HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12211989 - 2.3A AM
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY _OF CONTRA COSTA
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Adopted this Order on December 21, 1989, by the following.vote:
AYES : Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak and Torlakson
NOES : None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 89/813 and
RA 89-26
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CERTIFYING REVIEW AND
CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND STATING OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE
OAKLEY GENERAL PLAN AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra
Costa (the "Board") is considering adoption of a Redevelopment
Plan for the Oakley Redevelopment Project Area (the
"Redevelopment Plan") ;
WHEREAS, the Board is considering adoption of a General
Plan for the Oakley/North Brentwood area of the County (the
"General Plan" ) ; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the
General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan was prepared by the
County of Contra Costa pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ,
hereafter "CEQA" ) , the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of
Regulations, Sections 15000 et. seq. , hereafter the "State
EIR Guidelines") and the County' s Local Guidelines for
Implementing CEQA (the "Local Guidelines") ; and
WHEREAS, on September 1 , 1989, the County forwarded the
Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those
agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the
Oakley Redevelopment Project (the "Project" ) , to all affected
taxing agencies pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section
33333. 3, and to other interested persons and agencies, and
sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies of
the completion of the Draft EIR was published in the Antioch
Ledger on September 15 , 1989; and
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on December 11 , 1989, the
East County Regional Planning Commission recommended to the
Board and the Agency the certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the Board and
the Agency on December 12, 1989 on the General Plan,
Redevelopment Plan, and the Final EIR, following notice duly and
regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons
expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto were
heard, and the Final EIR was considered; and
I
-1-
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (dated
August, 1989) , the Final EIR incorporating comments and written
responses thereto (dated November 17 , 1989) , and any additional
comments received at the joint public hearing together with the
Board and the Agency responses to those comments set forth in
the record of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, by this concurrent resolution, the Board, as the
lead agency under CEQA for preparing the Final EIR and the
entity responsible for approving the General Plan, adopting the
Redevelopment Plan and approving the Project; and the Agency, as
the agency responsible for preparing and carrying out the
Redevelopment Plan under the California Community Redevelopment
Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq. ) ,
jointly desire to comply with the requirements of CEQA, the
State EIR Guidelines, and the Local Guidelines for
consideration, certification, and use of the Final EIR by lead
and responsible agencies in connection with the approval and
subsequent implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board and the
Agency hereby find and certify that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines;
that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues
of the Project, the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan; and
that the Board and the Agency have reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the
General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board and Agency hereby
identify the significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures,
adopt the monitoring program to be implemented for each
mitigation measure, make the findings, and declare the statement
of overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached
Exhibit A which is incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference. The statements, findings and determinations set
forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified Final EIR
and other information available to the Board and the Agency, and
are made in compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092, and 15093 of
the State EIR Guidelines and Section 21081 .6 of CEQA.
#B 0 2 7 A/B 3 2 0 0 9 t hereby certify that this Is a true and co►rect eopy of
an action taken and entered on the minu%s of the
Board of Su visors J'
tl date shown.
ATTESTED,: ,���,�
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
cc: Community Development BY v .Denuty
Redevelopment
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
R gem at date shown.
ATTE8TE0:
PHIL BATCHELOR,Agency Secretary
0
ey tyeputy
-2-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE OAKLEY/NORTH BRENTWOOD
AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
PURSUANT- TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
I . INTRODUCTION
A. Certification and Overview.
1 . These findings are made by this Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County and by the Contra Costa
Redevelopment Agency (jointly the "Board" ) , on December 21 ,
1989 , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA" ) and the County regulations promulgated thereunder . .
2 . The purposes of these findings include :
(a) recertifying the environmental impact report (the "Final
EIR" or "EIR" ) prepared for the Oakley/North Brentwood Area
General. Plan amendment ( "ONBAGP" ) and the "Oakley Redevelopment
Plan, " (also collectively referred to herein as the
"Projects" ) ; (b) briefly describing and summarizing the
potentially significant environmental impacts of the Projects;
(c) describing the mitigation measures suggested by the Final
EIR for the Projects; and (d) presenting this Board ' s findings
as to the impacts of the Projects after adoption or rejection
of the mitigation measures . The description of impacts is
intended as a a summary only; the EIR describes these impacts
in detail , and is incorporated herein by this reference.
11/5738S
1
Certain mitigation measures have been proposed in the EIR.
These findings adopt such mitigation measures as proposed or as
modified, or reject them as infeasible . Certain additional
mitigation measures, not proposed in the Draft EIR, are also
adopted in these findings .
3 . The Final EIR is comprised of the Initial
Study, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, the Notice
of Completion of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR circulated for
public review and comment , the written and oral public comments
and recommendations received on the Draft EIR during the public
review process , a list of the persons , organizations and public
agencies commenting on the Draft EIR and studies , and the
responses of the County to the significant environmental points
raised during that public review and consultation process .
4 . This Board certifies that the Final EIR has
e been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was
presented to, and reviewed and considered by, this Board prior
to acting on the Projects . In so certifying, this Board
recognizes that there may be "differences" among and between
the information and opinions offered in the documents and
testimony that make up the Final EIR and the administrative
record. Therefore, by these findings , this Board ratifies ,
clarifies and/or modifies the EIR as set forth in these
findings , and determines that these findings shall control and
that the Final EIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to
the determinations reached by this Board in these findings ,
11/5738S
2
which are based on the 'substantial evidence in the
administrative record described below.
5 . This Board also finds and determines that
: the Final EIR will serve as the "Program EIR" for the Oakley
Redevelopment Plan, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections
21090 and 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15168 and 15180 ,
and that all subsequent public and private activities ,
undertakings or actions on "components" of the Oakley
Redevelopment Plan (pursuant to or in furtherance of the Oakley
Redevelopment Plan) shall constitute a single project , and
shall be deemed approved at the time of the adoption of the
'q`"Oakley Redevelopment Plan. No additional EIR( s) shall be
required for individual components of the Plan unless changing
conditions or new information (of the type recognized by CEQA
as creating� a need for additional documentation) is
subsequently revealed. The Final EIR, or a portion thereof ,
may also serve as the foundational environmental documentation
for subsequent County legislative or adjudicatory acts which
seeks to implement the ONBAGP.
6 . Subsequent projects will undergo individual
environmental review a nd• ;will. likely involve project-specific
impacts, mitigations and alternatives . At this General Plan
amendment stage of the development process it is impossible to
forecast with certainty the particulars of such subsequent
projects, whether such subsequent projects will be approved,
will be approved at the maximum density allowed by this General
11/57385
3
J J •
Plan amendment , or will involve the "worst-case" environmental
impacts and scenarios hypothesized in the Final EIR.
Nonetheless, these findings attempt to address plausible
environmental impacts of the Projects at this , the earliest
stage in the process . The EIR recommends mitigation measures
for the Projects as a whole, including mitigation measures
which are designed to be: ( i ) incorporated as policies within
the Projects; ( ii ) be effected through subsequent implementing
regulations, ordinances , standards , programs and plans ; or
( iii) incorporated into future development approvals . The
ONBAGP and Oakley Redevelopment Plan do not amount to the final
authorization to develop the areas they encompass , and this
Board will be diligently implementing the mitigation measures
recommended by the EIR, pursuant to the mitigation
implementation and monitoring program established herein.
7 . Unless otherwise indicated in the text of
the EIR or these findings , all recommended mitigation measures
will avoid or substantially reduce any significant adverse
environmental impacts of the ONBAGP and the Oakley
Redevelopment Plan to a level of insignificance, and all
mitigation measures , themselves , are determined not to result
in any potentially significant adverse impacts .
8 . Many of the mitigation measures suggested by
the EIR, and adopted by these findings have been modified to
strengthen them, as may be seen by comparing the measures
adopted by these findings with the measures set forth in the
11/5738S
4
A ,
EIR. Several mitigation measures have also been modified
because this Board has- determined that the implementation of
the mitigation measure as originally proposed is undesirable,
impractical or otherwise infeasible. The reason for this
determination is explained in these findings , along with the
staff report and the response to comments on the DEIR, which
are hereby incorporated by reference.
B. The Projects .
1`. ONBAGP.
The ONBAGP contains a land use map and goals , policies
and programs to guide the future development of the Oakley and
,;. North Brentwood planning area located in east Contra Costa
1�1 County. The ONBAGP allows for a range of residential density
uses, commercial and industrial activities , and continued
agricultural and open space uses . ;
' 2 . Oakley Redevelopment Plan.
The Oakley Redevelopment Plan area is located within
the ONBAGP area. The Oakley Redevelopment Plan proposes five
redevelopment activities designed to eliminate physical ,
economic and social blighting conditions that currently exist
and to encourage and stimulate private sector development : ( i )
circulation and traffic improvements on SR 4 and local area
streets; ( ii) public and community, facilities improvements ,
including schools , parks and a government center; ( iii) housing
rehabilitation (250 properties) and new construction of 47
lower-income multi-family housing units; ( iv) commercial and
11/5738S
5
` industrial development; and (v) drainage and infrastructure
improvements .
C. Description of The Record.
The record before this Board relating to this action
includes , without limitation, the following:
1 . All staff reports , resolutions , and other
County actions or materials relating to the Projects;
2. All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by County staff, the East County Planning
Commission and this Board prior to and during all public
hearings relating to the Projects ;
3 . The Final EIR, as herein described;
4 . All matters of common knowledge, such as the
County General Plan, the County Zoning Code, and other County
policies and regulations .
D. Miscellaneous .
1 . In adopting mitigation measures for the
Projects and subsequent development approvals , this Board is
, subject to Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15092(c) , which require that this Board not
reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation
measure if it determines that there is any other feasible
mitigation measures available that will provide a comparable
level of mitigation.
11/57385
6
t
2 . This Board intends that these findings be
considered as an integrated whole and,.. whether or not any
subdivision of these findings fails to cross-reference or
incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these
findings , that any finding required or permitted to be made by
this Board shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of
this document . All of the text included in this document
constitutes the findings and determinations of this Board,
whether or not' a'ny, particular caption, sentence or clause
includes a statement to that effect .
II . FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
tiAQ . i A. Introduction.
1 . Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR discusses the
Projects ' environmental settings , their potential environmental
impacts, and the measures proposed to mitigate such impacts .
Chapter 3 includes specific sections addressing land- use;
}: population, jobs and housing; community character and visual
and aesthetic resources; agricultural lands; parks and
recreation; .geology and soils; ground water , drainage and
floodplains; vegetation and wildlife; archeological resources;
traffic and circulation; air quality; noise; water and sewer
services; schools and child care facilities; fire and police
protection; and solid waste and utilities .
2 . In addition, each section includes
discussions of other related County documents . For example,
11/57385
7
r
the EIR analyzes policies in the ONBAGP for consistency with
the policies in the existing Contra Costa County General Plan
and the proposed County General Plan. The East County Area
General Plan ( "ECAGP" ) adopted in 1978 and amended through
March 1989 is also referenced in the EIR, and ONBAGP goals ,
policies and programs are likewise analyzed for consistency
with the ECAGP.
3 . California Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ) generally
requires that a redevelopment plan conform to the applicable
general plan when adopted. The Oakley Redevelopment Plan
supports the policies and goals of the ONBAGP and implements
the land uses of the ONBAGP within the designated Redevelopment
Project Area.
4 . The organizational format of these findings
is intended to reflect the organizational format of the Draft
EIR. Each impact and mitigation measure relative to either or
both the ONBAGP and Oakley Redevelopment Plan is discussed in
the order presented on the Draft EIR.
B . Land Use
1 . Background and summary of potentially
significant impacts .
a. ONBAGP
The ONBAGP shifts a significant amount of single
family residential development to the area south of Laurel
Road, designating 3 , 445 acres for residential development at
11/57385
8
y
-•' � 1
densities ranging from 1 . 0 to 7 . 3 units per acre. ..The ONBAGP
also redesignates an -area near the western entrance to Oakley
south of SR4 from single family residential with a portion
designated Light Industrial to Light Industrial ,- Office and
Commercial , with a small portion of the area designated
multiple family residential .
North of Laurel Road, and with certain exceptions , the
ONBAGP generally reduces residential densities from high
density single family to medium density. An area on SR4 is
planned for multiple family housing at up to 21 units per
acre. The ONBAGP redesignates approximately 15 acres east of
Big Break Road and north of the Vintage subdivision as Heavy
Industry.
Additional land use impacts as they relate to
agricultural lands are discussed in part E, below.
b. Redevelopment Plan
K� Under the Redevelopment Plan, industrial , commercial ,
and office uses are planned for Redevelopment Sub-Area 1 . The
western portion of Sub-Area 1 is within the City of Antioch
Sphere of Influence, which designates that area for residential
development . Potential land use conflicts could occur if
redevelopment funds are used to encourage light industry
beginning on the east side of Sub-area 1 , and the City annexes
the :west side of Sub-area 1 for residential development .
1115738S
9
1
2 . Mitigation measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt some, but
not all , of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitigation measures
to reduce impacts relating to land use. (The mitigation
measures included in the land use section of the EIR which
directly relate to impacts on agricultural lands are addressed
in Section E of the findings . )
a. ONBAGP
B6 The ONBAGP land use map shall be
modified from the office designation to single-family
residential ( 1 acre minimum) on the north, and single family
residential (5 . 0 to 7 . 3 D .U. per acre) on the south at Laurel
Avenue and SR4 .
B8 The ONBAGP policy limiting
neighborhood commercial development to retail tax generating
h
uses (ED-C program- l) shall be deleted.
B9 The text of the ONBAGP shall be
amended to add a new program under Policy E of the "Land
Use-Industry" section of the Land Use Element . The new program
shall state: "The Heavy Industry designation east of Big Break
Road and north of the Vintage subdivision recognizes the
existing industrial use (a contractor ' s yard) . No new or
expanded use shall be allowed which will represent an
intensification of the existing use (the contractor ' s yard) . "
11/57385
10
B11 All lands indicated in the Urban,
Developing Urban, and Future Urban categories in the
Development Status map shall be updated to reflect changes in
existing development , and periodically updated during the time
frame of the ONBAGP buildout .
B12 The Growth Management Program
contained in the ONBAGP will remain in effect unless a Growth
Management Program is adopted as part of the County General
Plan. The- ONBAGP will incorporate the County General Plan
Growth Management Plan if such a plan is adopted.
b. Redevelopment Plan
B13 The County shall coordinate with LAFCO and
the City of Antioch to modify the City' s sphere of influence to
reflect SR1-60 as the sphere boundary.
C . Rejected mitigation measures
Mitigation measure B7 and B10 are not adopted for the
reasons stated below. See Section E, below, for a discussion
of other mitigation reasons relating to agricultural lands .
3 . Findings
a. ONBAGP
( 1) The Board rejects Mitigation
Measure B10 as unnecessary. The rationale behind Mitigation
Measure B10 was to establish consistency between the
Development Status Map in ONBAGP and the policies of the Draft
County General Plan. The adoption of Mitigation Measure B12,
as modified, establishes the ONBAGP Growth Management program
11/5738S
11
h as operative, to be modified by the County General Plan Growth
Management Plan if one is adopted, making Mitigation Measure
B10 unnecessary.
(2) The Board rejects Mitigation
Measure B7 as it has been rendered unnecessary by
redisignations on the Land Use Map of the ONBAGP.
(3) The redesignation of land to
establish new land use patterns is not , in itself , a
significant impact . The secondary effects of these
redesignations are considered in sections C-Q, below, of these
findings, along with mitigation measures for these effects,
where appropriate. Furthermore, changes in residential
densities are not , in themselves, significant impacts . The
secondary effects of these redesignations are considered in
sections C-Q of these findings along with mitigation measures
for these effects , where appropriate .
(4 ) The Board finds that Mitigation
Measure B9 will reduce the impacts on open space that may
result from the redesignation of 15 acres as Heavy Industry
east of Big Break Road and north of the Vintage subdivision .
However, such impacts will not be fully avoided .
( 5) The Board finds that any concern
regarding inconsistencies between the growth management
programs in the ONBAGP and the Draft County General Plan is
premature. The ONBAGP, which was developed specifically for
the planning area, provides a viable growth management
11/5738S
12
t
program. Mitigation Measure B12 is modified to provide that
the Growth Management program in the ONBAGP shall apply pending
adoption of the County Growth Management Program. As a result ,
any impacts related to inconsistency between the programs are
r eliminated.
(6) The Board finds that by adopting
Mitigation Measure B13 , any impacts related to potential land
use conflicts between the ONBAGP and the Antioch General Plan
will be eliminated or reduced.
C. Population, Jobs & Housing.
1 . Background And Summary Of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP.
Population. Under the ONBAGP,
population in the project area could grow dramatically during
the next 15 years .
Housing. Assuming steady growth at
historical rates, 4 , 400 new units would be constructed by the
year 2000, doubling the existing housing stock . Provision of
infrastructure improvements could generate greater growth.
Jobs/Housing Balance. The relationship
of Oakley' s job opportunities to households may have long-term
impacts on Oakley' s character as a community, its ability to
accommodate industry, future traffic conditions in Oakley and
surrounding areas , and secondary impacts on such issues as air
quality and transportation facilities . Oakley' s job/housing
11/5738S
13
. r �
ratio is 0 . 25 (one job to four employed residents) . Growth
under the ONBGAP would increase the ratio of jobs to housing to
0 . 40 in 2005 . Projected job growth beyond 2005 will further
increase the ratio. The proposed ONBAGP designates about 900
acres for industrial use. If industrial parks were built at or
near capacity over time. Oakley' s adverse jobs/housing ratio
could be reversed. There is no land supply constraint that
would affect Oakley' s ability to accommodate new jobs and
housing, but there may be an overabundance of designated
industrial land.
b. Oakley Redevelopment Plan.
Population. Under the Redevelopment
Plan, 60 new low/moderate income multifamily households , or
approximately 150 persons, will be added in the redevelopment
area.
Housinq. The proposed Redevelopment
Plan would generate up to 250 single-family units and up to 60
new multifamily units . Redevelopment will potentially
stimulate growth in the northern area of Oakley, where
otherwise new housing would be mostly in southern Oakley.
Redevelopment will check the decline in property maintenance
and redevelopment assisted infrastructure improvements would
help improve neighborhood quality and forestall further decline.
Jobs/Housing Balance. Redevelopment
funds would stimulate jobs by encouraging and by consolidating
smaller parcels into larger lots appropriate for industrial
11/5738S
14
. , t
` development . Three commercial areas are located in the
redevelopment area which have a development potential of
397 , 000 square feet . The light industrial area within the
project area would allow for 3 , 795 employees; the commercial
uses would allow from 2, 020 to 4 , 442 job opportunities . Office
use would generate about 390 jobs . The project will also
generate short-term residential growth.
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitigation measures
to reduce impacts relating to population, jobs and housing.
a. ONBAGP .
C1 On lands that are not identified as
environmentally constrained, residential development projects
are encouraged to be at or near density maximums .
C2 A marketing analysis and strategy
program shall be developed in cooperation with local interest
groups (such as the Chamber of Commerce and Omac) to attract
economic development in `the east county area and particularly
Oakley.
tL b. Oakley Redevelopment Plan.
63 The Redevelopment Agency shall
pursue, in good faith, a contract or first source agreement
benefitting developers to train and hire local residents . The
contract may require that employers in Redevelopment Agency
11/57385
15
t
assisted industrial developments agree to use County job
training and recruitment programs as a "first source" to fill
area job openings , if the County through its programs can
provide job-ready candidates who meet the employers ' specific
needs. (modified)
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP.
( 1) The Board finds that population
growth in and of itself under the ONBAGP is not a significant
environmental impact . The secondary effects of population
growth such as increased traffic , increased need for public
services, and so on are considered throughout the EIR and in
these findings , where mitigation measures for the specific
impacts of growth are discussed.
(2) The Board finds that the adoption
of mitigation measure C1 will have a beneficial effect because
it will substantially reduce the impacts of the housing
shortage in the planning area. The impacts of housing growth
on the environment are discussed elsewhere in these findings .
