Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 12131988 - T.2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 29, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Fanden, McPeak, Powers NOES: Schroder, Torlakson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 88/734 SUBJECT: In the Matter of PermaBilt) 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. 55-1988 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission discussing an amendment to the County General Plan for the Walnut Creek area. On November 29, 1988, this Board held hearings on said amendment as discussed by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution No 55-1988. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at the hearings called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter and numerous people testified on this matter. The Board hereby finds that the proposed amendment will have a significant impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report r has been prepared and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the County EIR Guidelines. CEQA findings for this project are Exhibit A to this document. The Board members, having fully considered this amendment; determined to amend the County General Plan for the Walnut Creek area from Single Family Residential Very Low Density to Senior Citizens: Congregate Care. The Board also agreed to drop the last paragraph of the plan' text: dealing with Special Considerations. The Board further directs the County Community Development Department to incorporate this proposed amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1988 calendar year as one of the four permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General Plan. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supe rs on the ate shown. ATTESTED: :�� 9/ TZ PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Boar Orig. Dept. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: Director of Community Development o Public Administrator By , Deputy Public Works Director County Counsel RESOLUTION NO. 88/734 jwc3/jb/res734.jc a , EXHIBIT';A" CEQA FINDINGS Perma-Bilt Homes ( "Applicant" ) , on behalf of Carol Papetti ( "Owner" ) , has proposed and made application to Contra Costa County ( "County" ) for approval of a senior citizens congregate care facility (the "Development" ) on a 6 .26-acre parcel located in the unincorporated portion of the County on La Casa Via (the "Project Site" ) . The application consists of requests for four actions (collectively, the "Approvals" ) : ( 1) to amend the general plan from "Single Family Residential Very Low Density" to "Senior Citizen: Congregate Care" (County File No . 4-86-CO) (the "General Plan Amendment" ) ; (2) to rezone from "General Agricultural District (A-2) " to "Planned Unit District (P-1) " and approve the preliminary development plan (County File No . 2799-RZ) (the "Rezoning" ) ; (3) to approve the final development plan for the Development with 196 units (County File No . 3017-88) (the "Final Development Plan" ) , subject to those conditions of approval imposed thereon (the "Conditions" ) ; and (4) to approve the tentative map for the Development with 196 condominium units (Subdivision File No. 7146) (the ."Subdivision" ) , subject to the Conditions . For the purpose of these findings, the Development together with the Approvals, and all conditions to the Approvals , together are collectively referred to herein as the "Project . " The County prepared a draft environmental impact report on the Project dated July, 1987 (the "DEIR" ) and a responses to comments document dated October , 1987 (the "Response" ) , which together comprise the final environmental impact report on the Project (the "Final EIR" ) . The discussion which follows under the heading "Facts" for each category recites background information plus suggested mitigation measures from the Final EIR, modifications to the Project as reflected in the Final Development Plan, and conditions to Project approval incorporating certain mitigations . That heading also provides reasoning supporting approval or rejection of mitigations and alternatives to the Project . 1 I . FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AVOIDED, OR MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , the Board of Supervisors adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the Final EIR which were or are determined not to be significant, to have been avoided, or to have been mitigated to a level of insignificance: A. Land Use. 1 . Facts . (a) The DEIR (page 24) indicates that the rural character of the area will be affected by the introduction of the Project as originally proposed (227 units representing a density of 36 .25 units per acre) . In response, the Applicant has reduced the Project to 196 units (32 units per acre) , a reduction of 13 . 60 . In addition, the deep setbacks from La Casa Via as reflected in the Final Development Plan (between 68 and 100 feet) and the height reductions required by Condition 3 .A. for two buildings fronting on La Casa Via will minimize the impact to the rural setting. As suggested by the DEIR, the Final Development Plan indicates height reductions to several buildings in the Project to reduce the scale and improve compatibility with the neighborhood, as well as varied rooflines between buildings . Land Use Mitigation 2 (DEIR, pp. 24-25) recommends and Condition 12 .A. requires that to further reduce impacts to the rural character, heavy landscaping be used to reflect existing vegetative growth, and faster growing ornamental species be used to more quickly screen the project from adjacent areas . Mitigation 2 also recommends an architectural style that reflects other development in the area, with compatible exterior building materials and colors, which is incorporated into the Project by Condition 13 . (b) According to the DEIR (p. 25) , the Project as originally designed would not have preserved the open-space Greenway physical and visual connection to Shell Ridge as discussed in the Walnut Creek Specific Plan No. 3 . This would be true to some degree of any development of the Project Site. This impact is limited because the Project Site is located near the edge of the connection and will not sever it, nor will the Project affect the use of existing open space or trails . Pursuant to the recommendation of Response B-1 , Condition 6 requires the Applicant to dedicate a right-of-way to widen the Briones-to-Mt . Diablo Regional Trail , which will improve open space access . Roof elevations for the Project all 2 will be below 300 feet, which will mitigate but not eliminate entirely the impact on views of open space (Response 0-2) . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The impact of the Project on the rural character of the general area is insignificant, considering the relative size of the Project Site compared with the surrounding district . (b) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Land Use impacts of the Project described herein either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (c) To the extent that any adverse Land Use impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Land Use impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (d) To the extent that any adverse Land Use impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . B. Housing. 1 . Facts . (a) The Project as originally proposed (with 227 units) would have added up to 300 additional senior citizens to the La Casa Via area, which already has a high percentage of persons older than 65 . The current Project with only 196 units reduces that number to approximately 230 residents . Existing medical , commercial and recreational services are adequate to accommodate the proposed Project . There could be some cumulative increased demand for additional senior citizen services in the Walnut Creek area if senior projects continue to be built . The DEIR (p. 27) suggests that the County cooperate with the City of Walnut Creek to provide housing for all age groups and to consider joint programs for senior citizens . The Final EIR does not identify any significant Housing impacts from the Project . 3 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Housing impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Housing impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Housing impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Housing impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . C. Visual Quality/Aesthetics . 1 . Facts . (a) The Project would intensify use of the site by adding nine new buildings from one to three stories in height . The new buildings will affect views from adjacent residences . Currently views across the site are partially blocked from spring to fall because of the full leafy crown of the trees . The DEIR (p. 39) recognizes that the potential impact on views from the two adjacent residences on Corvey Court is ameliorated because of their height above and distance from the Project; building rooflines represent the most visible feature of the Project from that direction. The Project as reflected in the Final Development Plan has been redesigned to address these impacts and incorporate the goals of Visual Mitigation 1 (DEIR p. 39) and the relevant part of Land Use Mitigation 4 (DEIR p. 25) . In the northwest corner of the Project , one building has been reduced by one story and a second building was lowered by two stories . In addition, grading in the southwest corner will lower rooflines on three buildings . These changes will reduce building elevations along the western side of the Project by 10 to 18 feet . Building setbacks along the western side also have been increased, to reduce the visual impact on those two homes . These mitigations will preserve the view eastward toward Mount Diablo. 4 The Final EIR (Response D-4) suggests reducing the mass of buildings in the Project to improve visual aesthetics and complement the scale of the neighborhood. The redesign of the Project (reducing units from 227 to 196, eliminating floors, lowering grades) accomplishes this goal . The original design reviewed by the Final EIR contained 77, 000 square feet of building site coverage, while the current Project design covers only 68, 000 square feet of ground -- a reduction of 11 . 7% . Similarly, the total floor area of the Project has been reduced by 12 . 2% -- from 230, 000 square feet to 202, 000 square feet . Extensive landscaping will serve to screen buildings and soften their appearance. (b) Perimeter parking proposed for the Project Site would be visible to adjacent development on the east and west . As recommended by the DEIR (p. 39) in Visual Mitigation 2, total parking requirements for the Project have been reduced by using a lower parking space/dwelling unit ratio similar to that used by other congregate care facilities in Walnut Creek ( . 561 instead of . 715) . Screening of parking areas will be accomplished by maintaining the existing perimeter vegetation and by planting additional conifers or broadleaf-evergreens, as specified by Conditions 4 .A. and 12 .A. This treatment also will reduce glare and heat produced by paved surface areas . The DEIR has suggested two inconsistent mitigation measures . Visual Mitigation 2 (DEIR p. 39) recommends clustering parking and double-loading aisles to reduce overall parking areas; this would require elimination of the perimeter roadway. However, for firefighting access as discussed in Circulation Mitigation 1 (DEIR p. 60) , the present Project design of a perimeter roadway should be retained. It is infeasible and incompatible to satisfy both requirements . Clustering also is undesirable in that it would result in longer walks from car to dwelling unit for elderly residents . (c) Construction of the Project will remove mature vegetation in the interior of the Project Site including two of the three mature oaks and approximately 75 walnut trees . Visual Mitigation 3 in the DEIR (p. 39) had suggested eliminating two buildings (and 60 units) to save these trees . However, expert opinion as acknowledged. by Response P states that the oak trees should not be preserved because they are in poor condition and would pose a hazard. Response P recommends the alternative to eliminating buildings also expressed by Visual Mitigation 3, to design the Project ' s landscaping to incorporate species which evoke the same visual character, color and texture as the vegetation being removed and which complement the proposed. development, such as oaks, plane trees and ashes (as addressed by Condition 12 . B. ) . 5 (d) Daytime glare from windows and exterior building materials could adversely impact existing adjacent developments . The DEIR (p. 39) recommends that windows not be reflective glass (Condition 3 .B. ) , and that exterior building materials and paving should be textured and in tones which blend into the rural setting and existing development (Condition 13) . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that: (a) The recommended mitigation measure of clustering and double-loading parking is inconsistent with the need for a perimeter roadway for fire safety and is infeasible, and the potential visual impact of parking areas will be adequately mitigated by a reduction in parking ratio and by planned perimeter landscaping. (b) The mitigation measure of eliminating buildings to preserve oak trees is infeasible, undesirable and unnecessary in that the trees represent a potential hazard, eliminating 60 units would lessen the benefits of the Project as described below, and alternative mitigation measures of complementary landscaping will adequately mitigate visual impacts of the Project . (c) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above; and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Visual Quality/Aesthetics .impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (d) To the extent that any adverse Visual Quality/Aesthetics impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Visual Quality/Aesthetics impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (e) To the extent that any adverse Visual Quality/Aesthetics impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . 6 D. Vegetation/Wildlife. 