Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 10231990 - 90/703f Arl VL TM BOARD OF OF CONTRA COSH COUNTY, aujFt MIA Adopted this mer an October 23. 1990 by the fol-lowing vote: AYES:SUPERVISORS POWERS, SCSRODER, McPEAK, TORLAKSON, FABDEN NOES:NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RF1 rTi'T NO. 90/703 SUBJMT: In the matter of the Evora Road ) 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 Resolution No. 66-1990 adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission discussing an amendment to the County General Plan for the West Pittsburg/Concord area. On October.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 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 West Pittsburg/Concord area as recommended by the Fast County Regional Planning Commission and adopt the CDQA findings found in Attachment A to this document. The Board accepted the amendment as recommended by the Fast County Regional Planning Commission except to allow for consideration of up to 300 unit on the Boeger Ranch rather than the 292 recommended by the Commission and to add wording on trail implementation. 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 I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of County Administration an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Public Works Director Board of SuIsor 0 the date shown. County Counsel ATTESTED: P 3 •D PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board cjc8/evora.res Supery and County Administrator By Deputy RESOLUTION NO. 90/703 Attachment A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE EVORA ROAD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE NO. 8-89-EC, SCH NO. 89100309) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) 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 certification of the Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR" or "EIR" ) prepared for the Evora Road General Plan Amendment (the "General Plan Amendment" ) , including the proposed Boeger Ranch residential project ( "Boeger Ranch" ) and the Calvary Temple church facility project ( "Church Facility" ) , and its determination relating to the impacts, avoidance and mitigation measures, alternatives and overriding considerations regarding this Board' s intended approval of the General Plan Amendment . 2. The General Plan Amendment is a long-range planning effort by the County covering approximately 1 ,900 acres ( "Study Area" ) . The three specific types of development contemplated for the Study Area are Boeger Ranch, the Church Facility, and a commercial development on a three-acre parcel Commercial Parcel" ) . These three developments are linked together in the County' s comprehensive planning, but are otherwise separate and distinct areas of interest. Land use applications for these developments shall be processed separately after the adoption of these findings . 3 . The Final EIR 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 . 1 4 . This Board certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, this Board prior to approving the General Plan Amendment . In so certifying, this Board 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. 5 . Although this Board is currently approving only the General Plan Amendment, the Final EIR is a "Project EIR" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and is intended to serve as the environmental documentation for the General Plan Amendment and the Boeger Ranch and Church Facility projects 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 and the Church Facility. The Final EIR, or a portion thereof, may also serve as the environmental documentation for the California Department of Fish and Game,. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or any other federal, State or local agency actions or decisions relating to any permit, approval or other entitlement which may be issued, or other action taken, relating to Boeger Ranch and the Church Facility. 6 . At this General Plan Amendment stage of the development process it is impossible to forecast with certainty whether Boeger Ranch or the Church Facility will be approved or will be approved for the maximum size or density allowed by the General Plan Amendment or some lesser size or density. Lastly, it is unknown whether the Project as finally approved will involve the "worst-case" environmental impacts and scenarios discussed in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, these findings attempt to address all possible Project impacts at this, the earliest stage in the development process . The avoidance and mitigation measures adopted include measures which are designed to be: ( i) incorporated as policies within the General Plan Amendment; ( ii) be effected through subsequent implementing regulations, ordinances, standards, programs and plans (e.g. , Development Plans and Map Approvals) ; and/or ( iii) incorporated into, or imposed as conditions to, future approvals . The General Plan Amendment does not amount to the final authorization to develop the area it encompasses . 2 7 . The East County Regional Planning Commission the "Planning Commission" ) and/or this Board will be subsequently reviewing and considering plans and maps for Boeger Ranch and the Church Facility pursuant to separate processing schedules . The Planning Commission and this Board will diligently implement such mitigation measures, and shall monitor the status of such measures pursuant to the mitigation implementation and monitoring program established herein and in subsequent findings by the Planning Commission and this Board. 8 . For purposes of these findings, "Project" shall mean the General Plan Amendment, the planning, development, construction, and maintenance of Boeger Ranch and the Church Facility, and the redesignation of the Commercial Parcel from "Light Industrial" to "Commercial . " There are currently no plans or applications to develop the Commercial Parcel , and such plans or applications may require further environmental review. 9 . 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 Study Area Site, The Applications, And Approval Of The General Plan Amendment . 1 . The Study Area contains several individual properties located north of State Highway 4 in unincorporated Contra Costa County, near West Pittsburg. The Study Area encompasses approximately 1900 acres, portions of which lie within the planning areas of the Cities of Pittsburg and Concord, but outside both cities ' spheres of influence. 2 . Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. ( "Kaufman and Broad" ) has made application to the County requesting a General Plan Amendment originally to allow the development of 319 units on the 150-acre Boeger Ranch site; a rezoning from A-4 and A-2 (Agricultural Preserve and General Agriculture) to P-1 (Planned Unit Development) has also been requested. . Thereafter, the Calvary Temple also requested a General Plan Amendment to allow the construction of the Church Facility, to include a day care center, school for grades K-6, sanctuary, multi-purpose building, recreational facilities and parking. The Temple is also requesting a rezoning of the site from A-2 to P-1 (Planned Unit Development) . In response to these applications and the direction given County Staff by the Board to -plan the West Pittsburg area through a comprehensive approach (in reaction to the debate over Hill 310) , the General Plan Amendment was commenced. As stated above, the General, 3 Plan Amendment reviews 1900 acres of land in the Evora Road area, including the Boeger Ranch and Church Facility development proposals . 3 . The purpose of Boeger Ranch is to: i) create a high quality, relatively low cost single-family residential project; ( ii) create an multi-use church facility; iii) dedicate the majority of the existing open space and hillsides to permanent public and private open space use. 4 . As a part of this development approach, the General Plan Amendment will change the land use designation for the Boeger Ranch site from "General Open Space and Agricultural Preserve" to "Single Family Residential High Density. " The designation of the Church Facility site will change from General Open Space" to "Public and Semi-Public" and "Open Space. " 5 . Approximately 102 .3 acres of the 150-acre Boeger Ranch site is proposed for permanent open space. An additional 4 . 5 acres of the site will be designated for park and recreational use. 6 . The present approval , for which these findings are made, addresses only the General Plan Amendment . However, the EIR was prepared to address all of the impacts, mitigations and alternatives to the Project and to serve as the environmental document for the approvals necessary for the development of Boeger Ranch and the Church Facility. Relative to the ultimate development of Boeger Ranch, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc . has submitted or intends to submit applications to the County for Planned Unit Development P-1) zoning, development plans, and vesting tentative and final subdivision maps . Kaufman and Broad and the Calvary Temple intend to tailor and process the remainder of their land use approval requests in line with the General Plan Amendment, as approved by this Board. 7 . The EIR recommends avoidance and mitigation measures for the Project as a whole, including measures which are designed to be incorporated into the future specific development plans . Because the General Plan Amendment only makes certain changes to the land use designations assigned certain properties in the Study Area and does not include any specific authorization to develop the Project, and because this Board will later consider and decide specific development proposals for the Project, including Boeger Ranch, the Church Facility and the remaining acreage within the Study Area, certain conditions of approval and mitigation measures cannot be imposed at this General Plan Amendment stage, but must instead be imposed in connection with such future land use approvals . Nevertheless, at this level, wherever possible, 4 this Board has attempted to either impose mitigation measures in connection with the General Plan Amendment (so as to mitigate Project impacts at the earliest possible stage in the development process) ,, or has directed that such mitigation measures be made a part of subsequent conditions to subsequent Project approvals prior to final Project approval . C. Procedural History. 1 . Following the decision to comprehensively plan the 1900 acres comprising the Study Area, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project and submitted on July 11 , 1989 . On the basis of the Initial Study, it was determined that the Project may have significant environmental effects and that the preparation of an environmental impact report was required.. 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, 1.990 and was closed September 19, 1989 , for a total of 52 calendar days . During that period, oral and written comments regarding the Project, the Draft EIR and the studies 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' l , 1990 , at a properly noticed public hearing, the West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory Committee MAC" ) considered the DEIR, the -General Plan Amendment and the Boeger Ranch and Church Facility proposals . By majority vote, the MAC voiced their support for same. 5 . On October 2, 1990 , at a properly noticed public hearing, this Board approved a Development Agreement relative to Boeger Ranch. The benefits to the County flowing from that Agreement are discussed herein. 6 . On October 8, 1990, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing, voted to recommend to this Board both the certification of the Final EIR as adequate and complete and the approval of the General Plan Amendment . 5 7 . In particular, the Planning Commission accepted staff ' s recommendation (set forth in that Staff Report dated October 8, 1990) that development of Boeger Ranch be linked to the construction of the Driftwood Drive Extension as a collector road from Pacifica Avenue to Evora Road; that permanent open space protections be employed; and that Boeger Ranch be limited to 292 units . 8 . On October 23 , 1990 , the Board accepted and adopted the Planning Commission' s recommendation, with the exception that Boeger Ranch be limited to 300 units . D. Description Of The Record. The record before this Board relating to this action includes, without limitation, the following: 1 . All Boeger Ranch and Church Facility applications, studies , letters and other submittals to the County relating to the Project, including 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 findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record as a whole. E. Miscellaneous , 1 . This Board finds and determines that the geotechnical and other studies conducted after publication of 6 the Draft EIR but prior to the certification of the Final EIR and the C&R did not provide significant new information or require substantial changes to the EIR; instead, the studies merely clarified, amplified or made insignificant modifications to the EIR. Based on its review of the standards set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162-15164 , this Board finds that there is no basis in the record to support requiring the preparation of any further addendum to the. Final EIR, a supplemental EIR, or a subsequent EIR to address the modifications to the General Plan Amendment. 2 . 