(3) The implementation of the ONBGAP
will improve the jobs-housing balance ratio . However , due to
potential population growth, imbalance between jobs and housing
is a significant impact of the plan. The Board finds that
adoption of the mitigation measures will substantially lessen
this impact but that this impact will not be avoided altogether .
11/57385
16
b. Oakley Redevelopment Plan.
( 1 ) The Board finds that population
growth under the Redevelopment Plan is not a significant impact .
(2) The Board finds that housing
growth under the Redevelopment Plan is not a significant impact .
(3) The Board finds that jobs/housing
balance impacts will be avoided by adoption of the mitigation
measures and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
D. '`Community Character/Visual And Aesthetic
Resources .
I . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP
New development will have potentially significant
impacts on the visual qualities and rural character of Oakley.
Potential sources of these impacts include the conversion of
agricultural and. vacant lands within the planning area to other
a -
uses , and the construction of billboards and commercial signage
along SR4 .
b. Redevelopment Plan
Redevelopment activities could result in the loss of
buildings of historical or architectural significance, or in
their being altered inappropriately.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified in the EIR.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitigation measures
11/57385
17
r
to reduce impacts relating to Community Character/Visual and
Aesthetic resources .
D1 Guidelines for architecture and site
design standards shall be prepared for Oakley, based on the
policies and programs included in the ONBAGP and the Draft
County General Plan, that concern conservation and enhancement
of visual resources and community character .
D2 The Guidelines shall include an
inventory. of natural features and man-made resources based on
the inventory included in the EIR. Standards shall be
developed to protect these resources from potential impacts of
future development proposals .
D3 Preliminary review of development
applications shall assess how development proposals implement
the standards of the Guidelines . This preliminary review could
be accomplished through a newly formed or existing architecture
and site review committee staffed by County personnel .
D4 To maintain and protect the scenic
qualities of Oakley and the SR4 corridor , guidelines limiting
billboards and commercial signage shall be prepared for the
Oakley Plan Area.
b. Redevelopment Plan
D5 Buildings proposed for
rehabilitation activities shall be evaluated for historic
significance.
11/57385
18
s
3 . Findings :
a.. ONBAGP
(1 ) The Board finds that the adoption
of Mitigation Measures D1 , D2, D3 , and D4 will help maintain
the rural character of the community and enhance the visual
quality of new development . As a result , impacts will be
substantially lessened, although` t' hey will not be fully avoided.
(2) The Board further finds that the
ONBAGP lessens the potential visual impacts by maintaining some
of Oakley' s most prominent open space areas , most notably the
Big Break Area . Adoption of Mitigation Measure Bi would
further lessen such impacts by providing an agricultural buffer
between Oakley '°And Brentwood. The Board finds , however, that
Mitigation Measure B1 is not desirable and rejects it on that
basis, -as discussed in Section B . 3 . The Board finds , therefore
that the impacts on community character and visual and
aesthetic resources has not been avoided through mitigation.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The Board finds that the adoption of
Mitigation Measure D5 w `ll substantially reduce the impacts on
community character in the redevelopment area.
E. Agricultural Lands .
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP.
The loss of .agricultural land due to
continuing urbanization of East Contra Costa County is a
11/5738S
19
r
. G
regional cumulative impact associated with adoption of the
ONBAGP. The ONBAGP ' s designation of lands for nonagricultural
development will result in the loss of lands that might
otherwise be used for agriculture. Lands with prime
agricultural soils are a valuable resource, and generally can
be used for agricultural production if parcel sizes are
economically viable and irrigation is available. The
development of agricultural lands whether containing prime or
nonprime soild would also affect the area ' s rural character and
the visual character of the area .
.The ONBAGP ' s redesignation of the area south of Neroly
Road is changed from the current "Interim Agriculture" to low
density residential . A substantial portion of this area
contains prime soils . A narrow piece of prime soils extends
north of Neroly Road generally along the route of the SP
tracks . This area is designated three units per acre on the
east side of the SP tracks . It is within the planning area of
the Southeast Antioch Specific Plan to the west of the tracks .
The ONBAGP redesignates an area of approximately 200 acres of
prime agricultural soils east of Old Town, north. of Cypress
Road, and .south of the Contra Costa Canal from Agricultural
Residential to Light Industry. The ONBAGP redesignates an area
of prime agricultural land east of Old Town, between the AT and
SF tracks and Marsh Creek from Agricultural Residential and
Mobile Home Park to allow a multiple family residential density
of 7 . 4 to 11 . 9 units per acre.
11/5738S
20
•4 1
4 Preservation of agricultural lands would act as a
constraint on the County' s ability to provide sufficient land
for housing.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
There is potential for land use conflicts between the
proposed uses for the Redevelopment Area and adjacent
agricultural lands . These conflicts could arise from dust and
noise associated with agricultural uses , among other things .
2 . imitigation measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt , and does
adopt , the following mitigation measures relating to
agricultural lands :
a. ONBAGP.
B5 The vacant portion of the prime
farmland soils between Marsh Creek and the AT & SF' railroad
tracks shall retain its proposed multiple family residential
designation of 7 .4 to 11 . 9 residential units per acre.
(modified)
b.. Redevelopment Plan.
E1 Buffer areas and landscape berms
shall be incorporated into .the site design plans to minimize
land .,use conflicts between redevelopment project land uses and
existing agricultural lands .
C. - Rejected mitigation measures .
The Board finds that it is not desirable to adopt the
following mitigation measures related to land use and impacts
11/5738S
21
,
c
` on agricultural lands : B1 , recommending that the 700-acre prime
soils area south of Neroly Road be changed to an agricultural
designation; B2, recommending that the 200-acre area of prime
soils east of Old Town, north of Cypress Road and south of the
Contra Costa Canal be changed from Light Industry in the ONBAGP
to an agricultural designation; B3 , recommending that the
vacant area of prime soils south of the Laurel extension and
east of Marsh Creek Channel between designated for multiple
family housing shall be changed to an agricultural designation;
and B4 , recommending that development plans for marginal
agricultural areas that do not have agricultural designations
retain open space uses as much as practicable.
3 . Findings
a. ONBAGP
( 1 ) The Board rejects Mitigation
Measure B1 as undesirable and infeasible for that reason . The
ONBAGP recognizes the value of a balance between agricultural
and non-agricultural development in the East County. For the
reasons set forth in the discussion of alternatives and
overriding concerns (parts III and IV) , this Board finds that
mitigation income B1 should be rejected. The Board further
finds that low density residential designation of this area is
desirable because it will greatly assist in the provision of a
variety of housing opportunities in the area, will provide a
low density transition to agricultural uses , and is consistent
with the designation for these lands in the Brentwood General
Plan.
11%57385
22
. , (2) The ;Board rejects Mitigation
Measure B2 as undesirable and therefore infeasible. Use of
this area for Light Industry is consistent with policies in the
ONBAGP encouraging a balance between jobs and housing in the
planning area. A jobs/housing balance will have a positive
effect on traffic . Failure to achieve this balance may affect
the area ' s Growth Management program by increasing work-related
trips from the Oakley area and by decreasing revenues .
Furthermore, the ONBAGP contemplates encouraging a compact
development pattern in the planning area, with a concentration
of housing and employment opportunities . Designation of this
area for Light Industry will further that policy.
(3) The Board rejects Mitigation
Measure B3 as undesirable and therefore infeasible . Mitigation
measure B3,°`provides that this area be changed to an
agricultural designation unless mitigation measure B5 is
adopted instead. Mitigation Measure B5, which provides that
"if the County deems that the opportunity to expand the Oakley
area housing base is more important than preserving
agricultural production; the County could designate this area
for multiple family residential development at 7 . 4 to 11 . 9
i. units per acre, " is adopted. Such residential development
would help the County to "meet its goal of expanding housing
opportunities that are relatively close to transportation and
shopping. Furthermore, rejection of Mitigation Measure B3 is
consistent with the ONBAGP ' s policy of encouraging a pattern of
11/5738S
23
compact residential and employment producing development in the ,
Oakley/North Brentwood area .
(4 ) The Board rejects Mitigation
Measure B4 as undesirable and therefore infeasible. Mitigation
Measure B4 provides that marginal agricultural lands that do
not have agricultural designations should retain open space
uses as much as practicable . This mitigation measure conflicts
with mitigation measure Cl , which has been adopted in order to
achieve the overriding housing goals of the Plan. Therefore,
mitigation measure B4 is rejected as infeasible and undesirable.
( 5) The Board finds that the impact of
;.r loss of prime agricultural soils in the planning area that will
result from- the ONBAGP will be .substantially lessened by the
fact that the ONBAGP will reduce development pressures on other
prime agricultural lands in the East County area . However ,
this impact is only partly mitigated, and the loss of areas
with prime agricultural soils that will result for development
under the ONBAGP is a significant adverse environmental impact .
b. Redevelopment Plan
The Board finds that impacts related to potential
conflicts between proposed uses in the Redevelopment Area and
adjacent agricultural uses will be reduced to a level of
insignificance by Mitigation Measure E1 .
F. Parks and Recreation.
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
11/5738S
24
a . ONBAGP.
Oakley has . only a limited ,amount of
park, recreational and open space facilities . The draft Oakley
Parks Masterplan establishes a standard of 4 acres of active
recreational park per 1000 residents . Under this standard, an
additional 48 acres of park land would be needed to serve the
existing population .in Oakley. This however is not an impact of
the project . At a population of 32 , 160 , 129 acres would be
needed to meet . this goal and at a -population of 44 , 785 , 179
acres . The policies in the ONBAGP to increase parks and open
space include the construction of neighborhood parks as
development occurs , requiring developers to dedicate land
suitable for permanent recreational space orto provide fees
•for park acquisition. The ONBAGP also, provides for formation
of a community services district or other entity that would
acquire fiscal resources for the acquisition and development of
parks .
b. Oakley Redevelopment Plan.