1 . Facts . (a) No rare or endangered plant or animal species has been identified on the Project Site. Construction of the Project will require removal of about 77 trees and many shrubs from the interior portion of the Project Site. The DEIR (p. 41) recommends that most of the conifers and some of the walnut trees planted around the perimeter and one large native oak ( if it is not in hazardous condition) should remain undisturbed and be incorporated into Project landscaping (Condition 12 .C. ) . As noted in Response P, all three oak trees are too deteriorated and hence hazardous to preserve. To the extent feasible, every effort will be made to protect and incorporate healthy, mature native and introduced trees into the Project (Condition 12 .E. ) . The DEIR (p. 43) directs and Condition 12 .E. requires that construction practices shall be used which minimize damage to incorporated trees . (b) Development and removal of vegetation will reduce wildlife habitat during construction. This reduction is unavoidable but only temporary, and the impact will not be significant . The DEIR (p. 43) and Response J-1 predicts that wildlife will relocate to open space areas south of the Project and may return to the Project Site when construction is completed and generous landscaping is established. The DEIR (p. 41) recognizes that the Project Site is not a natural habitat, but rather an orchard plus a single-family home with related suburban-type landscaping. .Substantial areas of public and private open-space are located adjacent to and in the general vicinity of the Project Site. Other than requiring planting of new landscaping to restore some wildlife habitat, the Final EIR does not propose any mitigation measures as being necessary for this matter . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Vegetation/Wildlife impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Vegetation/Wildlife impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Vegetation/Wildlife impact of the Project to a level of insignificance . 7 (c) To the extent that any adverse Vegetation/Wildlife impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . E. Traffic and Circulation. 1 . Facts . (a) The Project, by itself, will not have any significant impacts on traffic in the vicinity. Initial calculations of traffic suggested that 500 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the Project, less than four percent of the total daily traffic volume along La Casa Via (DEIR p. 59) . Since that analysis, the Project has been reduced by 31 units ( 14%) . Furthermore, a more recent traffic study analyzing the Project has predicted that only 192 daily trips would be generated, representing only 1 .3 percent of traffic on La Casa Via (source: letter by Wilbur Smith Associates to the Applicant dated November 16, 1988 , submitted to the Board by letter from the Applicant dated November 23 , 1988) . However, there may be cumulative impacts to the local traffic system, as discussed in Section I .L. below. An initiative passed recently in the City of Walnut Creek restricts development in the portion of the city near the Project Site, because of traffic congestion along Ygnacio .Valley Road. This does not affect the Project because it is not located within Walnut Creek. It is appropriate to note that the City' s initiative specifically exempts senior citizen housing projects from development restrictions because they generate minimal traffic (DEIR p. 44) . Trips by seniors will tend to occur during non-peak traffic hours , because they are not employment-generated. The following mitigation measures are recommended by the DEIR (p. 59) and Response 0-20 and are incorporated into the Project to offset future traffic impacts due to the cumulative effects of this Project and other future development in the area: (1) Develop a Transportation System Management Program for the Project, to coordinate and encourage use of existing public transit and paratransit services in the area by residents, to use the Project ' s passenger van for shopping and other trips, and to encourage employee ride-sharing and off-peak shifts . Van runs will be scheduled during non-peak traffic hours to the extent practical (Condition 10) . 8 (2) Dedicate adequate right-of-way on the south side of La Casa Via adjacent to the Project Site to accommodate future roadway needs (Condition 11 .B. ) . In addition, as specified by Condition 11 .C. , the Project shall comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for Countywide Area of Benefit, adopted by the Board on March 15, 1988, and shall pay the fee required by the County pursuant to said ordinance, which adequately mitigates the traffic impacts created by the Project . (b) The DEIR (pp. 59-60) also recommends the following design considerations to improve on-site circulation and safety: ( 1) Designate special loading zones for passenger transportation and" service vehicles (Condition 14) . (2) Retain the looped driveway as shown in the Final Development Plan, which is needed because of the depth of the Project Site. The Fire Department access roadway shall not be less than 20 feet in width (or 28 feet if there is parallel parking on one side) . Fire access roads shall maintain a minimum inside turning radius of 35 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus (31 tons) . (3) On-site parking for residents, staff and guests shall be properly signed in designated areas (Condition 14) . (c) Pursuant to Condition 5 , ten parking spaces were converted to landscaping in the Final Development Plan. This area will be held in reserve for potential future parking use, in the event circumstances in the Project warrant the need for added parking. However , the parking ratio used for the Project ( . 56) is comfortably in the midrange of the .35 to . 75 standard applied by Walnut Creek to similar developments (DEIR p. 39) , and the parking provided is adequate. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Traffic and Circulation impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . 9 (b) To the extent that any adverse Traffic and Circulation impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Traffic and Circulation impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Traffic and Circulation impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . F. Noise. 1 . Facts . (a) Project-generated vehicular traffic on La Casa Via will result in less than one decibel increase for the local noise environment (a three-decibel change is considered just noticeable) , and the increase on Ygnacio Valley Road is negligible. Additional noise will. be emitted from stationary sources including exhaust fans, power transformers, and the air conditioning unit . The DEIR (p. 61) concludes that these noise sources are very insignificant, and so no specific mitigations are required. The Project design shall be reviewed in accordance with Condition 15 .A. for adequate noise control of stationary sources, including exhaust fans , power transformers, and air conditioners , so that the neighborhood noise environment is not adversely affected. As specified by Noise Mitigation 3 (DEIR p. 63) , a six-foot wood perimeter fence along the eastern and western property lines will reduce noise associated with on-site automobile use (Response 0-26) , as well as prevent glare (Condition 15 .C. ) . (b) Construction of the Project would temporarily increase the average noise level about five to ten decibels for residents within 200 feet of the Project Site boundary (maximum four homes) . The DEIR (p. 63) recommends that engine-powered construction equipment be fitted with exhaust silencers in good operating condition (Condition 15 .D. ) , and that a noise barrier ( in the form of a wood fence) be built prior to construction of the buildings (Condition 15 .B. ) ( it is not practical to construct such a barrier prior to grading) . As specified in Response 0-7, a requirement that construction be limited to normal construction hours practiced in the County of 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. will be acceptable mitigation of construction noise (Condition 15 .E. ) . 10 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Noise impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Noise impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Noise impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Noise impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . G. Stormwater Drainage. 1 . Facts . (a) The current storm drainage system in the Project area will not adequately service the Project . However , planned downstream improvements are able to handle the capacity of stormwater run-off associated with the Project . The DEIR (p. 66) and Response E-3 required the Applicant to prepare a storm drainage analysis to show the Project ' s impacts on the stormwater drainage system downstream from the Project Site. The Applicant has completed this study, which also addressed off-site improvements necessary to handle stormwater flows . As a result, Condition 11 .E. requires two mitigation measures by the Applicant : contribute to the City of Walnut Creek $4 ,200 per acre of- the Project Site for area drainage improvements; and construct the proposed "Line F" for drainage under the Contra Costa Canal to . accommodate run-off from the Project Site and vicinity. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Stormwater Drainage impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, 11 and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Stormwater Drainage impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Stormwater Drainage impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Stormwater Drainage impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . H. Public Services . 1 . Facts . (a) As discussed by the DEIR (pp. 67-74) , all required utility service facilities are physically available and adequate to accommodate the Project . The Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts to water service and supply, disposal of liquid or solid waste, gas, electric, telephone, fire, or police services, or to park and recreation facilities . The Project will not have any adverse impact on schools, being a senior citizen complex (Response A-1) . Project residents may use Heather Farms Park in Walnut Creek, but this will not create any significant impact (Response D-9) . (b) The Project Site is not within the service area of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( "CCCSD" ) , which provides wastewater treatment for the area. The Site is within the CCCSD ' s sphere of influence, and is bounded by the District on three sides . In order to receive sanitary sewer service, the Applicant must apply to CCCSD and to the Local Area Formation Commission to annex the Project Site to the CCCSD (Condition 16) . (c) No other mitigation measures are required. The DEIR recommends and Conditions 4 and 17 require that the Project utilize water-conserving devices and landscaping, and practice solid waste recycling. Condition 8 requires installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The Applicant also must comply with requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District . 12 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Public Service impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Public Service impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Public Service impact of the Project to a level of insignificance . (c) To the extent that any adverse Public Service impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . I . Air Quality. 1 . Facts . The DEIR (p. 79) concludes that the small amount of traffic generated by the Project will produce only minimal additional air pollutants . On-site laundry and kitchen services will produce negligible amounts of air pollutants . These emissions are not significant when considered in a regional context, and no mitigations are required. Condition 18 requires dust generated by grading and other construction activities to be controlled by sprinkling as needed. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Air Quality impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Air Quality impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into 13 the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Air Quality impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Air Quality impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . J. Geology and Soils . 1 . Facts . Geologic studies described in the DEIR (p. 80) determined that there are no significant risks or impacts with regard to geology and soils . No active faults are identified in the vicinity. The proposed building locations are all on the lower, more level portions of the Project Site, and the presence of bedrock at shallow depths will assure building stability. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and design and construction measures which will be incorporated into the Project in accordance with typical construction practices and requirements, the Geology and Soils impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Geology and Soils impact could be considered significant, design and construction measures which will be incorporated into the Project in accordance with typical construction practices and requirements , have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Geology and Soils impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Geology and Soils impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . 14 K. Archaeological and Historical Resources . 1 . Facts . (a) As discussed in the DEIR (p. 82) and Response S-8, the Project Site has previously been disturbed for home construction and walnut production, with no evidence of archaeological resources; it is not likely that there are archaeological artifacts on the site. However, excavation for building construction may encounter archaeological resources, in light of the fact that artifacts were found near John Muir Hospital . Condition 9 requires that typical measures be practiced. during Project construction with regard to archaeological and historical resources; if any artifacts are uncovered, earthwork will be stopped within 30 yards until an archaeologist has evaluated the find and suggested possible mitigations if the find is significant . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Archaeological and Historical Resources impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Archaeological and Historical Resources impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Archaeological and Historical Resources impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Archaeological and Historical Resources impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, . the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . L. Cumulative Impacts . 