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 housing 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. The number . of units allowed by this Project is a maximum figure; the actual number of units which may be allowed will not be determined until the subsequent development plan stage. 3 . . The discussions which follow under the captions "Facts" for each category recite some of the background information relating to the Project, the discussions under the captions "Findings" contain findings made by this Board, based on the entire record before this Board, including without limitation the information which is recited in the discussion of "Facts . " 4 . This Board intends that these findings and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of these findings and determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings and determinations, that any finding or determination required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed made if 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 . 5 . Although the discussions under the captions Facts" below may primarily or entirely be based on the Final EIR, this Board intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record, including written and oral testimony to the Planning Commission and this Board. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this Board that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact . This Board' s findings as set 7 forth herein are based on all of the facts in the record before this Board. 6 . Any modification 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 otherwise infeasible. The reasons for each such particular determination are explained in these findings, and 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 to significance level . The specific findings of this Board for each category of such impacts are set forth below in this section II . The findings of this Board regarding unavoidable impacts of the Project, listed in Chapter VI .A of the EIR, are set forth in Section III , below (Findings Regarding Unavoidable Impacts) and in Section VII , below (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings . A. Land Use. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on land use on pages 17-19 . The only impacts of the Project on land use which are listed as unavoidable is the loss of agricultural and grazing land. b) Grazing on the Project site has substantially reduced the environmental and biotic value of the site. In fact, the EIR recommends that the proposed open space areas on the Project site be protected from future grazing, although this recommendation is not directed as a significant Project impact. c) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures on pages .19-20 . These mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are all incorporated into the conditions of approval, except for the reduction of density of the Boeger Ranch Subdivision. This development ' s ultimate density will be established in a later approval, when the property is subdivided as described on page 13 of the EIR. 8 d) The densities at the proposed residential subdivision are similar to those at the adjacent Mota Ranch Subdivision. Accordingly, development of the subdivision at those densities will not result in the elimination of an existing buffer between residential and agricultural or open space uses . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to land use set forth in the EIR have or will be incorporated into the Project, or made conditions of future project approvals, except for the reduction of density of the Boeger Ranch Subdivision. These mitigation measures shall avoid or reduce soil impacts to a less than significant level , except as set forth below in section IV (Findings on Unavoidable Impacts) . b) To the extent that the incremental loss of grazing land involved in the Project is an adverse impact, it is outweighed by the damage done to the habitat resources on this site by grazing. c) To the extent that the density of the Boeger Ranch Subdivision may result in a significant land use impact, that impact will be avoided or reduced to less than significant level by the mitigation measures incorporated into or imposed upon the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , reduction of housing density is not allowed if other feasible mitigation measures are available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation, as is the case here, d) Any land use impacts which remain, despite the land use mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. B. Plans and Policies . 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project relating to local plans and policies on pages 21-35 . The EIR does not list any impacts of the Project relating to plans and policies as unavoidable or irreversible. b) The EIR notes several inconsistencies between the proposed Evora Road General Plan Amendment, and the land use designations . in the Draft Contra Costa General plan. 9 These inconsistencies will be resolved by modifying the Draft General Plan to conform to the Evora Road General Plan Amendment . c) The other potential impacts relate to aesthetic and design policies, and geological hazards and can be acceptably reduced by the imposition of mitigation measures described in Sections IV.A and IV.F of the EIR. As discussed below in this section, these measures will be imposed as conditions of approval . d) The proposed Church Facility and the density of the residential subdivision do not conform to the land use designations applied to the sites in the City of Pittsburg' s General Plan. Although the sites are within the City' s planning area, they are outside the boundaries of the City and its sphere of influence. 2 . Findings. a) The mitigation measures relating to plans and policies have been or will be incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures shall avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . b) Any plans and policies impacts or inconsistencies which remain, despite the imposition of the plans and policies 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, (section VII of these findings, below) . C. Geology/Soils . 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses potentially significant and less than significant Project impacts on pages 50-52 of the EIR, and on C&R pages 11-16 and 30-32 . None of these impacts are listed as avoidable or significant in the EIR. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to significant geological impacts on pages 52-55. These measures include drainage guidelines, inspection and reinforcement as needed of cut slopes, analysis and possible excavation of the colluvial area on the Boeger Ranch site, the use of drilled pier foundations, non-expansive imported materials, careful design and construction of deep fills, rural irrigation and surface runoff, maintenance of 10 slopes, drainage terraces and subdrains by the property owner ' s/homeowner ' s association, and payment of any cost of utility realignment or other measures to protect existing utilities by the developers . 