The present lack of park and
recreational facilities '-in the Redevelopment area is a
recognized deficiency. . The Redevelopment Plan proposes
Redevelopment Agency contributions up to $250 ,000 of tax
increment revenues for the development or site acquisition for
park and open space improvements. The redevelopment .project
would therefore constitute a beneficial impact .
11/5738S
25
. 2 . Mitigation Measures .
The- Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR.
Accordingly, the .Board adopts the following mitigation measures
to reduce impacts relating to parks and recreation.
a. ONBAGP.
F1 A program shall be prepared to
implement the recommendations of the Draft Oakley Parks Master
Plan in a timely manner . The program shall particularly
address recommendations concerning the formation of an Oakley
parks entity and provisions for fiscal resources .
F2 Dedications of park lands or fees
in lieu thereof shall be required of all new residential
developments..
b. Redevelopment Plan.
Mitigation measure F1 and F2 above
shall apply to the Redevelopment Plan.
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP.
( 1 ) The Board finds and determines
that dedication of land for parks or the payment of a fee in
lieu thereof will substantially mitigate the need for park land
created by new development . The provision of additional park,
recreational and open space land in accordance with the ONBAGP
will create a positive environmental impact for the planning
area.
11/5738S
26
b. Redevelopment Plan.
( 1 ) The Board finds that the impacts
of implementation of the Oakley Redevelopment Plan on parks and
recreation in the redevelopment area will be avoided by
adoption of the above mitigation measures .
(3) The Board further finds that the
Redevelopment Plan will have a positive impact because it will
contribute tax increment funds to the acquisition and
development of park sites and recreational facilities .
G. Geology And Soils .
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP.
.FY
The Oakley area is of moderate
seismicity. However , the Oakley area is adjacent to the highly
b.
seismic faults in the San Francisco Bay Area. Groundshaking
originating from faults outside the planning area is a seismic
hazard, but the potential for surface fault displacement is
low. Portions of the planning area underlain by loose
superficial soils and a high water table are susceptible to
damage due .to liquefaction during earthquakes . Older
unreinforced structures would be most susceptible to such
damage unless they are improved for seismic safety.
Prime farm soils will be lost to development under the
ONBAGP. (See Part E, above . ) In addition, much of Oakley' s
11/57385
27
R
' ' r
sand reserves would become depleted to meet drainage and
leveling requirements for development .
The planning area is also potentially subject to
subsidence due to its low elevation, proximity to the San
Joaquin River , and local extraction of oil , gas and groundwater .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The older structures in the
Redevelopment area without lateral bracing would be subject to
significant damage in the event of an earthquake . Activity on
the Brentwood fault could cause moderate damage to the older
structures . Higher population densities in the redevelopment
area will increase earthquake hazards . The Redevelopment area
r
generally has a high potential for liquefaction in an
earthquake, particularly in those areas where the water table
depth is at less than 5 feet .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt each
of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR. Accordingly,
the Board adopts the following mitigation measures to reduce
impacts relating to geology and soils .
a. ONBAGP .
G1 The Oakley Guidelines for
architecture and site standards ( see Mitigation Measure D1 )
shall include the program criteria set forth in the ONBAGP and
the County General Plan concerning seismic and geologic
considerations .
11/5738S
28
G2 A detailed study shall be prepared
that investigates the danger of liquefaction in Oakley and
provides additional criteria and recommendations for future
development , including minimizing liquefaction damage to new
infrastructure. The recommendations of the study shall be
incorporated in the Oakley Guidelines for architecture and site
standards .
G3 If shown to be warranted by
findings in the - area-wide study, specific liquefaction studies
shall be required for every development proposal in the ONBAGP
planning area, to be reviewed by County geologists .
Mitigations suggested by the geologists/engineers shall be
strictly adhered to. Every subdivision proposal that is
processed prior to completion of the area-wide study shall be
required to submit appropriately detailed studies directed to
the hazard of liquefaction. The reports shall be subject to
technical review for adequacy by the County Geologist .
G4 Older buildings that are to be
used for more critical or high-occupancy uses shall be improved
to meet modern seismic design standards . These improvements
shall include cross-bracing, fastening fixtures, and ceiling
and wall reinforcement, or such other improvements as will
satisfy seismic design standards .
G5 Approvals for public and private
development projects in the planning area shall be contingent
on geologic and soil investigations . A reconnaissance soil and
11/5738S
29
geologic hazards report shall be required for development
projects followed by a- preliminary soils report , where
appropriate.
G6 Any evidence of subsidence shall
be monitored through a program of land elevation measurement .
The geologic and soil investigation prepared for a development
project in an area subject to subsidence as shown by such
program shall fully evaluate any subsidence hazards and
recommend necessary mitigation measures , which shall be adhered
to . Active gas wells in the area must be periodically
maintained until the wells are abandoned.
b. Oakley Redevelopment Plan .
G7 Residential units improved with
redevelopment housing rehabilitation funds shall be improved to
meet seismic design standards of the, Uniform Building Code.
G8 Prior to the construction of new
multi—family` housing financed with redevelopment funds , a
geotechnical study shall be undertaken to evaluate geologic and
soils conditions of the development site located along SR 4 ,
east of Empire Road, designated for medium density
residential . Specific engineering design recommendations shall
be incorporated into the development plans for the residential
project.
11/5738S
30
3 . Findings .
a.- ONBAGP and Redevelopment Plan
( 1 ) The Board finds that potentially
significant earthquake hazards would be substantially lessened
by implementation of these mitigation measures . However , they
would not be entirely avoided.
(2) The Board finds that the loss of
prime agricultural land in the planning area .will be partly
mitigated by the preservation of agricultural land elsewhere,
. but that loss of prime soils will still be a significant
adverse environmental impact , as explained in part E above .
The Board finds that the depletion of sand reserves in the
planning area is not a significant environmental impact .
(3) The Board finds that mitigation measure G6 , as
r adopted, will substantially lessen or avoid potentially
significant subsidence impacts .
H. Groundwater , Drainage And Floodplains .
1 . Background and summary of potentially
significant impacts .
a. ONBGAP .
Groundwater . The groundwater in Oakley
has been adversely affected by excessive nitrate intrusion.
Nitrate intrusion can be increased by infiltration from
fertilizers, agricultural wastes, septic tanks and similar
sources . Replacing agricultural uses with residential land
uses should decrease nitrate intrusion to the groundwater . In
11/5738S
31
addition, implementation of the project would reduce total
inflow to the groundwater and at the same time decrease the
demand on groundwater sources . However , as the Oakley area
builds out, runoff will contain non-point source urban
pollutants . These pollutants could infiltrate into the
groundwater . However , the expected concentrations of these
pollutants are relatively minor . And, as noted above, the
inflow to the ground water will be decreased due to the
increase in runoff . Industrial uses also have the potential
for adverse water quality impacts depending on the type of
wastewater generated and the type of storage, handling and
disposal procedures used.
Runoff and drainage. Existing
agricultural runoff contains pesticides , sediments and
fertilizer, contaminants . The concentrations of these
contaminants in runoff would decrease as urban development
occurs . However , urban development under the ONBGAP would
increase impervious surfaces and as a consequence the volume of
runoff would increase. Urban contaminants would accumulate and
drain into Marsh Creek and subsequently into the Delta .
However, .at concentrations typical of suburban communities ,
such contaminants should not create significant adverse impacts
to wildlife or vegetation.
Present regulations prohibit drainage of storm water
runoff into the Contra Costa Canal, which provides a domestic
water supply.
11157385
32
The increase -in impervious surfaces within the
planning area due to development would also concentrate storm
flows at greater velocities . As a result , extensive drainage
improvements throughout the project area will be necessary.
Furthermore, increased construction activities could result in
increased siltation in Marsh Creek and in drainage conduits and
detention basins if appropriate mitigation measures are not
implemented. This additional silt could clog weirs and pipes ,
and result in added maintenance costs . Additional siltation
also could, if not properly controlled, have adverse biological
effects on Marsh Creek .
Flood hazards . Build out of the
planning area would be potentially subject to flood hazards in
localized areas as specified in the EIR at page 126-27 and the
r FIRM flood hazard zone map shown on figure 12 .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
Groundwater . Continued industrial
development in redevelopment Sub-area #1 could adversely affect
area groundwater 'if industrial wastewater were released to the
groundwater , contributing to the problem of already existing
increased nitrate levels'-in 'the groundwater .
Drainage. Urban development and light
industrial development on vacant and underutilized parcels
would increase impervious surfaces and urban runoff in the
redevelopment area. This could result in the adverse impacts
discussed above unless adequate drainage facilities to mitigate
11/57385
33
r
these impacts are implemented. There is also a potential for
increased runoff from the proposed uses in Sub-area #3 into
Marsh Creek that could degrade water quality in the creek and
adversely impact the sensitive riparian habitat along the Creek .
Flooding. A small portion of the
commercially designated lands in Sub-area #3 are located within
the historic Marsh Creek 100-year flood zone .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Board hereby adopts the following
mitigation measures for the mitigation of groundwater , drainage
and flooding impacts :
H1 Adequate storm drainage facilities
shall be constructed. Streets shall be cleaned at the end of
the dry season. (modified)
H2 Detention basins shall be constructed
where necessary and the drainage basins shall be maintained to
help reduce pollutant loads prior to draining to Marsh Creek or
Big Break.
H3 Earth-moving activities during future
construction ( including cut , fill and compaction) shall be
N. conducted during the dry season (May to October) to avoid
excess erosion and siltation. Any runoff from construction
areas shall be retained in on-site basins . Following
construction, areas of bare soil shall be reseeded.
H4 A comprehensive groundwater quality
data collection and monitoring program shall be implemented to
11/5738S
34
provide baseline . data and recommend .measures to improve water
quality in the area.
H5 Prior to subdivision approval for any
new residential , commercial or industrial development , the
project applicant shall provide assurance from the Oakley Water
District of a safe and reliable domestic water supply,
according to applicable growth management standards . New
domestic wells shall be discouraged, even on currently
allowable parcels greater than one acre.
H6 A program shall be developed to
facilitate ongoing water studies conducted by the County
r, Environmental Health Department , that encourages all individual
ttx
., well owners to test for safe drinking water standards once each
r year, and report results to the Health Department .