1 . Facts . (a) The DEIR (pp. 84-85) discusses the several new developments proposed or under construction in the Project area. John Muir Hospital has plans for a series of expansions to the hospital itself, as well as the Wellness 15 Facility and a--150-unit- senior housing complex. The 80-unit senior housing project at the corner of Montego and La Casa Via, which the DEIR stated (in July 1987) was in design review, now is under construction. The 22-unit subdivision across from the Project Site is nearly complete. Two medical office building proposals in the vicinity are being considered: an expansion project next to the hospital , and a new facility on the property to the east of the Project . (b) The DEIR recognizes that these projects will produce some cumulative impacts on loss of open space, impervious surface increases, alteration of views, incremental demands on police and fire services, increased storm drainage, and traffic . The DEIR expresses some concern that growth in the senior citizen population might impact the Walnut Creek area, if needed services for that group are not provided. (c) Traffic appears to represent the greatest cumulative concern, both along La Casa Via west of the Project Site and on Ygnacio Valley Road. Specific traffic impacts are discussed by the DEIR at pages 44-60 , and are addressed by these findings in Section I .E. above. The City of Walnut Creek is restricting most development in the area (but not senior housing projects) because of congestion along Ygnacio Valley Road. The intersection of La Casa Via with Ygnacio Valley, and the portion of La Casa Via west of Montego, are projected to experience increased congestion due to the cumulative development described herein. (d) The City of Walnut Creek is imposing .roadway improvements as conditions to the expansion of John Muir Hospital (Response F-1) , which will address the impacts of that project and of the above-described cumulative development . The Final EIR recognizes that the traffic generated by the Project will represent a very minor percentage of total traffic along La Casa Vi.a and a miniscule portion of traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road. The Applicant will be complying with the County' s ordinance requiring a traffic fee for area improvements . In addition, the Transportation System Management Program to be operated in the Project, with off-peak hour employee shifts, ride-sharing, and van service for residents, will satisfy the Project ' s fair share of addressing cumulative as well as Project-generated traffic impacts . (e) The Applicant is addressing other cumulative impacts by dedicating a trail easement, reducing Project density, height and impervious surface coverage, increasing landscaping, building a drainage line and contributing to other drainage improvements . 16 2 . Findings . The Board finds that: (a) The Cumulative impact of the Project on the general area is insignificant, considering the relative extent of effects produced by the Project compared with the surrounding development . (b) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated. into the Project, the Cumulative impacts of the Project described herein either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (c) To the extent that any adverse Cumulative impact of the Project could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Cumulative impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (e) To the extent that any adverse Cumulative impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . M. Growth-Inducing Impacts . 1 . Facts . (a) The DEIR (p. 25) cautions that land adjacent to the Project Site may become more susceptible to development . However, potential growth-inducing influences of the Project generally are insignificant, according to the DEIR (pp. 85-86) . The Project does not remove obstacles to development in the neighborhood, or represent significant economic or population growth, or provide any significant expansion of public services or of roads , sewers or other infrastructure (except for correcting existing drainage problems through construction of one local drain line) . There is a risk that the General Plan Amendment may be perceived as a change in County policy, and induce other applications for -properties in the area . Recent residential subdivisions act to offset any growth-inducement effect of the Project and reinforce the residential character of the area . 17 As described in the DEIR (p. 85) , the Project Site is close to a concentration of medical treatment, laboratory and office facilities and other senior housing complexes . Expansion plans for John Muir Hospital strengthen that role for this area. The Project is a natural complement to the medical and higher density senior citizen residential development to the west along La Casa Via, and does not represent sudden new leapfrog growth-inducing development in the center of an area previously untouched by change. An existing church occupies the parcel immediately west of the Project Site on La Casa Via, and the City of Walnut Creek has approved an 80-unit senior housing project at the corner of La Casa Via and Montego west of the church, which is now under construction. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The Growth-Inducing impact of the Project on the general area is insignificant , considering the relative size of the Project Site compared with the surrounding district, and the Project represents a small shift in the boundary between the more intensely developed area to the west and the larger rural/suburban neighborhood to the east . (b) The Project does not represent any precedential change in County policy regarding development in the Project area; approval of the Project should not be considered an inducement for other applications for amendment to the County' s land use policies; every proposal for development shall be considered separately, on its own merits and circumstances . (c) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above; and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Growth-Inducing impacts of the Project described herein either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (d) To the extent that any adverse Growth-Inducing impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Growth-Inducing impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. 18 (e) To the extent that any adverse Growth-Inducing impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . II . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , the Board adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the Final EIR which may be determined to be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts : A. Land Use .. . 1 . Facts . The DEIR at page 24 states that the Project will result in the permanent change in County designated land use from rural Single Family Residential Very Low Density to Senior Citizen Congregate Care. The Project also is inconsistent with the City of Walnut Creek Specific Plan No. 6 adopted in 1978 which permits a density of one dwelling unit per acre. According to the Final EIR, there is no feasible mitigation for the change in land use. In. the context of the overall neighborhood, the Project represents a shift in the boundary line between a highly-developed medical subcommunity (hospitals, medical offices, laboratories and senior citizen ,residential supportive care facilities) and the larger rural/suburban residential area . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The above-described unavoidable adverse impact of the Project, though it may be significant in terms of the Project Site itself , is not significant in the context of the larger area, in that ( i) the Project represents a small shift in the boundary between two types of land use both of which are necessary and desirable, and the change is not significant in the context of the overall size of these two areas, and ( ii) the connection to open-space areas will be improved by dedication of a trail easement , rooflines have been lowered in many parts of the Project to improve views of r-idgelines, and the Project will not sever any open-space connection. 19 (b) The above-described adverse impact of the Project, which may be significant and may be unavoidable, would similarly be significant and unavoidable under any of the alternatives to the Project identified in the DEIR, as discussed in Section IV below, except possibly under the No Project Alternative, which is rejected as more fully described below. (c) To the extent that any adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and conditions of approval described herein, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . III . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Board adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project and the anticipated economic, .social and other benefits of the Project : A. Generally. The Board finds that, to the extent that any impact ( including, without limitation, any cumulative impact) attributable to the Project remains unmitigated, and notwithstanding the significant unavoidable adverse impact described in Section II above, such impacts are acceptable in .light of the overriding social , economic and other considerations set forth herein. The Board finds that the following mitigation measures proposed by the DEIR and the Response but not incorporated into this Project are infeasible and undesirable with respect to the Project : clustering parking areas, eliminating the perimeter road, preserving deteriorated oak trees, and providing a noise barrier prior to grading. The Board also finds that the project alternatives set forth in the DEIR and in the Response are infeasible and less desirable than the Project itself . Such measures and alternatives would impose limitations and restrictions on the development of the Project Site, which this Board finds would prohibit obtaining the special social , economic and other benefits of the Project which the Board finds outweigh the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, and which justify approval of the Project . Specifically, the Board finds that the following social, economic and other considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated adverse effects resulting from the Project . 20 The Project is justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, ata range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes and age groups, in order to accommodate the County' s growing elderly population. The Project serves the specialized housing needs of seniors in the County, as an opportunity to enjoy independent living and avoid institutionalization. The senior citizen population in the County is growing and will continue to grow. The Project is consistent with and will help implement important policies of the Housing Element of the County General Plan regarding senior citizens . In addition, the proximity of the Project to the John Muir Hospital and associated medical facilities is particularly appropriate for senior citizens , who have a greater. need for and can benefit from easy access to medical services . The proximity of shopping ,(3/4 mile away on Ygnacio Valley Road) and Heather Farms Park ( 1/2 mile away) contributes to the appropriateness and desirability of the Project at this location. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . A. No Project Alternative. 1 . Facts . This alternative would not approve the Project, leaving the Project Site in its current General Plan designation, which might accommodate up to six single-family homes . (Current zoning of the property allows only one single-family residence. ) 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the No Project Alternative, for. the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed on the specific approvals for development of the Project Site, have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, most of the environmental effects of the Project, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting the No Project Alternative. (b) Specifically, the Project incorporates numerous other measures referred to previously in these findings, and implementation of this alternative is not necessary in order to mitigate to an insignificant level the various effects of the Project . 21 (c) Adoption of the No Project Alternative would delay or prohibit the development of 196 senior citizen housing units with supportive congregate care facilities and thus adversely impact the local housing supply. (d) The social , economic and other benefits to be derived from the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , above) would not be obtained. B. Redesign Alternative . 1 . Facts . The DEIR (p. 87) evaluated a redesign of the Project with the same number of units (227) but fewer parking spaces ( 146, based on a reduced ratio of . 64 space per unit) . The purpose of this alternative was to address concerns over loss of rural character and impact on views . Design changes included reducing the area devoted to parking, lowering buildings along the western side to improve views of Mount Diablo, adding six-foot fences along the eastern and western boundaries , increasing landscaping, and enlarging four buildings in order to eliminate one building. The Project as reflected in the Final Development Plan subject to the Conditions contains only 196 units with only 110 parking spaces, increases landscaping, lowers buildings and increases setbacks along the western side, reduces building mass , and includes fences as suggested in this alternative. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the Redesign Alternative is less desirable than the Project, and rejects the Redesign Alternative, for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed on the specific approvals for development of the Project Site, have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, . most of the environmental effects of the Project, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting the Redesign Alternative. (b) Specifically, the Project incorporates numerous other measures referred to previously in these findings, as well as many of the redesign features proposed by this alternative, and implementation of this alternative and those features not so incorporated is not necessary in order to mitigate to an insignificant level the various effects of the Project or to accomplish the stated goals of this alternative. 22 (c) Adoption' of the Redesign Alternative would not avoid the significant unavoidable land use impact identified by the Final EIR and discussed in Section II above any more than will the Project . (d) The Project by reducing the number of units from 227 to 196 has mitigated some impacts, which would not be achieved by this alternative. C. Reduced Project Alternative. 