Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 05081990 - 90/2912. 11 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 8, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:None RESOLUTION NO. 90/291 SUBJECT: In the matter of the Buchanan ) Field Airport (89) General Plan) Amendment . The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVED that : There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of a Draft General Plan adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission discussing an amendment to the County General Plan for the Buchanan Field area . On January 23 , 1990, this Board held a public hearing on said amendment . Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board, at that hearing, called for, testimony of all persons interested in this matter . The matter was continued from time to time to allow for added public input . The Board hereby finds that the proposed amendment will have a significant impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the County EIR Guidelines . The Board members having fully considered this amendment , determine to amend the County General Plan for the Buchanan Field area as recommended by the County Planning Commission and adopt the CEQA findings found in Attachment A to this document . The Board further directs the County Community Development Department to incorporated this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the County General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1990 calendar year as one of the four permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General Plan . cc : Community Development Clerk of the Board County Administration i hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of Public Works Director an action taken and entered on the minutes of the County Counsel Board of Supervilore on the date shown. ATTt.sT ro: _ I ct c(D c c 8 b f a PHIL BAT HL R,Clerk of the Board j / g p. r e s peryl rs and County Administrator a By Deouri RESOLUTION NO . 90/ 291 Attachment A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. I. INTRODUCTION A. These findings are made by this Board of Supervisors Board) of Contra Costa County (County) , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County regulations promulgated thereunder. These findings include this Board's certification of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (FEIR/EA) prepared for the Airport Master Plan Update, Airport Access Plan Amendment, Golf Course Lease, General Plan Amendment, Circulation Improvements, and Related Implementation for Buchanan Field Airport (airport) .. In addition, these findings include the Board's determination relating to the impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives and overriding considerations regarding the General Plan Amendment (GPA) . These findings only deal with the GPA. When the Board acts on the Airport Master Plan Update, Airport Access Plan Amendment, Golf Course Lease, Circulation Improvements, and related implementation, additional CEQA findings shall be prepared II. THE PROJECT The GPA proposes to redesignate land use classifications on segments of the Buchanan Field Airport property. The land use designation for the land east of John Glenn Drive (Parcel A) and the land east of Marsh Drive (Parcel B) would change from Office to Commercial. Parcel A is currently approved for a ten-story and a six-story office building totalling approximately 480, 000 square feet.The GPA will permit a low profile one-to-two story commercial center totalling approximately 220, 000 square feet. Parcel B is currently approved for up to 682 , 000 square feet of office space. The proposed amendment would allow 180, 000 square feet of commercial use. In addition, the land use designation of the Buchanan Field's Golf Course would be modified to better reflect the Parks and Recreation designation after Diamond Boulevard is extended (this extension has already been analyzed in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved pursuant to a General Plan Amendment) . Other minor changes will be made to the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, and Noise elements of the County General Plan. 1 f III. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following statements summarize the potential significant environmental impacts identified in the FEIR/EA along with the mitigation measures accepted or rejected and other facts and considerations affecting approval of the proposed project. A. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Impact: The proposed commercial uses may degrade local surface water quality as a result of contamination from runoff from parking lots and access roadways.Construction activities represent a short-term potential for the degradation of water quality as a result of potential fuel spills or leaks, and erosion and siltation. The northern portion of Parcel B is located in the 100-year flood plain for Grayson Creek and would be subject to inundation under such flood conditions. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-12 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the potential impacts on water quality to a level of insignificance: 1 Prior to construction, the developer shall prepare a hydrologic survey to assess the adequacy of drainage facilities and determine future requirements. 2 After construction, remove pollutants from local catch basins. 3 Periodically vacuum sweep parking lots and access roads. The FEIR/EA at page III-12 suggests the following summarized measures to reduce the potential impacts of construction to a level of insignificance: 1 Pollutants shall not be discharged into drainage facilities, nor stored or dumped in any location where they might enter the groundwater or drainage systems. 