H7 Prior to subdivision or development
approval of light industrial areas detailed analyses shall be
conducted of •proposed industrial activities relating to
y wastewater, wastewater conditions , and wastewater handling and
storage procedures .
H8 Environmental Health Department
officers and State Waste"Resources Control Board
representatives shall review plans to ensure safe and adequate
handling and storage or ,;industrial .materials for light
industrial development . If potentially toxic materials are
involved, the County shall adopt a Toxic. Substances Storage
11/5738S
35
Ordinance, or other measures , that will ensure safe and 1
adequate handling and -storage of such materials .
H9 A policy program for hazardous
materials management shall be developed. These policies shall
be consistent with and integrated into the county-wide policies
set forth in the County' s Hazardous Waste Task Force
recommendations .
H10 All new developments shall provide
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the planned drainage
improvements . Site-specific mitigation measures shall be
required for the additional runoff generated consistent with
s the policies contained in the Draft County General Plan . Such
policies shall be adopted as a program under the ONBGAP.
H11 A revised drainage plan for Marsh Creek
shall be developed to offset the effects of additional runoff ,
including a means of implementing the revised plan.
H12 In the absence of existing drainage
facilities , new development shall construct offsite drainage
systems to connect the development property with adequate
drainage facilities . (This may require expenditures exceeding
the drainage fee obligation. )
H13 As part of development fees , the County
shall collect a fee for future improvement of Marsh Creek .
Drainage fees will be established by Board of Supervisors
Ordinance or Order , and will be imposed through conditions of
approval .
11/57385
36
H14 Impervious surfaces shall be minimized
in new development by relying on measures such as the use of
pervious materials (e.g. , turf-block, a surface with
alternating squares of pavement and turf) ; planted swales ; and
community detention basins in clustered developments .
H15 In the absence of Flood Control
District policy, the County shall develop a policy to allow
development of community detention basins . If such a basin is
not a partof the approved drainage plan for the Planned
Drainage Area, the costs of maintaining it must be borne by the
project sponsor or a homeowners ' association.
;k H16 Existing and planned detention basins
shall be hydroseeded to reduce erosion, and to allow sediment
trapping.
H17 In Drainage Areas 29C and 29D, some
drainage improvements could be necessary; consequently, prior
to issuance of building permits , the Contra Costa County
Department of Public Works shall review all subdivision plans
to confirm the adequacy of planned outfalls, detention basins
and drainage pipes and t<o determine if new improvements are
needed in these areas .
H18 In Drainage Area 29E, hydraulic
analysis shall be required in connection with subdivision
approval to determine the adequacy of planned drainage
improvements and to establish the need for site-specific
improvements or revisions to the Drainage Area Plan.
11/5738S
37
H19 The existing Drainage Plan shall be
amended by the Flood Control District to reflect changed runoff
conditions in Drainage Area 29H.
H2O The Drainage Plans for Drainage
Areas 30A and 30B shall be amended in order to size new
drainage improvements according to adequacy of existing outfall
and detention basins and anticipated runoff conditions .
H21 In Drainage Area 52D, a drainage plan
and drainage fee ordinance shall be established prior to
subdivision approval .
H22 Temporary pumping and/or filling shall
be required, prior to building in areas east and north of the
AT & SF railroad tracks , in order to lower the water table
sufficiently to allow for construction. The exact location and
extent of high water table hazard areas shall be established at
the time of .project application and before project approval .
H23 All development proposed for areas
mapped as localized flooding areas in the middle of the
planning area, shall include adequate drainage, and filling as
necessary.
H24 I:n the lowland areas adjacent to Big
Break, any new building shall be raised to an elevation above
+ 7 . 5 mean sea level , the 100-year flood surface elevation
(USGS 1979 Datum) , to avoid tidal flood hazards . Building pads
shall be a minimum of three feet higher than the water surface
elevation to avoid flood hazards . Adequate setbacks from
11/57385
38
' Y ,
4 y .
development shall be provided to allow for leveling if required
in the future because of sea level rise . Detailed topographic
surveys shall be undertaken when specific industrial or
residential projects are proposed, in order to determine the
exact elevation of these features . To the extent these
requirement may overlap with or be inconsistent with the County
Flood Control Ordinance, the more stringent requirements shall
apply.
H25 In the very low density residential
areas (one unit per acre) proposed for the area bounded by the
SP railroad tracks , Lone Tree Way, Neroly Road, and Anderson
Lane, all homes shall be constructed so that their lowest
r habitable levels are above the 100-year flood plain and shall
comply with the County Flood Control Ordinance .
H26 Development of the 150-acre Light
Industry area located in the flood hazard zone along the Marsh
Creek channel shall comply with all requirements of the County
Flood Control ordinance and FEMA regulations and shall ensure
that roads, utilities and other improvements are adequately
protected from flood damage.
H27 Site-specific delineation of the flood
hazard boundary shall be required to determine site specific
mitigation for commerciaf and residential development proposed
. within the 100-year flood zone. Mitigations within flood
boundaries may include non-structural measures as raised
buildings or restriction of development in flood-prone areas .
11/5738S
39
All new development within flood areas shall comply with the
requirements of the County Floodplain Management Ordinance
(County Ordinance No. 87-45) .
H28 After precise flood boundaries have
been approved for low-density residential use, individual house
sites shall be located to avoid flood hazard areas . Open space
or park areas shall be located within the 100-year flood
plain. If building in flood-prone areas cannot be avoided,
construction of levees or detention basins shall be considered
to reduce the potential impacts of floods , consistent with the
proposed policies outlined in the Draft County General Plan .
H29 All development and land division
proposals shall be designed to eliminate surface water
discharge into the Contra Costa Canal and protect the canal
system from flood damage .
H30 Land development projects which front
along the Contra Costa Canal shall install security fencing at
the property line. The design of the fencing shall be subject
to approval of CCWD.
3 . . Findings .
a. ONBAGP
( 1 ) The Board finds it feasible to
adopt, and has adopted each of the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR, substantially as recommended in the
EIR, except for Measure H26 . Mitigation H26 , as proposed in
the EIR, is modified as set forth above. The Board finds that
11/5738S
40
•
Mitigation Measure H-26 will provide adequate mitigation with
'' respect- 'to flood hazards to the area referred to in the
mitigation measure. The Board has rejected the EIR' s proposed
mitigation that the area be designated for agricultural uses as
explained in part E, above.
(2) The .Board finds that
implementation of the mitigation measures described above will
substantially lessen the potentially significant groundwater
impacts described in' the. EIR. The. Board further finds ,
however , that the potential groundwater impacts described in
the EIR may not be wholly avoided by implementation of the
mitigation measures in the EIR.
(3) The Board finds that
implementation of the mitigation measures described in the EIR
will substantially lessen the potentially significant runoff
impacts described in the EIR. The Board further finds ,
however , that the runoff impacts will not be wholly avoided by
implementation of the mitigation measures in the EIR.
(4) The Board finds that
implementation of the mitigation measures described in the EIR
will avoid ;.the .potent_ially significant impacts relating to
,; drainage capacity, and will reduce such impacts to a level of
insignificance.
( 5) The Board finds that
implementation of the mitigation measures described in the EIR
will avoid the potentially significant impacts relating to
11/57385
41
flood hazards , and will reduce such impacts to a level of
insignificance.
b. Redevelopment Plan
( 1 ) The Board finds that adoption of
the mitigation measures identified above, as well as the
proposed redevelopment activities in sub-area #3 will avoid any
potentially significant groundwater , drainage and floodplain
impacts to the Redevelopment Plan Area.
I . Vegetation And Wildlife,
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
F
a. ONBAGP
Oakley' s areas of biological
'k
significance include all wetlands , including marshes and the
Marsh Creek riparian corridor, all sand dune-oak woodlands , and
orchards and vineyards .
Wetlands . Development under the ONBAGP
could adversely affect wetlands and habitat associated with
stream corridors in the planning area, as well as indirectly
affecting other wetlands and oak and riparian woodland.
Development of medium density residential and industrial areas
north of the AT&SF railroad tracks and along Marsh Creek could
eliminate some wetlands . There are also wetlands in the
a
central portion of the planning area and along an intermittent
drainage and an unnamed wetland west of Neroly Road. These
wetlands and those along Marsh Creek could be adversely
11/5738S
42
affected df the drainages were realigned, channeled or
rip-rapped.
Remaining wetlands are in areas designated
agriculture. Construction of ranchette housing in these areas
or development of recreational facilities in areas designated
as public or semi-public land or parks and recreation land
could result in lost habitat or habitat value .
Wetlands in the planning area could also be affected
by construction related sedimentation and pollution from urban
runoff.
Development in wetland and riparian areas could
t
adversely affect threatened or endangered species . Development
Pi.
may also adversely affect the curved-footed hygrotus diving
Z9
beetle and the Bay checkerspot butterfly.
Sand dune - oak woodland. The several
remaining sand dune - oak woodland areas in the Oakley area
could be threatened by development , particularly with respect
to special interest species habitats . The sand dune - oak
woodland north of the AT&SF railroad track, east of Big Break
road may have the highest biological value of any area in the
planning area.
Orchards and. Vineyards . Many of the
orchards and vineyards in the planning area have been
unproductive in varying degrees in recent years . Orchards have
been less productive than vineyards, which have experienced a
recent resurgence. Existing orchards and vineyards will be
11/57385
43
lost to development as a result of Oakley' s urbanization . This
change would result in a change of wildlife species but not
necessarily a total loss of wildlife.
b. Redevelopment Plan .
Because redevelopment activities will
be concentrated in in-fill areas as well as areas adjacent to
existing urban uses , most of the existing biotic communities
will not be affected by redevelopment , with the potential
exceptions of the Marsh Creek riparian corridor and any small
stands of oak woodland in the area .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
;. The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitigation measures
to reduce impacts relating to vegetation and wildlife.
a . ONBAGP .
I1 Loss of wetlands to create and/or
— expand a developable site shall not be allowed.
12 A program shall be developed to
establish a riparian corridor buffer of no less than 100 feet
to extend from the edge of the top of the bank of Marsh Creek .