1 . Facts . The DEIR (p. 90) evaluated a redesign of the Project reduced to 125 units with 90 parking spaces . This alternative envisions a development of eight two- and three-story buildings, clustered into the center of the Project Site. This design would result in more open space and less impervious area. The Reduced Project Alternative would cause less impact than the Project in the categories of views, visual/rural character, traffic, noise, and drainage. Impacts would be similar to the Project in regard to land use conversion, geology, air quality, archaeology and vegetation/wildlife. This alternative would have an adverse impact compared to the Project in the matter of housing, supplying 71 fewer dwelling units for senior citizens in need of congregate care facilities . The figure of 125 units was selected as the foundation for this alternative based on an assumption expressed in the 1970 City of Walnut Creek Housing Element, that this was the minimum number needed to justify and support congregate care eating and support facilities . As acknowledged by Response 0-32, this figure does not reflect constraints of current land and development costs, and this alternative is . feasible only by scaling back the congregate care services being proposed and reducing the quality of amenities in dwelling units and common areas , which reductions are not desirable. Reducing the number of units will affect affordability of the facility for potential elderly residents ; because fixed costs such as land acquisition will be spread among fewer units . If congregate care services are reduced, Project impacts such as traffic generation and parking need may increase because more residents will require cars to travel off-site for substitute services . The reduction of supportive care services would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for 196 potential senior citizen households (approximately 230 individuals) to attempt independent living as an alternative to residence in a nursing home or a hospital . 23 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the Reduced Project Alternative, for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed on the specific approvals for development of the Project Site, have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, most of the environmental effects of the Project thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting the Reduced Project Alternative. (b) Specifically, the Project incorporates numerous . other measures referred to previously in these findings , and implementation of this alternative is not necessary in order to mitigate to an insignificant level the various effects of the Project, and in fact might increase some impacts . (c) Adoption of the Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the housing opportunities for senior citizens desiring congregate care facilities by 71 dwelling units, and would increase the cost of the fewer units allowed, thereby affecting affordability. (d) Development of this alternative would require reducing or eliminating proposed congregate care services, which would be detrimental to the County' s elderly population seeking alternatives to nursing homes or hospitalization. (e) Under this alternative, the economic feasibility for the Applicant to finance mitigation measures and contribute to regional improvement funds would be reduced. (f) The social , economic and other benefits to be derived from the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , above) would not be obtained or would be reduced. ELS:ns/7 0527Y/12 . 09 . 8 72771 . 001 24 PERMA BILT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I . Introduction This amendment pertains to the Land Use and Recreation Element of the County General Plan. The amendment area covers approximately six acres of land which fronts on the south side of La Casa Via, 1,700 feet from Ygnacio Valley Road. II . Land Use Element This amendment changes the land use designation from Single . Family Residential Very Low Density to Senior Citizen Congregate Care. The land use designations in this plan amendment are defined as follows and shown on Map A: Senior Citizen Congregate Care This category allows for the development of clustered residential units for the location of a senior citizen congregate care housing project. If senior housing is not constructed, the property will be limited to 1 single family residential unit per net acre as allowed by the pre-existing General Plan on the site. The actual number of units for the senior citizen facility will be determined upon review of development applications on the site, however,, a maximum of 200 units will be considered. The amendment area will be developed through the Planned Unit Development process. III . Recreation Element An expansion of the East Bay Regional Park District' s regional trail which goes parallel to Covey Court will be required as part of this application. Additional right-of-way and trail development is a responsibility of the property. Provision of a bike trail along La Casa Via is also required. JWC/jb/41/permablt.amd 41 a � DERMA BILT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WALNUT CREEK AREA c .a,.rt •."' a"t r l: "u::;ra •;'� �"�-�t''= :i. "a:i!?�� '�• • VA y��►•�4.+i.w� `�• ` !•,• 'Y•� l�•�,�r�•'���,�.:J ..�e q:Js: at f•'.-'i•.. •1�.J'..•"_.,. ,r-w-� I��, wif+i•r ...a.•-.._�± •S•e• r ♦!':!♦ iT+.r4�T TR .4.U. v.l� ••,Tt •.41 .fir v •ri •Vr a7r .�,}•�y • w.�. .r' •• 1 ♦ • CHURL �•i"• �'•�•••( •%t {. •'� ♦1:1• •i •••! •wF►�' • :w `A' . ♦ •, 'vt. {r{r ' �� .;r irntl'•:•y +��•.v�• a-Q�•!:: • ! •=•,wf'..•. �i:a`. .7 IA �:. rh '•r_• a/ r-��IL i ♦ ..�� * ri.' ice', , .. t,♦,•VY d. •�-�'/1. ,�, w �•.�,"..+ ." .. ..! a G �: •. •'� - • Z' .,{`.• �,<• � �+ , 5 am^ -r • l. • a*. !'� , \�.,.`\r��t ,�• /, •r;*�. Q rth`Ir Ia\t�t�'i{� • `i. { :+fs �1' � '! •,••.Y•r+1. is .Yi••:l• �I►EZ a �•/i r\l♦OrjM 'OR#t. !43 sti 4IVrlr ltr!\/-♦���.,..rr. •s.• i•K��"+ is+••' .Y,•. /{ / w yrr '.i•t ' �-`Iw':M'•a rt \I1 i•-{ a � Y. •�' {•'•Y ••• •• .r -'\r\r���}�„t,ft.rJ., ;,p •�• ,:. •' I �f �f �\�1� r_r r♦ � - �• p ,4♦',v) � A� � `: � I (fel `rl-f-t •� •.• •Ma• i{pVSPy�rt -re. _♦ ♦ . , ••• t •: • \:# I ,• 1♦1�.. • , ..Y+'w+,./r / J�ta�li f `LJ.J`i�� r '♦,ray fi� i. •r • e\ �' •i �� l��•YLI.�}}y1w/a ' • •. •.' � ' Y 1.7 Y -r a� /-ir"`=\la =��.- i 1 1 i ;•tel.-��', , Y,1. �.1' / , } t♦ .CANajI,,.�t ii'/ .` '•• !••, ••'• ♦ :1, tifi,' h IN4� � •♦�` .•v ....+ •� 'a / .S(r/B• {�\ •• .I� A•: aa1•,•I,ata+a•W'.�itl `r 1; f- •...•+ i i,l •t 41 09 /..:j'�%4:" a'.,R•:� 'si':; ,il' • •./"p. r•'1:s.it/.'-aa� ` .a.1«.:.�{` .•a��• . :�Vie...'. p • '�. . .:.. �+' +:ti ,r -.. .3a ,� ';�i,rt" q^. -. .* .71ya.t.; .:.� Amendment :c, •. •.`�.•� .. c , Area �'• :. ,�"•*- `;. •:'•':a."re(�L.•;s'ti'll `f34 . .��•_ `� Tn . .. .•„* iw7�+-s. • •vl�4•r.. i•'N. 1•="�•C 'i �1. Oji• �Y}'w.. .•. i:•- •L a+••v• • t J LF^I+rw� j{JF r:l�; :?ti: C'�i' 7 �,, >,'':: , 1••• • r'•�* •• i:' oil • w LJ: '.f• •..' +` ??:• t1..7: ........ • • •� •' l.�r+' w .Y.r,•�it/{ a�. •rt,. .�.�.��-` 't+ '••l l..•!�"�,�•wr- '; .. . �•• • i V . • •.• +• • „•ati-�,1,{� i.r�- .. . . •�. 5. .11�"rti Y;Irti� 1, • ;• •��• •y1aC•.a '�►�• a�� `:�!:'ft+�1'�'F��,' 4 J,.yt't::ry�li3,3i1.1'1 7.� `1 /�• • •c.•,•+.r•• rr•-r:�.• }. 'r�`.t••I l,'';•fS /j` •t '�� it:.e-:)t �t' -• i.-•,-v ! i!`•', ••••♦ •• • •• !21 tP •C�., :7;;; \ , �T•+ . .� 3 ..si <•;;. ',^'. .t .,}; ' ;� Tia' ;�y. l�i•. i•�!•/N.•y:,;+,•..,a�i�.�l��i`,fy� i� •►J�f: rr.ti"i4.�t•�(iS.• .�fy 7+}y" ,.t�. ....• •.. .. "ta.J.l.t jl�,'t;5' p��!'.•7�.�', `,• i. f �`•s•`:avf yyyt"iii•*.•at I�I�• 4t./,-''':hj�!,'. -•!r`}• .!." ::�t:t.1• `�,v„!!-;st•���',�,',•irs 6 ••a•��r•' , ♦���w•�• Cy,.Yj�Ca.t'id'#!•lrt4i• .t•. ....' .:. f:. ..• .' �: ;j-�•.. `"•�� �.. •'iv,r • , v•tIw . ..• 1►1 /S'�G�� A:f r{"4 . !• �atltr • • �J'•�•�;L.P. , i t' �. �`.:{CtFt• .tt< : lt ars • r e �,.i •a� � ��•••`/ .�'+ aT'`{ �,�! .!(;• ,t:.d. �,. it�"{ •• •tai' S.•r"rTr�ea• +,� '`•{ .`'•Jj�•C{'.12 ., .. .... w,r .=1. • • •1.• . , .. t .. •• •• •• ., Vii• 're./.I.l. .t. Yt,+*��'. :.� ' LEGEND /.; /• .t•� 'ii f:j' .. ; . _ Single Family Residential Ye .ry Lox ,ue�` y '.� r/IT•g"�l,•�/�r ; •••• -r-!� A•i:Ct;• r f}. Y• '"�'.�<•:wa/'•' r w •..•tet. .! f. .s:' �f.,...�, ;"rLar,i:'/•�•'t.:,,�y...�r'i:.•eJ:/.•+CR;.G•..:•G�.`J�f`J.•.':.:' ;�p'a.1�t4�*'sc�!'•l�`�s�t{J�,/'+,:/Y���/�,,Y•�.`•�:ris-�,ILQ:,a/:...:•��": .. ... ... yr - 'Single Family Residential Lox V ,V Single Family Residential - Medium , Single Family Residential - High ' ft~�:..1"• ';t •1•'�" C� a {> 4 t1 a v �2 ,vr'� t �•'+ EM Senior Citizen Congregate Care i ,\.•,ti ,�••�3Gta ` ";,^ , ,. ►� Office r. • �.4�f1 �+ »i(''": i.., ►. f! h> •�. C? Public 4 Semi-Public Y•rN. .=:'/• ,•a,;�+�;s;},i j• t3_y?`a 'ti. v i4 4� ii! 1 W t3 .• ♦.a� r It , ,s w� Parks 6 Recreation it.�•� r::;i• . • .t. ,«,;��� *;,j , I 4t General Open Space x `•ztz �i.ta+.'�.ffj` 1 ��••.��Xj�I\`r'r '.� 1�, •1 • i! V V b y f�M. • • Regional trail ...•. . .a •;t,7}•;'i ,,,..�.. i:` •!••s• Bike trail ` ;•''L•\•�..1:+••'".`i'Y r-',r19 if�•2-�1�/:i r:!' AA .! .>, A MAP A I hereby certify that this statement to I hereby certify that this amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan was the Contra Costa County General Plan was Approved by the County Planning Commission Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on on DEC 13 19$$ Phil Batchal.or, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Varve ragd n, cretary to the C unty Planning Commission BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Cc9a DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r+,� DATT: December 13 , 1988 SUBJECT: Hearing On Rezoning Application 2799-RZ To Rezone Land From General Agriculture District (A-2) To Planned Unit District (P-1) Together With Final Development Plan 3017-88 And Tentative Map For Subdivision 7146. SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOrMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Certify the EIR as being adequate and adopt CEQA findings (Exhibit B) . 2. approve Rezoning 2799-RZ, adopt findings (Exhibit C) and adopt Ordinance No. 88-92 giving effect to rezoning. 3 . Grant the appeal of Final Development Plan 3017-88 and adopt findings (Exhibit C) and Tentative Map for Subdivision 7146 and adopt findings (Exhibit D) and approve both with amended Conditions (Exhibit A) . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS PERMA-HILT HOMES (Applicant) - CAROL PAPETTI (Owner) , County File #2799-RZ: The applicants request approval to rezone 6 . 26 acres from General Agriculture District (A-2 ) to Planned Unit District (P-1 ) , together with a Final Development Plan 3017-88 for 196 , condominium units Subdivision 7146. Subject property for the above-referenced projects is described as follows: Located at the southwesterly corner of La Casa Via and Corvey Court, approximately 1,800 feet southerly of Ygnacio Valley Road, in the Walnut Creek area. (ZA:M14 ) (CT 3430 . 02 ) (Parcel #140-230-002 ) The Planning Commission has recommended that the proposal not be approved which the applicant has appealed. At the prior hearing of November 29, 1988, the Board indicated their intent to a pro the request. CONTINUED ON ATTACHI�NT: YES SIGNA RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENZ&TIONJOF COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON December 13, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X On November 29, 1988, the Board of Supervisors closed the hearing on the above matter and declared intent to approve the General Plan Amendment request County File 4-86-CO, rezoning request 2799-RZ, Development Plan 3017-88 and Subdivision 7146; and directed the Community Development Department to prepare the appropriate documentation for Board consideration on this date. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, presented the documentation to the Board and requested approval of the staff recommendations. Supervisor Powers commented on a letter from the City of Walnut Creek dated December 8, 1988, requesting reconsideration of the action taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 29, 1988 relative to this matter. .1 i t M -� Karl Wandry responded that staff had reviewed the request and that grounds did not exist for reconsideration. Supervisor Powers moved to apprbvel the staff recommendations and deny the request for reconsideration. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution 88/734 approving General Plan Amendment request #4-86-CO is APPROVED; and recommendations 1, 2, and 3 above are APPROVED; and the request by the City of Walnut Creek for reconsideration on the above matter is DENIED. I VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) ( TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: II, IV, I NOES: ill, V ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. I cc: Community Development (Orig. ) ATTESTED December 13, 1988 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Assessor AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. Pe rma Bi 1 t Homes BY O DEPUTY BT/df L5:2799-RZ.bdo EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3011-88 AND SUBDIVISION 7146 1. Development shall be as shown on plans submitted with the application dated received by the Community Development Department on June 1 , 1988, subject to the conditions listed below. 2. This approval is for retirement and congregate care housing facility of not more than 196 residential units for persons 60 years or older and as such small be recorded as a deed restriction on the property. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Community Development Depart- ment prior to issuance of a building permits. 3. Building design shall be similar to that shown on plans submitted with the application subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administra- tor prior to issuance of a building permit. The roofs of all buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning equipment, television aerials, etc. , or screened from view and exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. A. Provide for stepped building design and height transition on La Casa Via by reducing the two front portions of the two and three story buildings at the project entrance to one and two story respectively. (This may cause a reduction of three residential units) . B. Windows shall be provided with non-glare or non-reflecting wincow glass. C. The design and placement of service areas shall not be open to view from surrounding properties and/or have landscape screening and shall be compatible with the overall project design (including refuse en- closures and utility boxes) . 