2 . Findings . a) All of the mitigation measures relating to geology and soils recommended in the EIR have been or will be incorporated into the Project, or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . D. Drainage. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the significant impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality at pages 70-73 , and at C&R pages 33-39 . No impacts relating to hydrology or water quality are listed as unavoidable or irreversible in the EIR. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to significant hydrology and water quality impacts at pages 73-74 , and C&R pages 34-39 . They include the recalculation of watershed hydrology, and sizing of drainage pipes to reflect runoff volumes, appropriate sizing and grading of the culvert crossing of the Contra Costa Canal , to be approved by CCWD and EBMUD, limits on fill slope gradients along the north slope of the border, and hydro-seeding and hydro-mulching of the slope. A ditch at the base of the slope is also recommended. Lastly, if the hillside portion of the DA48C watershed is developed at urban density, a detention basin or oversized storm drainage pipe is recommended. 2. Findinqs . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to hydrology and water quality has been incorporated or will be into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals. These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . E. Traffic/Circulation. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation at pages 75-102, and in the 11 1 C&R. No impact of the Project on traffic and circulation is listed as unavoidable or irreversible in the C&R. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to traffic and circulation at pages 102-103, and in the C&R. These measures include funding certain intersection improvements, restriction of driveway access, restriction of grading and other improvements to preserve site lines, provision of pedestrian and bicycle access to adjacent subdivisions, the redesign of the subdivision street system, the installation of a traffic signal, and the addition of turn lanes and other upgrades to certain roads . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to traffic and circulation have been or will be incorporated into or the Project, or will be made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures shall avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . b) Any traffic and circulation impacts or inconsistencies which remain, despite the imposition of the traffic and circulation 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 (Section VII of these findings, below) . F. Climate and Air Quality. 1 . Facts. a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on climate and air quality at pages 109 through 114 , and in the C&R. No impact of the Project relating to climate or air quality is listed as unavoidable or irreversible. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to air quality at pages 113 through 114 . These mitigation measures relate to dust control during construction activities . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to air quality have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These 12 mitigation measures shall avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . G. Noise. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on noise at pages 118 through 122 . No impact of the Project relating to noise is listed as unavoidable or irreversible in the EIR. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to noise at pages 121 through 122 . These mitigation measures include design modifications of the south-facing walls for the proposed sanctuary and multi-purpose building on the Church Facility site. These measures also include limits on construction activities, noise shielding and muffling devices on equipment, and location of noise-generating construction activities. c) Mitigation measures for the proposed Boeger Ranch Subdivision on the north side of Evora Road will not be needed due to the 585 ft . setback distance the development will have from Evora Road. The noise levels experienced by the Subdivision will be well under the County' s noise standards . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to noise have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures shall avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . H. Visual Quality and Aesthetics 1 . Facts a) The EIR discusses potential visual impacts of the Project on pages 127 through 131 and C&R pages 42 through 44, 48 through 50, 51 through 53 , 59 through 61 , 66 through 78, 88, 110 through 111 . The EIR lists the impact of the Project relating to aesthetics and views as potentially significant and unavoidable. b) Under the current proposals, changes to the existing visual quality of the study area will be limited to proposed Boeger Ranch and Church Facility sites . The change 13 from undeveloped ranch land to residential uses at Boeger Ranch would alter the visual character of this site. Views from Evora Road and Mota Ranch would be affected by grading site development. The proposed Church Facility will be visible from Evora Road and Highway 4 . Highway 4 is a designated scenic road. The height of the Church Facility has however been reduced to maximum of 49 feet . c) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project on pages 141 through 144 . Further, the County must affirm the proposed Church Facility compliance with the established scenic corridor policies prior to approval of specific development plans (page 28; C&R page 44) . 2 . Findings This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to aesthetic and visual impacts of the Project have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . b) Any aesthetic and visual impacts which remain, despite the imposition of .mitigation measures, are overridden and outweighed by the environmental public health, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. I . Fire Protection. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on fire protection services at pages 145-150 and in the C&R. The Project ' s fire protection impacts are not set forth in the EIR as unavoidable or irreversible. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to fire protection services at pages 149-150 . These measures include the installation of approved automatic fire sprinklers for all buildings, the use of noncombustible roofing, payment of one-time fire facility fees, establishment of a fire protection benefit assessment program, imposition of a weed abatement standard such as Greenbelt planting, providing fire breaks in the open space area, access into open space areas, and the provision of adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection services to the open space and developed area. 14 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to fire protection have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . J. Law Enforcement. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on law enforcement services at pages 150-151 , and in the C&R. No impacts relating to law enforcement services are listed as unavoidable or irreversible in the EIR. b) The EIR recommends various measures relating to law enforcement services at pages 150-151 . These mitigation measures include developer participation in the formation of a benefit assessment district to provide additional law enforcement resources, redesign of the street configuration or the installation of stop signs to discourage speeding, and the incorporation of crime prevention measures into the design of the site. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that: a) All of the mitigation measures relating to law enforcement services have been or will be incorporated into the Project, or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to enforcement services to a less than significant level . K. Schools . 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on schools at pages 152-153 , and in the C&R. No impact of the Project relating to schools is listed as unavoidable or irreversible in the EIR. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to schools at page 153 . These mitigations measures include payment of developer fees under AB 2926 and participation in a special assessment district, such as a 15 Mello-Roos Services District, to establish sufficient funding for the district ' s facility expansion program. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to schools have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . L. Parks and Recreation. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on parks and recreation on pages 153-154 and in the C&R. No impacts of the Project relating to parks and recreation are listed in the EIR as unavoidable or irreversible. b) The EIR recommends a mitigation measure at page 154 of the EIR. The mitigation measure involves the payment of in lieu fees to the county for use by the Ambrose Recreation and Park District . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to parks and recreation have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . M. Solid Waste. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on solid waste at page 155 . b) The EIR lists the Project ' s contribution to the County landfill crisis as a potential unavoidable impact. However, the EIR also recognizes that this solid waste impact is cumulative in nature. c) The Board has approved the Marsh Canyon landfill site. Development of this landfill site will alleviate the existing landfill crisis . 16 d) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to solid waste at page - 156 . These mitigation measures include implementation of curbside recycling within the residential areas of the Project and the adoption of additional recycling programs . e) Although unavoidable, the Project ' s impacts on solid waste would not significantly affect the County landfill crisis . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) All of the mitigation measures relating to solid waste set forth in the EIR have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions of future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . b) Any solid waste impacts which remain, despite the mitigation measures related to recycling, 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 (Section VII of these findings, below) . N. Sewer and Water . 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on sewer and water at pages 156-159 , and in the C&R. No impact of the Project relating to sewer or water is listed as unavoidable or irreversible. b) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures relating to sewer and water at pages 158-159 , and in the C&R at pages 34-36 . These mitigation measures relate to water conservation measures, the use of drought-resistant plant species for landscaping and drip irrigation, funding for water and sewer extensions to the proposed developments, and water recycling. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that: a) All of the mitigation measures relating to sewer and water have been or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These mitigation measures will avoid or reduce such impacts to a less than significant level . 17 O. Cultural Resources . 1 . Facts a) The EIR discusses cultural resources at page 163 . A records search determined that there were no previously recorded archaeological or historic sites within the study area. Archaeological surveys and field studies of the Project area confirmed the absence of such sites . b) The EIR determined that the Project would have no potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures were recommended. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) The Project will not have a potentially significant impact on cultural resources . Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. P. Biotics. 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on vegetation and wildlife at pages 164-168, and in the C&R. No impacts of the Project relating to native vegetation and wildlife are listed in the EIR as potentially significant . b) Surveys of the Project site indicate that no endangered or threatened plant and animal species exist on the site. c) The highly degraded nature of the grassland habitat on the Boeger Ranch and Church Facility sites indicates that development would have no potentially . significant impact on native plants or wildlife in the Project area. d) The EIR recommends various mitigation measures to ameliorate present biotic conditions at pages 167-169 . These mitigation measures are not proposed to mitigate impacts of the Project . However , Kaufman and Broad and the Calvary Temple would consider implementing these measures as conditions to future Project approvals . 2 . Findings . a) Impacts of the Project relating to plants and wildlife are not potentially significant. 18 Therefore, mitigation measures are not needed to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less than significant level . Q. Cumulative Impacts . 