The,rprogram shall include provisions to rehabilitate the
riparian buffer zone with native riparian species .
I3 The County shall prepare a map
that generally identifies wetland habitat areas ( in accordance
with Corps and CDFG criteria) and shall use this map for review
11/5738S
44
of proposed projects to determine whether said projects may
require specific wetlands surveys .
I4 Wetland surveys to define existing
wetland habitat types and areas shall be required on a project
basis in areas that may include wetlands and those identified
wetland habitat areas shall be preserved to the extent
possible. The applicant must submit a 10-year plan for
monitoring and maintenance of any replacement wetlands that are
proposed.
I5 As a condition of approval for
projects that would result in any wetland habitat loss , a
replacement ratio of at least 1 : 1 of in-kind habitat shall be
tti required, either within the project site or adjacent to the
project site. The applicant must submit a 10-year- plan for
monitoring , and maintenacne of any replacement wetlands that are
proposed.
I6 The channelization, straightening,
or riprapping of Marsh Creek and the unnamed tributary west of
Neroly Road to accommodate proposed development shall be
prohibited.
. ;I7 Use of oil and grease traps and
other pollution control .measures shall be required of any
approved projects that drain into wetland areas .
I8 An inventory shall be undertaken
to identify remaining sand dune-oak woodland and woodland
remnants in the Oakley Plan Area.
11/5738S
45
I9 A program shall be developed to
preserve the most important sand dune-woodland areas in the
. Oakley Plan Area . The program shall use dedication to a
habitat conservation agent such as the U. S . Fish and Wildlife
Service (possibly as part of the Antioch Dunes Preserve) , the
California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Conservation
Board, the East Bay Regional Park District , or a private land
conservation agent such as The Nature Conservancy, or other
effective means to preserve the most important sand
dune-woodland areas .
I10 The County shall conduct a study
that addresses areawide impacts resulting from cumulative
development impacts on special interest species and
biologically sensitive wildlife habitats , wildlife migration
and access routes, foraging habitats , and nesting sites .
Ill No development shall occur within
the Marsh Creek riparian buffer zone .
I12 Development in all types of
wetlands habitats shall be avoided, consistent with Mitigation
Measure Il .
I,13 Developments adjacent to wetlands
shall provide for erosion control measures that adequately
limit deposition of sediment in wetlands .
I14 Mitigation to protect wetlands
shall be required of any residential development that is
proposed in wetland areas . Specifically, a minimum setback of
11/57385
46
50 feet from the edge 'of any designated marsh or wetland area
shall be required for' any new structure . Expansions or other
modifications of agricultural or public-related structures
existing as of the adoption of the ONBAGP shall be exempt from
this setback requirement . Parcels which would be rendered
unbuildable by application of this standard shall also be
exempt .
i„
I15 Riparian woodlands found in the
planning area shall be retained as a condition of approval for
specific projects .
I16 Remnant stands of native sand-dune
woodland shall be set aside as open space in the design of
specific' pr6jects to lessen impacts to wildlife.
I17 Landscape plans for development
projects in Oakley should provide for plantings of oak tree
species and the establishment of oak groves in suitable
habitat, consistent with the 'Oakley Landscape Master Plan.
I18 Wildlife corridors of native and
naturalized plants shall be incorporated into the landscaping
of any proposed project where development could isolate an
existing wildlife habitat area .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
Mitigation measures I1 through I8 and
I12 through I20 shall apply to redevelopment projects in the
redevelopment areas in addition to the following:
11/5738S
47
I19 Prior to development a survey
shall be undertaken by -the Redevelopment Agency to identify any
A potentially significant biotic communities within the
Redevelopment Project Area to be developed including areas
previously disturbed.
I20 The Redevelopment Agency shall
limit or restrict .redevelopment activities if the proposed
redevelopment would significantly impact the Marsh Creek
riparian corridor or any existing oak woodland stands in the
Redevelopment Project Area.
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP .
( 1) The Board finds that impacts on
wetlands and sand dune-oak woodlands will be avoided by
implementation of these mitigation measures .
(2) The Board finds that the impacts
of loss of orchards . and vineyards will be substantially
lessened, but that even with such mitigation, will not be fully
avoided as discussed in parts B and E.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The Board finds that impacts on the
wetlands and sand dune - oak woodlands will be avoided by
implementation of these mitigation measures .
J. Archaeological Resources .
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
11/57385
48
a. ONBAGP.
Grading, trenching and land alteration
associated with development in the planning area potentially
could result in adverse impacts to subsurface archaeological
resources, especially in areas similar in topography and
ecology to nearby sites where evidence of aboriginal habitation
has been found. The most sensitive areas are near the Delta
and the Mt. Diablo foothills to the southwest -of the developed
Oakley area. Since the foothill area isooutside the Oakley
planning area boundaries, significant impacts are less likely
to occur in this sensitive area. Sand mounds , seasonal marshes
and vernal pools are other examples of archaeologically
sensitive environments .
To the extent that the ONBAGP intensifies construction
activity south of Laurel :Road, the chance of encountering
archaeological resources in that area could increase.
Development west of the SP railroad tracks and east
of the Marsh Creek channel could incrementally increase the
chance of encountering archaeological evidence in that area .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
There -are no known archaeological resources or
sensitivity indicators in the redevelopment area.
2. Mitigation,: Measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt the
mitigation measures specified in the EIR. Accordingly, the
Board adopts the following mitigation measures :
11/57385
49
a. ONBAGP.
J1 Archaeological resources shall be
identified and their significance evaluated prior to approval
of development proposals .
J2 If archaeological or historical
resources are discovered, procedures will be followed which
�u
employ either project cancellation, relocation or on-site
mitigation measures appropriate to the location, significance
and potential impacts of development on the Site.
J3 Site-specific archaeological and
cultural resources record searches from the California
Archaeological Inventory shall be required prior to approval of
development plans in the sensitive areas of Oakley.
J4 Development activity shall conform
to criteria for protection of significant archaeological
resources , including stopping work in areas where subsurface
archaeological resources are found pending evaluation by a
qualified archaeologist and/or Native American observer .
J5, Categorical and ministerial
exemptions, grading, mechanical clearing, ongoing maintenance
or other activities which. might be destructive to known
archaeological sites shall be controlled by the Community
Development Department .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
If archaelogical resources are
discovered in the redevelopment area, mitigation measures
11/57385
50
discussed above shall be applied to preserve and protect
archaeological and historic resources in the redevelopment plan
area.
3 . Findings .
The Board finds that adoption of mitigation
measures J1 through J5 will avoid significant impacts to
archaeological resources .
K. Traffic And Circulation.
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP .
Local Impacts .
n'4 i
Widening of SR4 and O ' Hara Avenue
in Old Town may affect the community' s character , if it
displaces residents or demolishes important structures .
Roadway.
The construction of the proposed Delta
Expressway will substantially reduce traffic on SR4 through
Oakley by providing an alternative route from Brentwood to SR4
in Antioch. However , at peak hours the demand will exceed
maximum roadway capacity._ Real traffic volumes will increase
on SR4 through Oakley as a result of development , approaching
maximum capacity between the freeway and Neroly Road in the
afternoon peak hours .
Traffic volumes through the Oakley Old Town
will be lower than existing volumes but will include a greater
11/5738S
51
proportion of local trips , generating more turning movements
and requiring four lanes on SR4 through the Old Town area .
Lone Tree Way will experience heavy traffic
between Fairview Avenue and Empire Avenue, affecting new homes
on the west side at Fairview, south of Lone Tree Way. A grade
crossing will cause traffic queues on Lone Tree, blocking
Fairview.
Intersections . Most intersections of
the 21 existing and proposed intersections studied would
operate under acceptable conditions ( low level D or lower) .
Only 3 intersections would operate at high LOS D or higher .
i' Regional Impacts . Growth in the Oakley
area will contribute to a significant increase in traffic
congestion on roadways connecting east Contra Costa County with
the rest of the region. This impact will be attributable to
development in Antioch, Brentwood and Pittsburg and other
unincorporated areas in eastern Contra Costa County, in
addition to growth in Oakley. The operating conditions on
regional roadways will cause congestion during more hours both
mornings and afternoons, and will cause significant diversion
to surface streets as well . Significant regional transportion
improvements may be necessary to alleviate regional ,traffic
impacts . However , revenues likely to be available for regional
roadway improvements in the east County will not serve the
demand anticipated by 2005 .
11/5738S
52
Y
Railroad Crossings . The proposed plan
will add a railroad crossing on the Southern Pacific tracks at
the proposed Laurel Road extension where 35 , 000 vehicles a day
are expected. The plan will also add traffic to all existing
railroad crossings .
Transit Service. Demand for transit in
the East County will increase as a result of ( 1) increase in
population in eastern Contra Costa County and (2) the
geographical expansion of transit service. Most of the transit
use originating in Oakley will be destined for the proposed
. Pittsburg BART station. Demand for Park-and-Ride lot is
estimated at 275 vehicles at the Cypress Road in Brentwood and
380 at the Hillcrest Park-and-Ride in Antioch.
Bikeway System. The ONBGAP proposes to
`.. integrate a bikeway system into the circulation element , in an
i., attempt to encourage use of bicycles for the commute to work .
Bicycle facilities have been planned to connect the existing
and planned -residential areas with employment centers , schools ,
passenger transfer facilities and recreational areas . Bicycle
. , trips are expected to increase as a result of population growth
and of"= the development of, directly .connecting streets between
residential and commercial development . Increased use of °
bikeways will cause greater conflicts and safety impacts
.d
between motorists , cyclists and pedestrians , particularly along
SR4 and where on- and off-road bikeways intersect with streets .
11/5738S
53
i
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The transportation redevelopment
'. _ activities included in the Redevelopment Plan are consistent
with the ONBGAP policies . However, the Redevelopment Plan
proposes construction of an eastbound couplet within the Old
`t Town, whereas the Plan proposes widening SR4 (Main Street) .
Road improvements. outside of the
redevelopment area will divert traffic from SR4 through
downtown Oakley, but real traffic volumes will increase as a
result of projected population growth in Oakley and the region.