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the County Zoning Adminis- trator, utilizing California Native Species and conforming to the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation requirements for new- development. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. A. evergreen screening trees shall be planted at the boundaries of the property. B. The proposed trees on the site are to be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. The propose shrubs on the site are to be a minimum of 5 gallons in size. 5. The area of 10 parking spaces shall be eliminated and held in reserve as landscaped area in the event additional parking is needed at some future time as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. This shall include a s 5 spaces northerly of the project entrance and the first 5 spaces toward r , the end of Corvey Court at the northerly boundary. 6. Dedicate a 12± foot wide trail easement to the East Say Regional Park Dis- trict along the entire northerly boundary adjacent to Corvey Court and ad- just the proposed fencing accordingly. The applicant shall confer with the District regarding this requirement including landscaping and fencing. 7. Signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 8. Provide complete automatic fire sprinkler protection system for the entire building subjeLl. to approval by the Contra Costa County Consolidated Firi District. 9. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPS.) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary. 10. Submit a TSM (Transportation System Management Program) for vans, busing, etc. , for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to occu- pancy. 11. -Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 'of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance Code includes the following requirements: 1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage of La Casa Via. Constructing a 16 foot half width road to County public road standards will satisfy this requirement. 2. Installing street lights and applying for annexation to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and location of the lights will be oetermined by the County Traffic Engineer. 3. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. 4. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility. 5. Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. A 6. Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil en- gineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 5 feet of additional right of way on La Casa Via as required for the planned future width of 60 feet. .C.. Comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department. Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or per- manent, road and drainage improvements. E. Contribute $4 ,200 per gross acre to the City of Walnut Creek for drainage improvements in the Specific Plan No. 6 Area; AND, construct the proposed Line F of the Specific Plan 6 drainage system under the Contra Costa Water District Canal . The following statements are not conditions of approval . However, the applicant should be aware of them prior to requesting building permits. A. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District (see attached) . BT/GA/df sub9:sub7146c.bt * Conditions Nos. 12 through 18 are described in Attachment 1 , "Supplemental Conditions, " attached hereto. ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3017-88 AND SUBDIVISION 7146 12 . The landscape plan required pursuant to Condition No. 4 shall address the following issues as discussed by the Final EIR, to the extent practical : A. Use dense landscaping and faster growing ornamental species to more quickly screen the Project, with particular concern to screening parking areas . B. Select species for new landscaping which evoke the same visual character, color , and texture as existing vegetation, and which complement the Project, such as oaks , plane trees , and ashes . C. Preserve conifers and walnut trees planted along the perimeter of the Project Site, and incorporate them into the landscaping plan. D. Attempt to protect and incorporate healthy, mature, existing trees into the Project, using a horticulturist to evaluate health and viability. E. Minimize damage during construction to existing trees being preserved by maintaining the present grade level between the tree trunk and the dripline, and by avoiding construction of impervious surfaces between the trunk and the dripline. 13... To the extent practical , building design shall reflect architectural style complementary to other development in the area, using compatible exterior building materials , colors and textures . 14 . Designate special loading zones for passenger and service vehicles, and identify designated areas for on-site parking by residents, staff and guests . 15 . Incorporate the following noise control measures in Project design and construction practices : A. Exterior equipment in the Project such as exhaust fans , power transformers and air conditioners to the extent practical shall be located so as to minimize noise emissions . B. Provide a noise barrier to six-foot wood fence) around the Project Site prior to construction after finish grading has been completed. C. Provide a solid six-foot wood perimeter fence along the eastern and western boundaries of the Project Site to serve as a noise barrier to reduce automobile-generated noise. D. Engine-powered construction equipment shall be fitted with exhaust silencers in good operating condition. E. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. 16 . The applicant shall submit an application to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Local Area Formation Commission for annexation of the Project Site into the Sanitary District to provide for wastewater disposal . 17 . To the extent practical , utilize equipment and practices which conserve water within the Project, such as drought-resistant plants , drip irrigation, and low-flow showerheads and toilets . Also, encourage Project occupants to practice recycling of solid waste. 18 . Practice dust control measures such as water sprinkling during grading and construction activities in conformance with normal industry procedures . 2 x EXHIBIT g• r CEQA FINDINGS r , Perma-Bilt Homes ( "Applicant" ) , on behalf of Carol . Papetti ( "Owner" ) , has proposed and made application to Contra Costa County ( "County" ) for approval of a senior citizens congregate care facility (the "Development" ) on a 6 . 26-acre parcel located in the unincorporated portion of the County on La Casa Via (the "Project Site" ) . The application consists of requests for four actions (collectively, the "Approvals" ) : ( 1) to amend the general plan from "Single Family Residential Very Low Density" to "Senior Citizen: Congregate Care" (County File No . 4-86-CO) (the "General Plan Amendment" ) ; (2) to rezone from "General Agricultural District (A-2) " to "Planned Unit District (P-1 ) " and approve the preliminary development plan (County File No . 2799-RZ) (the "Rezoning" ) ; (3) to approve the final development plan for the Development with 196 units (County File No. 3017-88) (the "Final Development Plan" ) , subject to those conditions of approval imposed thereon (the "Conditions" ) ; and (4) to approve the tentative map for the Development with 196 condominium units (Subdivision File No . 7146) (the ."Subdivision" ) , subject to the Conditions . For the purpose of these findings , the Development together with the Approvals , and all conditions to the Approvals , together are collectively referred to herein as the "Project . " The County prepared a draft environmental impact report on the Project dated July, 1987 (the "DEIR" ) and a responses to comments document dated October , 1987 (the "Response" ) , which together comprise the final environmental impact report on the Project (the. "Final EIR" ) . The discussion which follows under the heading "Facts" for each category recites background information plus suggested mitigation measures from the Final EIR, modifications to the Project as reflected in the Final Development Plan, and conditions to Project approval incorporating certain mitigations . That heading also provides reasoning supporting approval or rejection of mitigations and alternatives to the Project. 1 I . FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AVOIDED, OR MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , the Board of Supervisors adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the Final EIR which were or are determined not to be significant , to have been avoided, or to have been mitigated to a level of insignificance: A. Land Use. 1 . Facts . (a) The DEIR (page 24) indicates that the rural character of the area will be affected by the introduction of the Project as originally proposed (227 units representing a density of 36 . 25 units per acre) . In response, the Applicant has reduced the Project to 196 units (32 units per acre) , a reduction of 13 . 6% . In addition, the deep setbacks from La Casa Via as reflected in the Final Development Plan (between 68 and 100 feet) and the height reductions required by Condition 3 .A. for two buildings fronting on La Casa Via will minimize the impact to the rural setting. As suggested by the DEIR, the Final Development Plan indicates height reductions to several buildings in the Project to reduce the scale and improve compatibility with the neighborhood, as well as varied rooflines between buildings . Land Use Mitigation 2 (DEIR, pp. 24-25) recommends and Condition 12 .A. requires that to further reduce impacts to the rural character , heavy landscaping be used to reflect existing vegetative growth, and faster growing ornamental species be used to more quickly screen the project from adjacent areas . Mitigation 2 also recommends an architectural style that reflects other development in the area, with compatible exterior building materials and colors , which is incorporated into the Project by Condition 13 . (b) According to the DEIR (p. 25) , the Project as originally designed would not have preserved the open-space Greenway physical and visual connection to Shell Ridge as discussed in the Walnut Creek Specific Plan No. 3 . This would be true to some degree of any development of the Project Site. This impact is limited because the Project Site is located near the edge of the connection and will not sever it, nor will the Project affect the use of existing open space or trails . Pursuant to the recommendation of Response B-1 , Condition 6 requires the Applicant to dedicate a right-of-way to widen the Briones-to-Mt . Diablo Regional Trail , which will improve open space access . Roof elevations for the Project all 2 will be below 300 feet, which will mitigate but not eliminate entirely the impact on views of open space (Response 0-2) . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The impact of the Project on the rural character of the general area is insignificant, considering the relative size of the Project Site compared with the surrounding district . (b) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , the Land Use impacts of the Project described herein either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant. adverse effect upon the environment . (c) To the extent that any adverse Land Use impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Land Use impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (d) To the extent that any adverse Land Use impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact , as more .fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . B. Housing. 1 . Facts . (a) The Project as originally proposed (with 227 units) would have added up to 300 additional senior citizens to the La Casa Via area, which already has a high percentage of persons older than 65 . The current Project with only 196 units reduces that number to approximately 230 residents . Existing medical , commercial and recreational services are adequate to accommodate the proposed Project . There could be some cumulative increased demand for additional senior citizen services in the Walnut Creek area if senior projects continue to be built . The DEIR (p. 27) suggests that the County cooperate with the City of Walnut Creek to provide housing for all age groups and to consider joint programs for senior citizens . The Final EIR does not identify any significant Housing impacts from the Project . 3 1 V ' 3 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : r r r (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Housing impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Housing impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Housing impact of the Project to -a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Housing impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . C. Visual Quality/Aesthetics . 1 . Facts . (a) The Project would intensify use of the site by adding nine new buildings from one to three stories in height . The new buildings will affect views from adjacent residences . Currently views across the site are partially blocked from spring to fall because of the full leafy crown of the trees . The DEIR (p. 39) recognizes that the potential impact on views from the two adjacent residences on Corvey Court is ameliorated because of their height above and distance from the Project; building rooflines represent the most visible feature of the Project from that direction. The Project as reflected in the Final Development Plan has been redesigned to address these impacts and incorporate the goals of Visual Mitigation 1 (DEIR p. 39) and the relevant part of Land Use Mitigation- 4 (DEIR p. 25) . In the northwest corner of the Project , one building has been reduced by one story and a second building was lowered by two stories . In addition, grading in the southwest corner will lower rooflines on three buildings . These changes will reduce building elevations along the western side of the Project by 10 to 18 feet. Building setbacks along the western side also have been increased, to reduce the visual impact on those two homes . These mitigations will preserve the view eastward toward Mount Diablo. 4 The Final EIR (Response D-4) suggests reducing the mass of buildings in the Project to improve visual aesthetics and complement the scale of the neighborhood. The redesign of the Project (reducing units from 227 to 196, eliminating floors, lowering grades) accomplishes this goal . The original design reviewed by the Final EIR contained 77, 000 square feet of building site coverage, while the current Project design covers only 68, 000 square feet of ground -- a reduction of 11 . 