2 Monitor and clean up as quickly as possible construction related fuel spills and related surface contamination. 3 Limit grading activities to periods of dry weather. 4 Treat water from washing aggregate or other operations containing sediments. 2 5 Require a comprehensive construction erosion control plan, including the use of temporary silt fences or baled hay to prevent silt intrusion into existing drainage channels and water courses. 6 Construction impact mitigation requirements shall be made a part of all construction contracts and enforced by inspectors. The following measure is recommended at page III- 12 of the FEIR/EA to mitigate the potentially significant flood hazard impact to a level of insignificance: 1 Engineer Parcel B to minimize potential significant impacts from the 100-year flood. Facts: The above measures shall be implemented when warranted by specific development. Findings: The Board finds that the above impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact: The expansion potential of surface soils and the compressible nature of subsurface soils at Parcels A and B could result in damage if the building sites are not adequately prepared. A short-term potential for soil contamination, wind and water erosion, and sedimentation would result from construction activities. The proposed commercial development would result in additional concentrations of people in an area of known seismic risk. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at pages III-20 and III- 21 sets forth the following summarized measures to reduce the potential impacts of expansive soils and soil compression to a level of insignificance.-nsignificance:• 1 Consider supporting structures on deepened footings, slabs on grade and pavement on non-expansive fill. 2 Design site grades to avoid placement of additional fill. If not possible, individual building pad areas could be surcharged to obtain anticipated settlements. 3 3 Compact structural fill or wall backfill less than five feet thick to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and structural fill deeper than five feet to a minimum 95 percent. 4 Consider special design features for structures sensitive to differential settlement. 5 Conduct a detailed foundation investigation for all new facilities to further evaluate subsurface soils. To reduce the construction impacts to an insignificant level, the FEIR/EA at page III-21 sets forth the same measures as 1-6 recommended to mitigate construction impacts under Hydrology and Water Quality." The FEIR/EA at page III-21 sets forth the following summarized measure to reduce to a level of insignificance the exposure of people and property to an earthquake hazard: 1 Design and construct all improvements to conform to applicable seismic safety standards and guidelines. Facts: The above measures shall be applied to future development as warranted. Findings: The Board finds the above impacts to be adequately mitigated. C. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Impact: Construction activities for the proposed development will result in the removal of plant communities. Removal of these plant communities will result in the destruction of bird and animal habitat and displacement and reduction of resident. birds and animals. Aquatic plants and fish may also be impacted by project-related pollutants carried by storm-water runoff. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-29 acknowledges that no feasible or reasonable measures exist to completely avoid the impact on plant and animal habitat. The FEIR/EA recommends the following summarized measure to partially reduce potential construction impacts on resident animals: 4 1 1 Phase construction to provide animals an opportunity to move away from residential areas and into undeveloped areas. The FEIR/EA at page III-29 suggests the following summarized measures to mitigate to a level of insignificance the impact on aquatic plants and fish: 1 Conduct a hydraulic design analysis to evaluate the need for waste treatment of surface runoff and provide for special drainage system features. 2 After construction, remove pollutants from local catch basins. 3 Periodically sweep airport streets, parking lots and apron areas. 4 Follow airport adopted and FAA approved emergency fuel spill response procedures. Facts: The above measures shall be imposed on specific development projects as warranted. Findings: The Board finds that no reasonable or feasible means are available to completely avoid the reduction of plant and animal habitat that would occur as a result of adoption of the GPA and development of Parcels A and B. The Board further finds that the above measures will partially mitigate the potential impacts on resident animals and adequately mitigate the impact on aquatic plants and fish. D. LIGHT AND GLARE Impact: The proposed development would result in the creation of new lighting which could represent a hazard to air navigation and safety, and create additional glare on nearby residents. Mitigation: To reduce lighting impacts on aviation safety to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at page III-31 recommends the following summarized measure: 1 New lighting for commercial uses and the parking lots shall be of a high pressure sodium vapor type and shall be designed and installed so as not to create glare or interference with aircraft operations. 