2 . Mitigation Measures .
' The Boardfindsthat it is feasible to adopt
the following mitigation measures , and accordingly adopts them:
a. ONBAGP
K1 The project roadways network shall
be modified to reflect the variant couplet project in place of
the widening of SR 4 .
K2 Widen Delta Expressway. Widening
of Delta Expressway between SR 4 and Lone Tree Way to four
lanes would divert traffic from SR 4 through Oakley to delta
Expresswawy, improving the levels of service at the SR 4
northbound ramps and SR 4 and Neroly Road to Level of Service C.
K3 Construct Partial Cloverleaf
Interchange at Delta Expressway/Laurel Road. Widening of Delta
Expressway between SR 4 and Laurel Road to four lanes in
conjunction with the construction of a partial cloverleaf
11/573BS
54
interchange at Delta Expressway and Laurel Road with ramps
south of Laurel Road, would eliminate through traffic on Delta
Expressway from the intersection. The interchange design would
provide loop on-ramps to serve the westbound Laurel to
southbound expressway movement and the eastbound Laurel to
northbound expressway movements . Four diamond-type ramps would
serve the remaining movements, intersecting with Laurel Road in
a T-configuration.
K4 Realign Fairview Avenue .
Realigning:-of Fairview Avenue South of Lone Tree Way, opposite
Empire Avenue would provide a more direct connection for travel
r: between areas north and south of Lone Tree Way. Construction
y of this- new connection would also reduce traffic volumes on
Lone Tree Way, between the existing Fairview Avenue alignment
and Empire, 'Avenue. This mitigation would also provide more
queuing space on Lone Tree Way without .blocking Fairview Avenue
when traffic would be stopped at the grade crossing.
K5 Revise the land use element to
limit new housing construction in Oakley to 4 , 770 units as an
dnterim growth management measure unless the County adopts a
growth: management program as, part of the County General Plan,
which shall then be incorporated into the ONBAGP. (This is
modified for consistency with mitigation measure B12 . )
K7 In order to meet the parking
demand at theproposed park-and-ride lots, an implementation
plan shall be developed to identify the exact locations for
11/5738S
55
S
r.
park-and-ride lots and to ensure that funds are provided for
construction.
K8 The Bike Network map should be
revised to define Class II and Class III bikeways separately.
Class II bikeways should be incorporated into the ultimate
roadway cross-sections wherever possible. This mitigation
measure would assure the provision of additional shoulder space
for bicyclists , improve bicycle connections to major trip
attractors and generators , and enhance safety. Locations were
reviewed prior to construction to determine appropriate design,
pavement delineation, and signage that will reduce conflicts
between pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists . Locations
where on-road bikeways , off-road bikeways , and streets have
common intersections should be reviewed prior to construction
to determine appropriate design, pavement delineation, and
signage that will reduce conflicts between pedestrians ,
bicyclists , and motorists .
K9 Class II bike lanes should be
added to SR4 through Oakley to provide adequate shoulder spece
for bicyclists .
K10 Designate Neroly Road north of
Laurel Road as an arterial at four lanes , delete Neroly Road
between Laurel Road and Empire Avenue, from the Circulation
Element , and designate Neroly Road east of Empire Avenue as a
collector at two lanes . Along Laurel Road east of the Delta
Expressway to SR 4 , right-of-way for six lanes should be
11/5738S
56
reserved. Delete the Transit Way designation for Neroly Road
south of Laruel . Classify the full length of Empire Avenue and
._ O'Hara Avenue as Transit Ways . Reclassify the proposed bikeway
along Neroly Road between Laurel Road and Empire Avenue as a
Class I facility.
K11 Designate an arterial extension
for Laurel Road east of State Route, 4 to an east-northeasterly
direction to Cypress Road west of Sellers Avenue, with a
right-of-way reservation for four lanes . Designate the
extension of Laurel Road east of State Route 4 as a Class II
Bikeway. Designate Cypress Road east of State Route 4 to the
Laurel Road extension as a collector with right-of-way for two
lanes . Reserve right-of-way on Laurel Road, west of State
Route 4 , for six lanes .
The mitigation measures adopted in these findings are
to be implemented at the time the proposed traffic improvements
are constructed.
b. Rejected mitigation measures .
1 . ONBAGP .
Mitigation is rejected for the reasons
stated below. ,
Mitigation measure K10 is superseded as
the result of adoption of the proposed downtown couplet .
Mitigation measure K2 (as found at page
5-26 of the DEIR) is rejected for the reasons stated below.
11/57385
57
.3 . Findings .
a. - ONBGAP.
( 1) The Board finds that the adoption
of- mitigation measures relating to local roadways impacts will
avoid the potentially significant impacts described in the EIR.
. (2) The Board finds that mitigation
measure K5 (modified for consistency with mitigation measure
B12) will substantially lessen the impact of the project on
regional traffic . However, potentially significant impacts
will not be wholly avoided.
(3 ) The Board finds that changes in
the Delta Expressway as suggested in mitigation K6 are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of agencies other than the
County and cannot be accomplished without their cooperation .
These changes should be adopted by all jurisdictions having
responsibility for regional traffic .
(4) The Board finds that the transit
impacts of the plan will be substantially reduced by
implementation of mitigation measure K7, but that potentially
significant impacts will not be wholly avoided.
(5) The Board finds that impacts on
bikeway systems will be avoided by implementation of mitigation
measure K8 .
(6) The Board finds that reduction of
growth in Bethel Island as proposed by rejected Mitigation
11/5738S
58
Measure K2 should be rejected because-Mitigation Measure K5 is
feasible and will provide a comparable level of mitigation.
The Board finds that impacts on
traffic of the proposed water treatment facility will be
avoided by redesignation of the adjacent roadways .
The Board finds that traffic
impacts. in the Laurel bypass area will be avoided by the
changes to the Circulation ,Element specified in the FEIR.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
(1) Mitigation measure K10 was
presented as an alternative to adoption of the proposed
downtown couplet . As the Board has adopted the alternative
mitigation measure, the Board finds that mitigation measure K10
is superseded.
L. Air Quality
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
' Significant Impacts .
a. ONBGAP.
Mobile source (vehicle) emissions . The
EIR states that local air quality levels would not be
substantially degraded by increased traffic associated with
development in the planning area, although emissions will mix
with emissions from mobile sources in other development areas
and could ultimately lead to significant impacts on air quality.
Construction activity -impacts .
Construction activities would generate large volumes of dust .
11/57385
59
Dust generation would be substantial , but would be spread over
a large area and a long period of time, as would
construction-related combustion emissions .
Industrial Sources . Industrial
development in Oakley may lead to increased industrial
. emissions . However , the types and quantities of emissions
cannot be determined until specific new industrial uses are
x
proposed for the area .
Secondary Air Pollution Impacts .
Cumulatively, secondary pollution sources in the project area
could become significant . However, most of these emissions are
too small to measure on a daily basis .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
Mobile Sources . Construction of the
downtown couplet would improve CO levels for two of the three
major intersections in for redevelopment area . None of the CO
levels at the intersections will exceed state standards .
Industrial Sources . No specific new
uses have yet been proposed for the redevelopment area .
Construction Activity Impact . These
AE` impacts will be similar to those related to the ONBAGP .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR, and that
an additional mitigation measure is advisable. Accordingly,
11/57385
60
the Board adopts the following mitigation measures to reduce
air quality impacts .
a. ONBAGP .
L1 Where feasible, impacts on regional
emissions shall be reduced through diversion of as much traffic
as possible from single-passenger modes to multiple-occupant
vehicles or through elimination of. as many trips as possible.
Adoption and implementation of specific Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) programs will be considered during the plan
approval process for large developments in order to assure
compliance with the Air Quality Plan.
<, L2 Dust control measures shall be
implemented as required by local ordinance and BAAQMD Rules and
Regulations .
L3 In order to minimize fugitive dust
generation,. if feasible, major grading shall be performed in
spring when soil moisture is high
L4 Major soil disturbance activities
shall be carried out betwen 8 : 00 a .m. and 4 : 00 p.m. when winds
are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on
nearby receptors and to obtrain better areawide dispersion of
fugitive dust .
L5 When feasible, construction traffic
shall be routed away from occupied dwelling units and truck
queuing shall be prohibited near such dwellings .
11/5738S
61
L6 During grading operations , daily
fa street sweeping/washing shall be performed along truck access
points to clean soil spillage off traveled roadways .
L7 Agricultural burning activities in
the Oakley area shall be restricted during poor-dispersion days .
L8 Development of the west side of
Oakley shall be encouraged prior to development of the east
side to keep new construction downwind of already built units .
L9 Heavy industry with potentially
high stationary source emissions shall be discouraged from
locating in the area .
L10 The Growth Management Plan shall
require that estimated CO concentrations shall not exceed State
or Federal ambient air quality standards , or that major
development projects be required to include effective trip
reduction measures', or other measures designed to effectively
reduce CO concentrations . .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
No additional mitigation measures are
required for the Oakley Redevelopment Plan. Mitigation
measures L1 through L9 shall apply to the Oakley Redevelopment
Area.
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP.
( 1 ) The Board finds that mobile source
emissions associated with the project will not have significant
11/5738S
62
effects on air quality. However , the Board recognizes that
cumulative regional impacts could result from growth in the
region as a whole, and finds that such impacts resulting from
the project will be substantially reduced by the adoption of
the preceding mitigation measures , but will not be entirely
avoided.
(2) The Board . finds that potentially
significant temporary air quality impacts will be avoided by
adoption of mitigation measures L2 through L9 .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
( 1) The Board finds that no additional
adverse impacts will result from adoption of the Oakley
Redevelopment Plan
M. Noise
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a . ONBGAP.
The EIR states that increased traffic
levels on streets in the community would affect the presently
rural noise environment . Existing land uses within the 65dB
contour will be subject to noise impacts in excess of county
standards , which requireanattempt to achieve and maintain an
exterior noise level of 60dB(A) CNEL in all existing and new
residential areas . Compliance with the noise exposure policies
of the County General Plan in terms of distances from noise
sources, or implementation of mitigation measures allowing
11/57385
63
development closer to traffic noise could limit exterior
residential noise to 60dB CNEL in the planning area . Adoption
of the plan will result in noise contour reduction and
implementation of the proposed downtown couplet will further
reduce the contour in some areas . The state noise insulation
standards,. and county policies require acoustical studies to
verify that an interior CNEL of 45 dB(A) can be met in areas of
excessive exterior noise.