7%. Similarly, the total floor area of the Project has been reduced by 12 .2% -- from 230, 000 square feet to 202 , 000 square feet . Extensive landscaping will serve to screen buildings and soften their appearance. (b) Perimeter parking proposed for the Project Site would be visible to adjacent development on the east and west . As recommended by the DEIR (p. 39) in Visual Mitigation 2, total parking requirements for the Project have been reduced by using a lower parking space/dwelling unit ratio similar to that used by other congregate care facilities in Walnut Creek ( . 561 instead of . 715) . Screening of parking areas will be accomplished by maintaining the existing perimeter vegetation and by planting additional conifers or broadleaf-evergreens, as specified by Conditions 4 .A. and 12.A. This treatment also will reduce glare and heat produced by paved surface areas . The DEIR has suggested two inconsistent mitigation measures . Visual Mitigation 2 (DEIR p. 39) recommends clustering parking and double-loading aisles to reduce overall parking areas; this would require elimination of the perimeter roadway. However , for firefighting access as discussed in Circulation Mitigation 1 (DEIR p. 60) , the present Project design of a perimeter roadway should be retained. It is infeasible and incompatible to satisfy both requirements . Clustering also is undesirable in that it would result in longer walks from car to dwelling unit for elderly residents . (c) Construction of the Project will remove mature vegetation in the interior of the Project Site including two of the three mature oaks and approximately 75 walnut trees . Visual Mitigation 3 in the DEIR (p. 39) had suggested eliminating two buildings (and 60 units) to save these trees . However, expert opinion as acknowledged by Response P states that the oak trees should not be preserved because they are in poor condition and would pose a hazard. Response P recommends the alternative to eliminating buildings also expressed by Visual Mitigation 3 , to 'design the Project ' s landscaping to incorporate species which evoke the same visual character, color and texture as the vegetation being removed and which complement. the proposed development , such as oaks, plane trees and ashes (as addressed by Condition 12 .B. ) . 5 t (d) Daytime glare from windows and exterior building materials could adversely impact existing adjacent developments. The DEIR (p. 39) recommends that windows not be reflective glass (Condition 3 .B. ) , and that exterior building materials and paving should be textured and in tones which blend into the rural setting and existing development (Condition 13) . 2 . Findings . . The Board finds that : (a) The recommended mitigation measure of clustering and double-loading parking is inconsistent with the need for a perimeter roadway for fire safety and is infeasible, and the potential visual impact of parking areas will be adequately mitigated by a reduction in parking ratio and by planned perimeter landscaping. (b) The mitigation measure of eliminating buildings to preserve oak trees is infeasible, undesirable and unnecessary in that the trees represent a potential hazard, eliminating 60 units would lessen the benefits of the Project as described below, and alternative mitigation measures of complementary landscaping will adequately mitigate visual impacts of the Project . (c) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Visual Quality/Aesthetics .impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (d) To the extent that any adverse Visual Quality/Aesthetics impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate . any adverse Visual Quality/Aesthetics impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (e) To the extent that any adverse Visual Quality/Aesthetics impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . 6 D. Vegetation/Wildlife. 1 . Facts . (a) No rare or endangered plant or animal species has been identified on the Project Site. Construction of the Project will require removal of about 77 trees and many shrubs from the interior portion of the Project Site. The DEIR (p. 41) recommends that most of the conifers and some of the walnut trees planted around the perimeter and one large native oak (if it is not in hazardous condition) should remain undisturbed and be incorporated into Project landscaping (Condition 12 .C. ) . As noted in Response P, all three oak trees are too deteriorated and hence hazardous to preserve. To the extent feasible, every effort will be made to protect and incorporate healthy, mature native and introduced trees into the Project (Condition 12 .E. ) . The DEIR (p. 43) directs and Condition 12 .E. requires that construction practices shall be used which minimize damage to incorporated trees . (b) Development and removal of vegetation will reduce wildlife habitat during construction. This reduction is unavoidable but only temporary, and the impact will not be significant . The DEIR (p. 43) and Response J-1 predicts that wildlife will relocate to open space areas south of the Project and may 'return to the Project Site when construction is completed and generous landscaping is established. The DEIR (p: 41) recognizes that the Project Site is not a natural habitat , but rather an orchard plus a single-family home with related suburban-type landscaping. Substantial areas of public and private open-space are located adjacent to and in the general vicinity of the Project Site . Other than requiring planting of new landscaping to restore some wildlife habitat, the Final EIR does not propose any mitigation measures as being necessary for this matter . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , the Vegetation/Wildlife impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Vegetation/Wildlife impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , .have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Vegetation/Wildlife impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. 7 e , t (c) To the extent that any adverse Vegetation/Wildlife impact is not mitigated to a level of , insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . E. Traffic and Circulation. 1 . Facts . (a) The Project, by itself, will not have any significant impacts on traffic in the vicinity. Initial calculations of traffic suggested that 500 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the Project, less than four percent of the total daily traffic volume along La Casa Via (DEIR p. 59) . Since that analysis, the Project has been reduced by 31 units ( 14%) . Furthermore, a more recent traffic study analyzing the Project has predicted that only 192 daily trips would be generated, representing only 1 . 3 percent of traffic on La Casa Via (source: letter by Wilbur Smith Associates to the Applicant dated November 16 , 1988 , submitted to the Board by letter from the Applicant dated November 23 , 1988) . However , there may be cumulative impacts to the local traffic system, as discussed in Section I .L. below. An initiative passed recently in the City of Walnut Creek restricts development in the portion of the city near the Project Site, because of traffic congestion along Ygnacio .Valley Road. This does not affect the Project because it is not located within Walnut Creek . It is appropriate to note that the City' s initiative specifically exempts senior citizen housing projects from development restrictions because they generate minimal traffic (DEIR p. 44) . Trips by seniors will tend to occur during non-peak traffic hours , because they are not employment-generated. The following mitigation measures are recommended by the DEIR (p. 59) and Response 0-20 and are incorporated into the Project to offset future traffic impacts due to the cumulative effects of this Project and other future development in the area: ( 1) Develop a Transportation System Management Program for the Project , to coordinate and encourage use of existing public transit and paratransit services in the area by residents, to use the Project ' s passenger van for shopping and other trips, and to encourage employee ride-sharing and off-peak shifts . Van runs will be scheduled during non-peak traffic hours to the extent practical (Condition 10) . 8 (2) Dedicate adequate right-of-way on the south side of La Casa Via adjacent to the Project Site to accommodate future roadway needs (Condition 11 .B. ) . In addition, as specified by Condition ll .C. , the Project shall comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for Countywide Area of Benefit, adopted by the Board on March 15, 1988, and shall pay the fee required by the County pursuant to said ordinance, which adequately mitigates the traffic impacts created by the Project . (b) The DEIR (pp. 59-60) also recommends the following design considerations to improve on-site circulation and safety: ( 1) Designate special loading zones for passenger transportation and' service vehicles (Condition 14 ) . (2) Retain the looped driveway as shown in the Final Development Plan, which is needed because of the depth of the Project Site. The Fire Department access roadway shall not be less than 20 feet in width (or 28 feet if there is parallel parking on one side) . Fire access roads shall maintain a minimum inside turning radius of 35 feet , and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus (31 tons) . (3) On-site parking for residents , staff and guests shall be properly signed in designated areas (Condition 14) . (c) Pursuant to Condition 5 , ten parking spaces were converted to landscaping in the Final Development Plan. This area will be held in reserve for potential future parking use, in the event circumstances in the Project warrant the need for added parking. However , the parking ratio used for the Project ( . 56) is comfortably in the midrange of the .35 to . 75 standard applied by Walnut Creek to similar developments (DEIR p. 39) , and the parking provided is adequate. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Traffic and Circulation impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . 9 (b) To the extent that any adverse Traffic and Circulation impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures << incorporated into the Project , have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Traffic and Circulation impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Traffic and Circulation impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . F. Noise. 1 . Facts . (a) Project-generated vehicular traffic on La Casa Via will result in less than one decibel increase for the local noise environment (a three-decibel change is considered just noticeable) , and the increase on Ygnacio Valley Road is negligible. Additional noise will be emitted from stationary sources including exhaust fans , power transformers, and the air conditioning unit . The DEIR (p. 61) concludes that these noise sources are very insignificant, and so no specific mitigations are required. The Project design shall be reviewed in accordance with Condition 15 .A. for adequate noise control of stationary sources, including exhaust fans , power transformers , and air conditioners , so that the neighborhood noise environment is not adversely affected. As specified by Noise Mitigation 3 (DEIR p. 63) , a six-foot wood perimeter fence along the eastern and western property lines will reduce noise associated with on-site automobile use (Response 0-26) , as well as prevent glare (Condition 15 .C. ) . (b) Construction of ' the Project would temporarily increase the average noise level about five to ten decibels for residents within 200 feet of the Project Site boundary (maximum four homes) . The DEIR (p. 63) recommends that engine-powered construction equipment be fitted with exhaust silencers in good operating condition (Condition 15 .D. ) , and that a noise barrier ( in the form of a wood fence) be built prior to construction of the buildings (Condition 15 .B. ) (it is not practical to construct such a barrier prior to grading) . As specified in Response 0-7, a requirement that construction be limited to normal construction hours practiced in the County of 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. will be acceptable mitigation of construction noise (Condition 15 .E. ) . 10 2 . Findings . r The Board finds that : rr (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , the Noise impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Noise impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Noise impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Noise impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact , as more fully stated - in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . G. Stormwater Drainage. 1 . Facts . (a) The current storm drainage system in the Project area will not adequately service the Project . However , planned downstream improvements are able to handle the capacity of stormwater run-off associated with the Project . The DEIR (p. 66) and Response E-3 required the Applicant to prepare a storm drainage analysis to show the Project ' s impacts on the stormwater drainage system downstream from the Project Site. The Applicant has completed this study, which also addressed off-site improvements necessary to handle stormwater flows . As a result , Condition 11 .E. requires two mitigation measures by the Applicant : contribute to the City of Walnut Creek $4 ,200 per acre of• the Project Site for area drainage improvements; and construct the proposed "Line F" for drainage under the Contra Costa Canal to accommodate run-off from the Project Site and vicinity. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Stormwater Drainage impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, 11 and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Stormwater Drainage impact could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Stormwater Drainage impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Stormwater Drainage impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . H. Public Services . 