5 C To mitigate the lighting impact on nearby residents to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at page III-31 suggests the following summarized measure: 1 New lighting for commercial uses and parking lots shall be of the high pressure sodium vapor type and designed and installed so as not to create unnecessary glare. Facts: The above measures shall be implemented when warranted by specific development. Findings:The Board finds the above impacts mitigated to a level of insignificance. E. LAND USE Impact: The proposed commercial designation would result in the reduction of open space and the potential dislocation of an existing auto sales facility. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA states that there are no reasonable or feasible measures to reduce this impact and identifies it as unavoidable. (FEIR/EA, p. III-33) . Facts: Any type or density of development for the Parcels A and B would have an impact on land use. Development as proposed will have less of an impact than is currently approved and/or planned for those parcels. The commercial development will conform to the adjacent commercial uses and will complement the current development pattern of the area. In addition, the down- scaled development for Parcel A is necessary to address the safety concerns expressed by the public. Moreover, a change of use from Office to Commercial for both parcels is necessary to support the reasonably anticipated airport uses. Findings:The Board finds that there are no feasible measures to adequately mitigate this impact. The Board further finds that development under the GPA will mitigate this impact to the extent feasible. F. NATURAL RESOURCES Impact: No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to natural resources or resource consumption. (FEIR/EA, p. III-35) . Mitigation: None required. 6 Facts: The construction of commercial uses on Parcels A and B will result in the consumption of natural resources from construction activities, however this impact is deemed insignificant. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. G. RISK OF UPSET AND SAFETY Impact: The proposed development would not significantly increase the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, except as a result of construction activities. This represents a short-term potential impact. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-43 notes that the emergency fuel spill and hazardous substances release response measures of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Department Fire Department) are sufficient to reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance. Facts: Project construction shall comply with the Fire Departments response measures. Findings:The Board finds this impact to be adequately mitigated. H. POPULATION Impact: The proposed GPA will not create significant population impacts (FEIR/EA, p. III-44) . Mitigation: None required. Facts: It is projected that the areas in the vicinity of the airport will be completely built-out by the year 2000. Due to the fact that there is limited developable property in the area, a significant impact on population cannot occur. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. I. HOUSING Impact: The proposed GPA will not create significant housing impacts (FEIR/EA, p. III-45) . Mitigation: None required. Facts: The FEIR/EA identifies this impact as insignificant. 7 Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. J. PUBLIC SERVICES Impact: The proposed GPA will not create significant public service impacts (FEIR/EA, p. III-46) . Mitigation: None required. Facts:The proposed development will require police, fire, and rescue and emergency protection which is not currently provided. No additional staffing will need to occur to provides these services. The only additional facilities that would need to be installed are for fire protection and include water mains, fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems. The installation of such facilities will not create a significant impact. Moreover, the costs of these additional facilities shall be borne by the project developers. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. K. ENERGY Impact: The proposed development will result in the short-term consumption of petroleum products as a result of construction activities, and the long-term consumption of electrical energy and natural gas as a result of the lighting, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning of the new buildings. FEIR/EA, pps. III-48_ and III-49) . Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-49 acknowledges that no feasible or reasonable measures exist to completely avoid this impact. To partially mitigate this impact, the FEIR/EA recommends the following measures: 1 Design and construct new buildings with energy saving features. 2 Parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient. Facts: The above measures will partially mitigate the impact above and shall be incorporated into specific development proposals. Findings: The Board finds that no feasible measure exists to reduce this impact to an insignificant level. 8 L. UTILITIES Impact: The development of commercial uses would not result in a significant need for new utility systems or a substantial alteration to existing utilities. (FEIR/EA, pps. III- 50 and III-51) . Mitigation: None required. Facts: The existing utility systems shall be upgraded to accommodate the proposed development and the cost to do so shall be borne by the developers. Although no mitigation measures are required, conservation techniques and measures such as water conserving plumbing fixtures, drought resistant landscaping materials, insulation in buildings, and low energy lighting will be made a part of project design and construction. Findings:The Board finds this impact to be insignificant. M. HUMAN HEALTH Impact: The proposed amendment will not create significant impacts on human health. (FEIR/EA, p. III-52) . Mitigation:None required. Facts: The FEIR/EA identifies this impact as insignificant. Findincts: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. N. AESTHETICS Impact: Construction of the commercial uses may represent a short-term impact on aesthetics. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-54 recommends the following summarized measures to mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance.-nsignificance:• 1 Design and paint buildings attractively and install landscape. 2 A landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved prior to construction. Facts: The above impact shall be mitigated upon completion of construction and the installation of landscaping, including parking lots and street frontages. Commercial buildings 9 shall be set back from street frontages and screened by landscaping. Findings: The Board finds that the impacts shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the amendment and the above measures. O. RECREATION Impact: The proposed GPA will not create significant impacts on recreation (FEIR/EA, p. III-55) . Mitigation:None required. Facts: The FEIR/EA finds that no significant impact will result. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. P. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact: Construction activities could uncover artifacts or other evidence of archaeological significance from unknown sites. (FEIR/EA, p. III-56) . Mitigation: To mitigate the above impact to a level of insignificance, the FEIR/EA at page III-56 recommends that if significant archeological resources are uncovered, construction should halt and a qualified archeologist consulted. Facts: The above mitigation measure shall be implemented during construction. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is adequately mitigated. Q. NOISE Impact: Construction activities will create temporary noise impacts. Long-term noise impacts from vehicular traffic and the operation of equipment associated with commercial development may also result. (FEIR/EA, p. III-78) . Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-78 acknowledges that there are no reasonable or feasible measures to reduce construction noise. The FEIR/EA states that noise from commercial operations can be reduced to a level of insignificance through proper site planning and through dampening or suppression. In addition, the FEIR/EA states that vehicular noise can be reduced 10 to a level of insignificance during the night and early morning hours by imposing restrictions on delivery vehicles. Facts: The above measures shall be implemented when warranted by future development. Findings: The Board finds that no feasible measures exist to reduce construction noise. The Board further finds that the long-term noise impacts are partially mitigated. R. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impact: The proposed amendment will not create a significant impact on traffic. Cumulative impacts from the project may create significant traffic impacts by the year 2000. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-84 recommends installing a signal at the intersection on Concord Avenue between John Glenn Drive and the Walnut Creek channel and constructing a two-lane left turn from eastbound Concord Avenue to John Glenn Drive as an additional measure (which needs the concurrence of the City of Concord) . Facts: The GPA will add to traffic volumes however, this increase will not result in intolerable levels. With respect to Parcel A, during a.m. peak. hours, 20 of the 22 intersections studied would continue to operate at level of service LOS) B or better. Two intersections would continue to operate at LOS C. During p.m. peak hours, the intersection of Concord Avenue and John Glenn Drive would increase from LOS B to LOS E. This intersection is located in the Concord Central Business District wherein LOS E is considered acceptable according to City of Concord guidelines. At the intersection of Concord Avenue and the I-680 northbound on-ramp, traffic levels would increase from LOS C to LOS D, indicating a tolerable level of delay. With respect to Parcel B, during a.m. peak hours, 20 of the 22 intersections studied would continue to operate at LOS B or better, and LOS C or better. During the p.m. peak hours, the Concord Avenue/John Glenn intersection and the Concord Avenue/I-680 northbound on-ramp would increase from LOS C to LOS D. LOS D represents a tolerable level of delay and need not be mitigated. As demonstrated, the heaviest concentration of traffic will center around the Concord Avenue/John Glenn Drive intersection. Either of the two measures listed above would reduce traffic levels at this intersection. Both measures would serve to retain tolerable levels of service (LOS D or better) at the intersection with projected cumulative project impacts. The proposed project already includes a signal at Concord Avenue between John Glenn Drive and the Walnut Creek channel. The left turn lane shall be installed at the time development occurs. Finding: The Board finds this impact to be adequately mitigated. 11 S. AIR QUALITY Impact: Construction of the proposed development will create short-term impacts on air quality. The project, together with cumulative development in the area, may generate additional new pollutants that would contribute to regional ozone levels. Mitigation: The FEIR/EA at page III-94 states that construction impacts can be reduced through the utilization of dust control measures. In addition, the FEIR/EA states that automobile trips and thus emission rates, may be reduced by encouraging the use of public transit. Facts: All construction contracts shall require the utilization of dust control measures. Opportunities to mitigate air quality impacts that are created from automobiles are limited. Traditional air quality mitigation measures such as Transportation Systems Management (TSM) would not significantly reduce traffic generated from the proposed development.TSM measures are primarily aimed at home-to-work trips of employees, and the overwhelming majority of trips to commercial facilities are customer trips. In an effort to reduce automobile trips, the proposed development shall provide for transit bus pull-outs and waiting areas. Findings: The Board finds that the above impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. The Board further finds that the cumulative impact on air quality is unavoidable. T. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS. Impact: The proposed GPA would result in the economic development of two under-utilized parcels of airport land which is a positive, insignificant impact. It is reasonably anticipated that additional development in the area will occur as a result of development pressures in the area. Development pursuant to the GPA only relates to airport landholding and will not create a significant growth-inducing impact. Mitigation: No specific mitigation is identified in the FEIR/EA. Facts: The GPA will not significantly foster population growth in the area since the area lacks an amount of developable land necessary to create a significant increase in population. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required. 12 U. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact: Cumulative impacts attributed to implementation of the GPA are discussed in the FEIR/EA at pages III-95 through III-100 and further in these findings under the appropriately titled sections. Mitigation: Except as specifically provided under each identified impact, no specific mitigation measures for cumulative impacts are identified in the FEIR/EA. Facts: The cumulative impacts which would be expected upon the adoption of the GPA would be lessened by the mitigation measures identified for each applicable potential impact. Findings: The Board finds that the adoption of the specific mitigation measures identified in these findings will have the cumulative effect of lessening adverse cumulative environmental impacts that would arise from the implementation of the GPA. V. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Impact: The GPA will result in short-term impacts on noise and traffic due to construction activities. The long- term effects of the proposed project includes the loss of biotic habitat, loss of vacant land, increased urbanization and related considerations, and future traffic congestion beyond currently acceptable levels. Mitigation: Except as specifically provided for in each of the applicable identified impacts, no specific mitigation measures for this impact are identified in the FEIR/EA. Facts: Long-term benefits realized by direct and indirect economic growth, in addition to setting forth a means to obtain the County goals concerning economic realization, offset the above potential impacts. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is partially mitigated through the implementation of the project and the mitigation measures adopted in these findings. W. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES Impact: Implementation of the GPA will result in the commitment of land for project development and the consumption of both renewal and nonrenewable resources and cause the loss of wildlife habitat. (FEIR/EA, p. III-104) . 13 Mitigation: , Except as specifically provided for in each of the applicable identified impacts, no specific mitigation measures for this impact are identified in the FEIR/EA. Facts: The irreversible changes that would be expected upon the adoption of the project would be lessened by implementation of the mitigation measures identified for each potential impact. Findings: The Board finds that the irreversible changes have been mitigated to the extent feasible. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, Parcels A and/or B would develop as currently planned. Parcel A is currently approved for a ten-story and six-story office building totalling approximately 480, 000 gross square feet. Parcel B is also planned for office use and would accommodate up to 682, 000 gross square feet of offices. Facts: With respect to traffic, this alternative and the proposed project create similar impacts. However, this alternative will result in greater air quality impacts. For this project to proceed an interested entrepreneur is required. The applicant for this project has indicated no interest in pursuing this option. Finding: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds the no-project alternative unacceptable. B. PARCEL A ALTERNATIVES 1. Modified Office Proposal. This alternative would result in one seven-story, one six-story, and one-five story office building totalling approximately 450, 000 square feet, and a 7, 000-square-foot restaurant/parking structure. Facts: This alternative will create slightly less of an impact on traffic than the proposed project. The air quality impacts are essentially the same for the proposed project and this alternative. However, the lowered building heights as proposed under the GPA will create less of a safety risk. Further, office space may not be a feasible use for Parcels A and B since the market for such has declined. Finding: For the reasons stated above, the Board rejects this alternative. 14 2 . Mixed Office/Commercial Use. This alternative would result in approximately 400, 000 square feet of 'office use and 35, 000 square feet of office-support retail and restaurant uses. Facts: This alternative will generate less of an impact on traffic and air quality than that generated by development as proposed under the GPA. However, the GPA will create less of an impact on safety. In addition, the feasibility of this alternative is questionable since the market for office space in the area has declined. Finding: For the reasons stated above the Board rejects this alternative. 