1 . Facts . a) The EIR discusses the cumulative impacts of the Project at pages 184-186, in addition to the discussion of these impacts in the various impact categories analyzed in the EIR. The EIR does not list any cumulative impacts as unavoidable except for the Project ' s contribution to the decrease in landfill capacity and the loss of grazing land within the County, which are listed as potentially unavoidable. The EIR does not separately list any mitigation measures for cumulative impacts, but includes numerous mitigation measures for each of the impacts which is discussed in the cumulative impact analysis . b) The EIR states that several impacts of the Project are potentially significant when considered with other approved, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects . These are land use and planning policy, drainage, air quality, traffic and circulation, public services and utilities, and loss of agricultural and grazing land. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) Cumulative impacts of the project will generally be mitigated to a less than significant level by the adoption of mitigation measures as referenced above in these findings . b) To the extent that any cumulative impacts remain, despite the mitigation measures for all categories of environmental impacts as set forth above in these findings, those cumulative impacts 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 (Section VII of these findings, below) . 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. 19 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 . 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, this 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 (Section VII of these findings, below) . 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. 20 c) The EIR notes that the biotic value of the Project site has been degraded due to overgrazing. The Boeger Ranch Subdivision and the Church Facility are 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 Williamson Act agricultural preservation contracts . Williamson Act contracts remain binding and in effect for at least ten years, 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 there are additional lands in the vicinity of the Project devoted 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 acreage on this site alone, is substantially reduced because other surrounding lands are likely to remain in agricultural use for some time. Nevertheless, this impact is potentially significant and unavoidable. b) The impacts of this Project on the 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 (Section VII of these findings, below) . C. Visual Impacts . 1 . Facts . a) The EIR states on page 183 that the Project, without redesign of the Boeger Ranch Subdivision and the Church Facility, will create significant visual impacts . These visual impacts relate to the Project ' s proposed grading and the visual effect of the Church Facility 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 . Furthermore, the Church Facility has been redesigned to incorporate several of these mitigation measures, thereby reducing the Church Facility' s overall visual impact . 21 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 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 (Section VII of these findings, below) . 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 discourage 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) This Board favors the preservation of lands adjoining the Boeger Ranch and Church Facility as open space. c) The EIR describes the vicinity of the Boeger Ranch and Church Facility 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 precluded by the steepness of the land, providing a permanent open space buffer . d) The steep topographical features of the lands to the northwest of the Church Facility site and the site' s proximity to Highway 4 , a designated scenic route, would hamper further development in the lands adjoining the church site. e) As discussed in the EIR, C & R pages 37 Figure 7) , 107 through ll , development of most of the study area west of the residential and church sites is limited by underground gas fields . 22 2 . Findings . This Board finds that : a) The EIR' s suggestion that the open space designation of agricultural lands in the study area will not be enforced due to a lack of this Board' s commitment to maintain those lands and open space is pure speculation and unjustified by any facts in the record. Any growth inducing impacts from the Project will be insignificant . The extension of sewer and water lines and annexation into the sewer district 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 identical to the impacts listed in Sections IV.A and IV.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 : 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 Section II , above, of 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 23 of Overriding Considerations (Section VII of these findings, 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 320 homes (page 8) . b) The EIR recognizes that the Project would result in the 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 Project would apply 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 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 uses of the environment are not significant relative to the similar impacts that any residential development Project would have on short-term and long-term uses of the environment . b) Alternatively, to the extent that these impacts are significant, they will be mitigated at this time or at the time of subsequent development approvals by the mitigation measures adopted in Chapter II of these Findings . 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 24 benefits of the Project outweigh and override any adverse impacts; as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VII of these findings, below) . C. Modifications to the Project. 1 . Facts . a) The proponents of the Church Facility have re-sited the Church Facility, reduced its height and decreased its overall square footage in response to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and the geotechnical survey. The total square feet of the Church Facility have been reduced from 96, 100 square feet to 86,900 square feet . The buildings have been moved approximately 80 feet eastward and 65 feet to the north. The complex has been rotated about eight degrees counterclockwise. The height of the structure has been reduced by a total of 16 feet . b) The EIR states that the modifications will reduce the scale of the structure as viewed from Highway 4 . However, there will still be visual impacts both on Highway 4 and Evora Road. Traffic impacts are expected to be reduced. c) The Church Facility as modified will not increase any of the impacts of the Project as analyzed in the EIR. The overall visual impact of the Project will be' reduced. 