Density alternative, the proposed project has substantially conformed to the other major elements of the Lower Density alternative, while at the same time substantially reducing the commercial acreage to a figure below the level proposed by the Lower Density alternative. The County Board of Supervisors finds the need to increase the housing supply in the County (in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the County' s growing population and employ- ment base justifies the adoption of the proposed project with 670 residential units. In fact, in conformity with the Lower Density alternative, the reduction of the acreage presently proposed for office and commercial uses would allow that additional increment of residential development. Thus the County Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed project substantially conforms with the Lower Density alternative. 87/711 19 . Impact of Alternative : The Lower Density alternative would cause no significant effects other than those that would be caused by the project as proposed. 3 . Alternate onfiauration : Residential density similar to proposed plan, but in a configuration responsive to the environmental and planning considerations in the EIR. The Alternate Configuration alternative preserves the upper hillsides and ridges as open space . Open space would be incorporated along the western, southern, eastern, and portions of the northern site boundaries . The northerly portion of the proposed limited office area would be buffered by open space or substituted with lower density residential use . The currently proposed project substantially conforms to the elements of the Alternate Configuration alternative . Impact of Alternative : The Alternate Configuration alternative would cause no significant effects other than those that would be caused by the project as proposed. 4 . Superior Alternative : (the lower density and alternate configuration/less residential and commercial space) The environmentally superior alternative would be the Lower Density development . Also desireable would be an alternative that contained fewer residential units and less commercial and office space than proposed in the project, but more residential units than identified in the Lower Density alternative . In light of the above discussions of alternatives, the County Board of Supervisors finds that the currently proposed project substantially conforms with the Lower Density alternative . The project also substantially conforms with the herein-described alternative containing fewer residential units and less commercial and office space than proposed in the project, but more residential units than identified in the Lower Density alternative . The Board finds that the project conforms to both the Superior Alternative and the alternative thereto, and therefore the Board approves the adoption of the project . I -oact of Alternative : The Superior Alternative would cause no significant effects other than those that would be caused by the project as proposed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed applications fully conform with the County General Plan including the 1984 West Branch General Plan Amendment . 87/711