3. Auto Mall Option. This alternative would allow automobile sales and support facilities on Parcel A for 10 to 15 years. At the end of that period the County would review existing market conditions and determine the highest and best use for the site. Facts: This alternative is consistent with the proposed commercial designation approved by the County Planning Commission draft plan and could be implemented under that approval. Finding: As a result of the foregoing, the Board finds that this alternative could be allowed under the GPA. C.- PARCEL B ALTERNATIVES 1. Mixed Office/Commercial Use. This alternative would result in the development of up to 225, 000 square feet of light industrial, retail/restaurant, and auto sales and rental uses on the site. Facts: This alternative will have less of an impact on traffic and air quality than the proposed development. The current market in the area is not favorable to office space and as a result, this alternative would not further the County's economic goals for presently undeveloped property. Finding: For the reasons stated above, the Board rejects this alternative. 2 . Light Industrial/Research Park Use. This alternative would result in the development of up to 192, 000 square feet of light industrial or research park-type uses on Parcel B. Facts: With respect to traffic and air quality, this alternative would serve as the environmentally superior alternative. However, the airport staff concluded that additional land needs to be reserved for airport facilities. This alternative 15 would not be able to accommodate these uses, therefore, a commercial designation is required. Finding: The Board rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above. In light of the above, the Board of supervisors finds that the GPA possess qualities superior to the above-alternatives, and therefore, the Board approves the GPA along with the accepted summarized mitigation measures as set forth herein. IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. CEQA requires the benefits of a proposed project to be balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project.The Board has determined that the benefits of this project outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered and comprise the Statement of Overriding Considerations for each and every impact that has not been substantially (adequately) mitigated as hereinabove set forth: 1. The proposed GPA will result in the economic development of under-utilized airport land. Commercial uses for Parcels A and B are necessary to allow the County to further its goal in realizing an,economic return from these parcels. 2 . Development of Parcel A as a low profile one-to-two story structure will adequately address the public's concern expressed on safety. The public has expressed its concern regarding the proximity of a ten story office complex to the airport. 3 . Commercial development as proposed under the GPA for Parcel A will conform to the adjacent commercial uses and further, will blend into the current development pattern of the area. 4. The retention of lands for airport facilities and purposes will reduce the land available for non-aviation purposes on Parcel B. The commercial designation for Parcel B will provide for a broader range of uses on this reduced parcel area. 5. The minor modification to the remaining elements of the General Plan basically reflect updating of information such as noise contours or shifts in plan boundaries. while minor in nature, they make the County General Plan more consistent with today's situation. 16 J Y V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 21081. 6 of the Public Resources Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings. This Board adopts the following program in fulfillment of this requirement: 1. The County Community Development Department shall prepare an overall plan to implement the mitigation measures adopted in these findings by incorporating them as policies within the projects, or by preparing implementing regulations, ordinances, standards, programs and plans, or by incorporating them into future development approvals as appropriate to the particular mitigation measure, and shall take such action as necessary to effectuate the plan. 2 . The County Community Development Department shall file a written report with the Planning Commission within 3 months from the approval date of specific projects under the GPA on the implementation plan. Thereafter, the County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Planning Commission on the implementation status of the mitigation measures until the project is builtout. Where appropriate and feasible the report shall also provide a projected timetable for the implementation of each mitigation measure. 3 . The Planning Commission shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay in, or obstacle to, the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures which requires further action. If a developer or interested party requests it, the result of this review will be provided in writing. 4 . If the Planning Commission determines that such further action is required, it shall consult with staff in order to determine the additional actions to be taken to ensure the implementation of such mitigation measures. The Planning Commission shall take those reasonable actions as permitted by law which will ensure the implementation of the mitigation measures. 17