1 . Facts . (a) As discussed by the DEIR (pp. 67-74) , all required utility service facilities are physically available and adequate to accommodate the Project . The Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts to water service and supply, disposal of liquid or solid waste, gas, electric , telephone, fire, or police services , or to park and recreation facilities . The Project will not have any adverse impact on schools , being a senior citizen complex (Response A-1) . Project residents may use Heather Farms Park in Walnut Creek, but this will not create any significant impact (Response D-9) . (b) The Project Site is not within the service area of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( "CCCSD" ) , which provides wastewater treatment for the area . The Site is within the CCCSD' s sphere of influence, and is bounded by the District on three sides . In order to receive sanitary sewer service, the Applicant must apply to CCCSD and to the Local Area Formation Commission to annex the Project Site to the CCCSD (Condition 16) . (c) No other mitigation measures are required. The DEIR recommends and Conditions 4 and 17 require that the Project utilize water-conserving devices and landscaping, and practice solid waste recycling. Condition 8 requires installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The Applicant also must comply with requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District . 12 2. Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Public Service impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Public Service impact could be considered significant , the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Public Service impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Public Service impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic , social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . I . Air Quality. 1 . Facts . The DEIR (p. 79) concludes that the small amount of traffic generated by the Project will produce only minimal additional air pollutants.. On-site laundry and kitchen services will produce negligible amounts of air pollutants . These emissions are not significant when considered in a regional context, and no mitigations are required. Condition 18 requires dust generated by grading and other construction activities to be controlled by sprinkling as needed. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , the Air Quality impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Air Quality impact could be considered significant , the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into 13 the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Air Quality impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Air Quality impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . J. Geology and Soils . 1 . Facts . Geologic studies described in the DEIR (p. 80) determined that there are no significant risks or impacts with regard to geology and soils . No active faults are identified in the vicinity. The proposed building locations are all on the lower , more level portions of the Project Site, and the presence of bedrock at shallow depths will assure building stability. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and design and construction measures which will be incorporated into the Project in accordance with typical construction practices and requirements , the Geology and Soils impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Geology and Soils impact could be considered significant , design and construction measures which will be incorporated into the Project in accordance with typical construction practices and requirements , have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Geology and Soils impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Geology and Soils impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . 14 L a R. Archaeological and Historical Resources . 1 . Facts . r r (a) As discussed in the DEIR (p. 82) and Response S-8, the Project Site has previously been disturbed for home construction and walnut production, with no evidence of archaeological resources; it is not likely that there are archaeological artifacts on the site. However , excavation for building construction may encounter archaeological resources, in light of the fact that artifacts were found near John Muir Hospital . Condition 9 requires that typical measures be practiced during Project construction with regard to archaeological and historical resources; if any artifacts are uncovered, earthwork will be stopped within 30 yards until an archaeologist has evaluated the find and suggested possible mitigations if the find is significant . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , the Archaeological and Historical Resources impacts of the Project either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (b) To the extent that any adverse Archaeological and. Historical Resources impact could be considered significant , the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project , have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Archaeological and Historical Resources impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (c) To the extent that any adverse Archaeological and Historical Resources impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . L. Cumulative Impacts . 1 . Facts . (a) The DEIR (pp. 84-85) discusses the several new developments proposed or under construction in the Project area. John Muir Hospital has plans for a series of expansions to the hospital itself, as well as the Wellness 15 Facility and a- 150-unit senior housing complex. The 80-unit senior housing project at the corner of Montego and La Casa Via, which the DEIR stated (in July 1987) was in design review, now is under construction. The 22-unit subdivision across from the Project Site is nearly complete. Two medical office building proposals in the vicinity are being considered: an expansion project next to the hospital , and a new facility on the property to the east of the Project . (b) The DEIR recognizes that these projects will produce some cumulative impacts on loss of open space, impervious surface increases, alteration of views, incremental demands on police and fire services, increased storm drainage, and traffic . The DEIR expresses some concern that growth in the senior citizen population might impact the Walnut Creek area, if needed services for that group are not provided. (c) Traffic appears to represent the greatest cumulative concern, both along La Casa Via west of the Project Site and on Ygnacio Valley Road. Specific traffic impacts are discussed by the DEIR at pages 44-60 , and are addressed by these findings in Section I .E. above. The City of Walnut Creek is restricting most development in the area (but not senior housing projects) because of congestion along Ygnacio Valley Road. The intersection of La Casa Via with Ygnacio Valley, and the portion of La Casa Via west of Montego, are projected to experience increased congestion due to the cumulative development described herein. (d) The City of Walnut Creek is imposing roadway improvements as conditions to the expansion of John Muir Hospital (Response F-1) , which will address the impacts of that project and of the above-described cumulative development . The Final EIR recognizes that the traffic generated by the Project will represent a very minor percentage of total traffic along La Casa Via and a miniscule portion of traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road. The Applicant will be complying with the County' s ordinance requiring a traffic fee for area improvements . In addition, the Transportation System Management Program to be operated in the Project, with off-peak hour employee shifts, ride-sharing, and van service for residents, will satisfy the Project ' s fair share of addressing cumulative as well as Project-generated traffic impacts . (e) The Applicant is addressing other cumulative impacts by dedicating a trail easement, reducing Project density, height and impervious surface coverage, increasing landscaping, building a drainage line and contributing to other drainage improvements . 16 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The Cumulative impact of the Project on the general area is insignificant, considering the relative extent of effects produced by the Project compared with the surrounding development . (b) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Cumulative impacts of the Project described herein either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (c) To the extent that any adverse Cumulative impact of the Project could be considered significant, the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Cumulative impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. (e) To the extent that any adverse Cumulative impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures , the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . M. Growth-Inducing Impacts . 1 . Facts . (a) The DEIR (p. 25) cautions that land ad'j'acent to the Project Site may become more susceptible to development . However, potential growth-inducing influences of the Project generally are insignificant, according to the DEIR (pp. 85-86) . The Project does not remove obstacles to development in the neighborhood, or represent significant economic or population growth, .or provide any significant expansion of public services or of roads , sewers or other infrastructure (except for correcting existing drainage problems through construction of one local drain line) . There is a risk that the General Plan Amendment may be perceived as a change in County policy, and induce other applications for properties in the area. Recent residential subdivisions act to offset any growth-inducement effect of the Project and reinforce the residential character of the area . 17 t As described in the DEIR (p. 85) , the Project Site is close to a concentration of medical treatment, laboratory and office facilities and other senior housing complexes . Expansion plans for John Muir Hospital strengthen that role for " this area. The Project is a natural complement to the medical and higher density senior citizen residential development to the west along La Casa Via, and does not represent sudden new leapfrog growth-inducing development in the center of an area previously untouched by change. An existing church occupies the parcel immediately west of the Project Site on La Casa Via, and the City of Walnut Creek has approved an 80-unit senior housing project at the corner of La Casa Via and Montego west of the church, which is now under construction. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The Growth-Inducing impact of the Project on the general area is insignificant , considering the relative size of the Project Site compared with the surrounding district, and the Project represents a small shift in the boundary between the more intensely developed area to the west and the larger rural/suburban neighborhood to the east . (b) The Project does not represent any precedential change in County policy regarding development in the Project area; approval of the Project should not be considered an inducement for other applications for amendment to the County' s land use policies; every proposal for development shall be considered separately, on its own merits and circumstances . (c) Considering the foregoing facts and the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, the Growth-Inducing impacts of the Project described herein either are insignificant or have been avoided, and therefore do not constitute any significant adverse effect upon the environment . (d) To the extent that any adverse Growth-Inducing impact could be considered significant , the mitigation measures described above, and other measures incorporated into the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse Growth-Inducing impact of the Project to a level of insignificance. 18 t (e) To the extent that any adverse Growth-Inducing impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . II . FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , the Board adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the Final EIR which may be determined to be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts : A. Land Use . 1 . Facts . The DEIR at page 24 states that the Project will result in the permanent change in County designated land use from rural Single Family Residential Very Low Density to Senior Citizen Congregate Care. The Project also is inconsistent with the City of Walnut Creek Specific Plan No . 6 adopted in 1978 which permits a density of one dwelling unit per acre. According to the Final EIR, there is no feasible mitigation for the change in land use . In the context of the overall neighborhood, the Project represents a shift in the boundary line between a highly-developed medical subcommunity (hospitals , medical offices , laboratories and senior citizen residential supportive care facilities) and the larger rural/suburban residential area . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that : (a) The above-described unavoidable adverse impact of the Project, though it may be significant in terms of the Project Site itself, is not significant in the context of the larger area, in that ( i) the Project represents a small shift in the boundary between two types of land use both of which are necessary and desirable, and the change is not significant in the context of the overall size of these two areas , and ( ii) the connection to open-space areas will be improved by dedication of a trail easement , rooflines have been lowered in many parts of the 'Project to improve views of ridgelines, and the Project will not sever any open-space connection. 19 (b) The above-described adverse impact of the Project, which may be significant and may be unavoidable, would similarly be significant and unavoidable under any of the alternatives to the Project identified in the DEIR, as discussed in Section IV below, except possibly under the No Project Alternative, which is rejected as more fully described below. (c) To the extent that any adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and conditions of approval described herein, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , below) . III . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , the Board adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project : A. Generally. The Board finds that, to the extent that any impact (including, without limitation, any cumulative impact) attributable to the Project remains unmitigated, and notwithstanding the significant unavoidable adverse impact described in Section II above, such impacts are acceptable in .light of the overriding social , economic and other considerations set forth herein. The Board finds that the following mitigation measures proposed by the DEIR and the Response but not incorporated into this Project are infeasible and undesirable with respect to the Project : clustering parking areas, eliminating the perimeter road, preserving deteriorated oak trees , and providing a noise barrier prior to grading. The Board also finds that the project alternatives set forth in the DEIR and in the Response are infeasible and less desirable than the Project itself . Such measures and alternatives would impose limitations and restrictions on the development of the Project Site, which this Board finds would prohibit obtaining the special social , economic and other benefits of the Project which the Board finds outweigh the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, and which justify approval of the Project . Specifically, the Board finds that the following social, economic and other considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated adverse effects resulting from the Project . 20 The Project is justified by the need to increase the housing supply in the County, at a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes and age groups, in order to accommodate the County' s growing elderly population. The < < Project serves the specialized housing needs of seniors in the County, as an opportunity to enjoy independent living and avoid institutionalization. The senior citizen population in the County is growing and will continue to grow. The Project is consistent with and will help implement important policies of the Housing Element of the County General Plan regarding senior citizens . In addition, the proximity of the Project to the John Muir Hospital and associated medical facilities is particularly appropriate for senior citizens , who have a greater need for and can benefit from easy access to medical services . The proximity of shopping (3/4 mile away on Ygnacio Valley Road) and Heather Farms Park (1/2 mile away) contributes to the appropriateness and desirability of the Project at this location. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . A. No Project Alternative . 1 . Facts . This alternative would not approve the Project, leaving the Project Site in its current General Plan designation, which might accommodate up to six single-family homes . (Current zoning of the property allows only one single-family residence. ) 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project , and rejects the No Project Alternative, for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project , or conditions of approval which will be imposed on the specific approvals for development 'of the Project Site, have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, most of the environmental effects of the Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting the No Project Alternative. (b) Specifically, the Project incorporates numerous other measures referred to previously in these findings, and implementation of this alternative is not necessary in order to mitigate to an insignificant level the various effects of the Project . 21 (c) Adoption of the No Project Alternative would delay or prohibit the development of 196 senior citizen housing units with supportive congregate care facilities and thus adversely impact the local housing supply. (d) The social , economic and other benefits to be derived from the Project as discussed ed in the Statement of overriding Considerations (Section III , above) would not be obtained. B. Redesign Alternative. 1 . Facts . The DEIR (p. 87) evaluated a redesign of the Project with the same number of units (227) but fewer parking spaces (146, based on a reduced ratio of . 64 space per unit) . The . purpose of this alternative was to address concerns over loss of rural character and impact on views . Design changes included reducing the area devoted to parking, lowering buildings along the western side to improve views of Mount Diablo, adding six-foot fences along the eastern and western boundaries, increasing landscaping, and enlarging four buildings in order to eliminate one building. The Project as reflected in the Final Development Plan subject to the Conditions contains only 196 units with only 110 parking spaces , increases landscaping, lowers buildings and increases setbacks along the western side, reduces building mass , and includes fences as suggested in this alternative. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the Redesign Alternative is less desirable than the Project , and rejects the Redesign Alternative, for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed on the specific approvals for development of the Project Site, have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, most of the environmental effects of the Project, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting the Redesign Alternative. (b) Specifically, the Project incorporates numerous other measures referred to previously in these findings, as well as many of the redesign features proposed by this alternative, and implementation of this alternative and those features not so incorporated is not necessary in order to mitigate to an insignificant level the various effects of the Project or to accomplish the stated goals of this alternative. 22 (c) Adoption of the Redesign Alternative would not avoid the significant unavoidable land use impact identified by the Final EIR and discussed in Section II above . any more than will the Project . (d) The Project by reducing the number of units from 227 to 196 has mitigated some impacts , which would not be achieved by this alternative. C. Reduced Project Alternative . 1 . Facts . The DEIR (p. 90) evaluated a redesign of the Project reduced to 125 units with 90 parking spaces . This alternative envisions a development of eight two- and three-story buildings , clustered into the center of the Project Site. This design would result in more open space and less impervious area. The Reduced Project Alternative would cause less impact than the Project in the categories of views , visual/rur,al character , traffic, noise, and drainage. Impacts would be similar to the Project in regard to land use conversion, geology, air quality, archaeology and vegetation/wildlife. This alternative would have an adverse impact compared to the Project in the matter of housing, supplying 71 fewer dwelling units for senior citizens in need of congregate care facilities . The figure of 125 units was selected as the foundation for this alternative based on an assumption expressed in the 1970 City of Walnut Creek Housing Element , that this was the minimum number needed to justify and support congregate care eating and support facilities . As acknowledged by Response 0-32, this figure does not reflect constraints of current land and development costs , and this alternative is feasible only by scaling back the congregate care services being proposed and reducing the quality of amenities in dwelling units and common areas , which reductions are not desirable. Reducing the number of units will affect affordability of the facility for potential elderly residents , because fixed costs such as land acquisition will be spread among fewer units . If congregate care services are reduced, Project impacts such as traffic generation and parking need may increase because more residents will require cars to travel off-site for substitute services . The reduction of supportive care services would make it more difficult , if not impossible, for 196 potential senior citizen households (approximately 230 individuals) to attempt independent living as an alternative to residence in a nursing .home or a hospital . 23 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project , and rejects << the Reduced Project Alternative, for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed on the specific approvals for development of the Project Site, have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, most of the environmental effects of the Project thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting the Reduced Project Alternative. (b) Specifically, the Project incorporates numerous other measures referred to previously in these findings , and implementation of this alternative is not necessary in order to mitigate to an insignificant level the various effects of the Project, and in fact might increase some impacts . (c) Adoption of the Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the housing opportunities for senior citizens desiring congregate care facilities by 71 dwelling units, and would increase the cost of the fewer units allowed, thereby affecting affordability. (d) Development of this alternative would require reducing or eliminating proposed congregate care services , which would be detrimental to the County' s elderly population seeking alternatives to nursing homes or hospitalization. (e) Under this alternative, the economic feasibility for the Applicant to finance mitigation measures and contribute to regional improvement funds would be reduced. (f) The social , economic and other benefits to be derived from the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III , above) would not be obtained or would be reduced. ELS :ns/7 0527Y/12 . 09 . 8 72771 . 001 24 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PERMA-SILT LA CASA VIA REZONING AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (a) The Board hereby finds, pursuant to County Code Section 26-2 . 1806, that the zoning change hereby approved will substantially comply with the County General Plan, as amended by the General Plan Amendment . (b) The Board hereby finds, pursuant to County Code Section 26-2 . 1806, that the uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts . Land uses authorized in the vicinity of the Project include similar senior citizen residential development projects , and supportive medical-related facilities . (c) The Board hereby finds , pursuant to County Code Section 26-2 . 1806, that community need for the use proposed has been demonstrated. The Final EIR identifies the need for senior citizen congregate care housing in the County. (d) The Board hereby finds, pursuant to County Code Section 84-66 . 1406, that the Applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the Rezoning and Final Development Plan approval . (e) The Board hereby finds, pursuant to County Code Section 84-66 . 1406, that the proposed Project is consistent with the County General Plan, as amended by the General Plan Amendment . (f) The Board hereby finds , pursuant to County Code Section 84-66 . 1406 , that the Project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. The Conditions of Approval and Project design features assure enhanced landscaping, complementary architectural style and building materials , substantial setbacks, screenings , height reductions and other mitigation measures derived from the Final EIR, which will ensure harmony with the neighborhood. EXHIBIT D FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PERMA-BILT LA CASA VIA SUBDIVISION (a) The Board hereby finds , pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 , that the proposed Subdivision meets and performs all of the requirements and conditions imposed by the Subdivision Map Act and the Contra Costa County Subdivision Ordinance, as more fully set forth in the findings incorporated herein, and as mandated by Subdivision Condition of Approval No. 1 requiring development of the Project to comply with the plans previously submitted subject to the Conditions, and as mandated by Condition No . 11 .A. requiring the Subdivision to conform to the County Subdivision Ordinance . (b) The Board hereby finds , pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 . 5, that the proposed Subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan as amended by the General Plan Amendment . The densities of the Project are consistent with the densities considered appropriate by the County General Plan, as amended . By providing housing and congregate care supportive services for senior citizens , the Project promotes goals and policies of the County Gen.eral Plan to serve the County' s growing elderly population. By providing an easement to widen the Briones-to-Mt . Diablo Regional Trail , the Project promotes access to and use of open space resources in accordance with the General Plan. (c) The Board hereby finds , pursuant to Government Code Section 66412 . 3 , that the effect of County ordinances and actions adopted pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act on the housing needs of the region of Contra Costa County have been considered. Consideration has included examination of the Project ' s potential to increase the stock of housing available to senior citizens within the County, and in particular with respect to the need to serve elderly residents with special supportive services requirements . The Board has considered the balance of regional housing needs against the public service needs of County residents as well as against available fiscal and environmental resources , as these needs and resources have been identified within the immediate approval process for the Project . (d) The Board hereby finds that the evidence which has been presented and evaluated by the Board does not require a finding under Government Code Section 66474 , which would require denial of the proposed subdivision, as further supported by the CEQA Findings attached as Exhibit A hereto and by the Final EIR.- (e) The Board hereby finds, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 . 1 , that the design of the Subdivision provides, to the extent feasible given the configuration, orientation and topography of the Project Site, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities . 2 V ORDINANCE NO. 88-92 Re-Zoning Land in the Walnut Creek Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page M-.14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. 2799-RZ ) FROM: Land Use District A-2 ( General Agriculture ) TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit Development ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. EG 2riTn OH GQ- min© V , .may SECTION U. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on December 13, 1988 by the following vote: Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain 1. T. M. Powers ( X) ( ) ( ( ) 2. N. C. Fanden ( X) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. R. I. Schroder ( ) ( X) ( ) ( ) 4. S. W. McPeak ( ( ) ( ) 5. T. Torlakson ( ) ( X) ( ) ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator and Clerk of Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By IX4AJ , Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 88-92 2799-RZ Perma Bilt