2 . Findings . This Board finds that: a) The Project modifications do not result in any significant environmental impacts which were not considered in the EIR and do not increase the severity of any environmental impacts considered in the EIR. The Project modifications are minor technical changes and will reduce some of the environmental impacts of the Project. Therefore, the Project modifications do not constitute changes which require major or important revisions to the EIR. b) The Project modifications do not constitute substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken or require major or important revisions to the EIR. These modifications are minor changes to the EIR, and are not changes in circumstances . c) The Project modifications do not constitute new information relating to the Project which shows any additional significant impacts, or more severe significant 25 T affects, when compared to the impacts analyzed in the EIR. Nor do the Project modifications constitute new information creating a need for further consideration of mitigation measures . The Project modifications are minor technical changes in the Project, rather than new information relating to the Project . d) Based on the standards set forth in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162-15164, this Board finds that there is no basis in the record before it to support requiring the applicant to prepare an addendum to the EIR, a supplemental EIR or a subsequent EIR to address the Project modifications . VI . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The EIR discusses the following 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 and the lands current designation. However, after the draft General Plan is adopted, the designation of the Study Area will be less restrictive than under the Project, 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 is an existing deficiency in the portion of the watershed that is in West Pittsburg, and in contributing to the drainage area established by the county, the developers of Boeger Ranch and the Church Facility would 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 26 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 has agreed in the Development Agreement approved by this Board, 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 which will be incorporated into future development approvals 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 319 homes, 102 .3 acres of permanent public open space, retention of the open space designations for all portions of the study area not specifically designated for development and contribution towards 1) improvements to reduce existing downstream drainage problems north of the Boeger Ranch site, and 2) the Evora Road/Driftwood Road extension. In addition, approval of the no project alternative would preclude the addition of to the community of the facilities to be offered at the Church Facility, including schools and a day care center . 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. 27 B. Alternative B. 1 . Facts . a) This alternative reduces density from 319 to 292 lots on the Boeger Ranch subdivision, proposes a north/south arterial through the subdivision, and reduces the size of the Church Facility by 25% . 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 patters would remain basically the same as with the proposed project . However, the amount of drainage fees contributed to future improvements would be reduced by $22,410 . e) This alternative would reduce residential project traffic generation by 8% . The reduction in the Church Facility would result in a 15% reduction in daily trips . Implementation of this alternative would result in approximately 9,390 total daily trips . 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 increased air quality emissions and noise levels over project emission levels, because of the construction of the north/south arterial . The visual impact of the Church Facility would be reduced. i) This alternative would have effects 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 avoid 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. 28 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 on the two scenic corridors .. The Church Facility has already been reduced substantially in size reducing the visual impact . C&R pages 1-3 . 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 or will be incorporated into the Project or made conditions to future Project approvals . These measures have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate the environmental effects of the Project, except those impacts which are listed in the final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or . obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of approving this alternative. b) To the extent that Alternative B would reduce the size of the Church Facility, approval of this alternative would reduce potential contributions to drainage improvements in the vicinity, other fees and dedications, and the number of jobs which will be generated by the project as proposed by the applicant . 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 has agreed to assist in the funding of the Evora Road/Driftwood Road extension in the Development Agreement approved by this Board, further rendering infeasible and obviate 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 29 A a 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 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 . Although the location of the impact would be different, the impacts would be similar in kind to that of the proposed 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 fire protection. There are no schools and parks located within the alternative site area, accordingly there would be greater demands for these facilities than if the Project is developed. 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 project or which will be incorporated as conditions of approval for subsequent development .approvals have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate 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 . b) Approval of this alternative would fail to designate as open space the approximately 1 ,200 acres so designated in the proposed Project . The open space designation would discourage premature development of lands so designated. 30 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 have agreed in the Development Agreement to contribute toward the cost of the Evans Road/Driftwood Road extension 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 General Plan Amendment and the Project are unavoidable, such impacts are infeasible, 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. 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 102 of the 150 acres 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 31 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. Finally, the retention of the open space designation in the Study Area will discourage premature development of these lands . As described in detail the EIR, approximately 1700 acres will be conserved as open space. 2 . Jobs and Economic Development. The General Plan Amendment and the remainder of the Project will facilitate the eventual development of Boeger Ranch, the Church Facility and the Commercial Parcel , thereby providing 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 and the Commercial Parcel will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the property, thereby creating additional property tax revenue for the County on a long-term basis . The patronage of local businesses by employees, Project residents, and church members will result in an increase in sales tax revenue. 4 . Provision of Needed Housing. Development of Boeger Ranch by Kaufman and Broad will provide needed 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 available some affordable housing in the surrounding community and region. 5 . Provision of Day-Care. The increasing number of two-income families with young children in the area and region has created a need for new day-care facilities . The construction of the Church facility would provide area residents. with an additional day-care provider . 6 . Construction of Evora-Driftwood Arterial . Development of Boeger Ranch provides the opportunity to construct a needed north-south arterial. This will allow 32 more convenient access to the surrounding community, including certain schools and businesses, and would remove some vehicle trips from Evora Road. 7 . Development Agreement . Kaufman and Broad, the. developer of Boeger Ranch, has entered into a Development Agreement with the County. If approval for residential development is obtained, and residential units are constructed on the property, the developer is obligated to provide funding for the proposed arterial and retain over 65% of the property as permanent open space. These obligations are in excess of what the developer would normally have to provide. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will allow the County to obtain the benefits of this Development Agreement . VIII .FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings . This Board adopts the following program, which will apply individually to both applicants (Kaufman and Broad and the Calvary Temple). in fulfillment of this requirement : The Applicant shall file a written report with the County Community Development Department approximately once every twelve months, .beginning twelve months following the final approval of the preliminary development plan or similar permit (as appropriate) by the Board of Supervisors and continuing throughout the approval process until the Project Site is developed and the last home or facility built pursuant to additional land use approvals which may be granted by the County. The written report shall briefly state the status in implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a Condition of Approval or which is incorporated into the Project . Community Development staff shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay of over one year in, or obstacle to, implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures which requires action by Department 33 staff . If the Applicant requests, the result of this review will be provided to the Applicant in writing. 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. If 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 before the Zoning Administrator for decision whether any action should be taken and what that action should be. Staff and the Zoning Administrator shall be limited to imposing reasonable actions as permitted by law which will implement the existing mitigation measures . In reviewing the timeliness of the implementation measures, staff shall consider the project timetable, subject to reasonable but unanticipated delays due to weather and the like. MPD:ARD:KJT:kjt/7 8650U e' 34 H. 4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this, Order on October 23 , 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder., McPeak,. Torlakson and Fanden NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing On Evora Road General 'Plan Amendment, West Pittsburg/Concord Area This is the time heretofore. noticed by the Clerk of theBoardof Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the East. County Regional Planning Commission on a proposed Evora Road General Plan Amendment (County File #8-89-EC) , a .comprehensive plan amendment to the Contra Costa, County General Plan for the Evora Road area which is located northerly of State route 4 from Port "Chicago Highway east to the ,East Bay Municipal Utility District right-of-way at Willow Pass Road. It is south of the Tidal Area of the :Concord Naval Weapons Station. For Circulation Element review, the plan includes the above area and the remainder. of the community of West Pittsburg. James Cutler, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on' the General Plan request. Mr.- Cutler commented on recommended changes .in the circulation element, the land use element, the scenic route element, and the trails element. He urged the Board to adopt the proposed amendment. Supervisor Torlakson questioned staff on the local trail circulation system. Mr. Cutler responded to Supervisor Torlakson' s request. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: Sanford M. Skaggs, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing Kaufman and Broad, the applicant, expressed total support for the staff and Planning Commission recommendation with the exception of the number of units that would be permitted to be reviewed, , .requesting a maximum of 300 to be reviewed in the site specific process. David Austin Smith, . 2232 A Camino Ramon, San Ramon, Architect for the Calvary Temple, expressed support for .the proposed amendment. The applicant declined .rebuttal. The hearing was closed. Supervisor Torlakson commented on the proposed amendment before the Board for consideration and suggested additional language with respect ' to a future implementation plan for the trails plan and he moved approval of the General Plan Amendment up to the requested 300 units maximum understanding that the details of the site specific planning are going to be subject of another process. Mr. Cutler clarified the language change requested by Supervisor Torlakson. Supervisor Torlakson moved approval of the General Plan Amendment with the requested changes relative to the number of units and the trail implementation plan language. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution No. 90/703 is ADOPTED in the matter of the Evora Road General Plan Amendment. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su so the date shown. ATTESTED: `-[ u PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Su visors and rty Administrator By Deouty Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development County Counsel County Administrator