Railway noise may have an impact on
sites within 3000 -feet of railroad tracks .
The noise impacts of temporary
construction depend on the equipment used and the presence of
intervening physical barriers . Equipment noise may exceed
outdoor noise exposure levels to 1 , 000 feet or more from a
construction site.
2 . Redevelopment Plan.
The noise exposure levels on land uses
within the redevelopment area are generally acceptable but
noise mitigation will be required to reduce interior noise
levels to a maximum of 45dB(A) .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
a. ONBAGP.
The Board finds that adoption of the mitigation
measures specified in the EIR is feasible, with the exception
of Measure M2 which is modified as set forth below. The Board
therefore adopts the following mitigation measures :
11/5738S
64
M1 Prior to project approval ,
detailed acoustical studies shall be prepared for projects
located within a noise contour above 60 dB CNEL to verify an
interior noise level of 45 dB (A) CNEL is maintained.
M2 Residential building setbacks or
other effective design measures should be implemented to
mitigate noise impact . In addition to setbacks , design
measures could include orienting sensitive receptors away from
collector and 'arterial streets and constructing sound barrier
walls , berms or a combination of a low wall and berms to reduce
noise levels to the acceptable range . Noise monitoring behind
a residential soundwall along SR 4 revealed that noise
attenuation in excess of 10dB is readily achieved with a proper
noise barrier . Thus , the 70db contour can be reduced to a 60db
exposure through standard mitigation measures . (modified)
M3 Construction activities in or near
existing residential or other noise sensitive areas shall be
limited to the hours of 7 : 30 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. to minimize
impacts in residential areas .
M4 Where necessary, would walls , such
as noise walls and/or earth berms , shall be constructed along
roadways and railroads to mitigate noise impacts .
M5 Where feasible, multi-family
dwellings shall be oriented with one solid side toward the
noise source to create tall barriers with adequate insulation
to meet the 45 dB(A) interior noise insulation standard.
11/57385
65
i. M6 Parks and open space areas shall
be used as buffers between noise sources and receptors wherever
feasible. Although vegetation is not an effective noise
control tool , the increased physical separation between source
and receptor could be used to place dwellings outside the
roadway noise impact zone .
M7 Significant noise sources shall be
restricted from sensitive areas by prohibiting truck travel
along residential streets altogether , or to restrict truck
traffic during late night or early morning hours .
M8 Community noise surveys shall be
S
performed periodically to identify any major deviation from
anticipated noise exposure, and develop additional mitigation
in response to any unusual noise impact situations .
M9 Any project within 3 , 000 feet of
the AT&SF and SP railways should screen the project site for
possible noise impacts according to HUD guidelines . Further ,
vibration testing may need to be conducted for structures
within 100 feet of the AT&SF and the SP tracks .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
No additional mitigation measures are
required beyond those adopted for the ONBAGP.
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP.
( 1) The Board finds that adoption of
the preceding mitigation measures will avoid potentially
11/5738S
66
substantial noise impacts resulting from implementation of the
ONBAGP.
(2) The Board finds that imposition of
a _standard setback is infeasible because it may not achieve
desired noise reduction in all circumstances , while a
combination of setbacks and other design measures allows
flexibility in design based on individual noise studies . The
board therefore rejects mitigation measure M2 as proposed in
the EIR and adopts mitigation M2 as set,, forth above.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The Board finds that potentially
i` substantial noise impacts will be avoided by implementation of
the mitigation measures recommended for the ONBAGP.
N. Water And Sewer Services .
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
• a. ONBAGP.
Water . Buildout under the ONBAGP would
cause a significant increase in demand for treated water , which
would require a variety of water system improvements , including
new conveyances, expansions of existing water treatment
capacity and expansion of water storage facilities .
Demand for water at buildout will total approximately 9 million
gallons per day (MGD) including residential , commercial and
industrial uses . The Oakley Water District ' s ( "OWD" ) present
pumping capacity is 7MGD. Growth will create a demand for
1157385
67
additional storage facilities . Commercial or office growth in
the downstown area will contribute to the need to replace
existing water mains .
Sewer Services . The EIR states that
residential development under the ONBAGP would result in a
significant increase in sewage treatment and disposal .
Wastewater generation at buildout will range from 7 . 8 MGD to
9 . 7 MGD. The treatment capacity of the existing plant could
accommodate about 4 , 000 new units without expansion but has
insufficient land disposal area for these flows . The treatment
plant cannot expand until additional disposal capacity is
} added. Alternatives for increasing the disposal capacity
include locating and acquiring additional acreage suitable for
irrigation with reclaimed wastewater , obtaining approval for
surface water discharge to Big Break or the San Joaquin River
or a combination of the two . The Oakley-Bethel Island
Wastewater Management Authority has been unsuccessful in the
attempt to locate and acquire additional land suitable for
irrigation with reclaimed wastewater . Moreover , leased lands
do not provide permanent sewage disposal capacity. The Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board may issue a surface
s discharge permit after further study.
Spheres of Influence Areas . The ONBAGP
designates the area south of Neroly Road for betwyen one and
three residential units per acre and commercial uses along
SR4 . This area is within the City of Brentwood ' s sphere of
11/57385
68
influence. The area would have to rely on groundwater sources
until annexed, if developed within the next ten years .
Development at these densities will have significant impacts
unless accompanied by public water service.
b. Redevelopment Plan
The potential impacts of the
Redevelopment Plan are limited to increasing demand for water
and sewer systems by potentially accelerating the rate of
residential development north of Laurel Road.
2 . Mitigation Measures .
a . ONBAGP.
The Board finds that it is feasible to
adopt each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitgation measures
to avoid impacts relating to water and sewer systems .
Ni All development applications shall
require a commitment to serve from the Oakley Water District .
N2 Use of groundwater and reclaimed water
for agricultural , public , landscaping and industrial uses shall
be encouraged.
N3 . All development applications shall
require a commitment to serve from the Oakley Sanitary District
and/or Oakley-Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority
that the Sanitary District and Authority have the treatment and
disposal capacity to serve the specific development project .
Initially, the "will-serve" letters issued by the utility
11/5738S
69
districts will only show a committment to serve, and such
letters would be adequate for the processing of tentative
maps . (modified)
N4 . Development approvals shall be withheld
until a plan and schedule for necessary treatment and disposal
capacity to be available when land improvements are completed
is in place.
N5 . The County shall pursue timely
resolution of the overlapping planning and jurisdictional
boundaries in accordance with LAFCO.
N6 . Residential areas that are outside the
Oakley Water District and Oakley Sanitary District ' s final
spheres of influence as approved by LAFCO shall be developed at
agricultural densities until such time they are annexed to
their respective cities or the spheres of influence are
modified and they can be served by the Oakley Water District .
N7 . Require permanent land rights for lands
needed for land disposal of sewage (or other long-term solution
to waste water disposal )
b. Redevelopment Plan.
Mitigation measures N1 through N7 shall
also apply to the Oakley Redevelopment Plan.
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP .
( 1 ) The Board finds that the
potentially significant impacts of increased demand for sewer
11/57385
70
and water service as a result of the implementation of the
ONBAGP will be avoided by the adaoption of mitigation measures
N1 through N7 .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
( 1) The Board finds that the
potentially significant impacts of increased demand for sewer
and water service as ' a result of the Redevelopment Plan will be
avoided by the adoption of mitigation measures N1 through N7 .
O'. Schools and Child Care Facilities .
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP.
The ONBAGP could generate 11 , 800
3-
students over the buildout period. School facilities are
planned for . and developed with state funds . The most critical
impact of new development in Oakley is that although school
districts can begin planning for facilities years in advance,
the high turnover rate of land and number of new major
development projects in Oakley currently could foreclose the
best school sites from being available at the time the school
districts :are prepared to purchase land.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan would
accelerate the pace of industrial and commercial development in
the redevelopment area, which would potentially impact day care
facilities .
11/57385
71
2 . Mitigation Measures .
; ..
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitigation measures
to reduce impacts relating to schools and child care facilities .
,> a. ONBAGP.
01 The County shall show on the
General Plan map all potential future schools sites . These
sites shall retain their General Plan designations , however ,
the County shall notify the school districts of any future
proposals. for development on these sites and shall consider the
potential - impacts of the development proposals to the school
districts .
02 Those sites under consideration
for purchase by the school districts shall be identified. If
development proposals are received for any of these sites
before approval is' granted, the County will notify the school
districts and consider the potential impacts of the development
proposal to the School district .
b. Redevelopment Plan.
All redevelopment projects shall comply with
the mitigation measures adopted in subsection a . In addition,
the Board adopts the following mitigation measure:
03 The Redevelopment Agency shall
identify day care facility demands and shall either ensure
11/57385
72
l .
• 11
specific funding that adequate day care facilities are provided
or ensure developer contributions to day care facilities .
3 . Findings .
a. ONBAGP.
( 1) The Board finds that the ONBAGP ' S
potentially significant impacts on availability of land for
school facilities will be avoided as a result of the adoption
of the mitigation measures set forth above.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
( 1) The Board finds that the
Redevelopment Plan' s potentially significant impacts on
availability of land for school facilities and on demand for
daycare facilities will be avoided as a result of the adoption
of the mitigation measures set forth above.
P. Fire And Police Protection.
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP .
Fire and Emergency Protection.
Continued population growth in the Oakley area will require
expansion of facilities at the existing stations and
construction of a planned area station. Buildout of the ONBAGP
would require construction of three new fire stations , at a
capital cost of approximately $1 million apiece.
The Oakley Fire Protection District is presently all
volunteer. While the is no shortage of volunteers, most
11/5738S
73
residents will presumably not be available weekdays . 24-hour
coverage would therefore require a shift to a fully paid force,
at a cost of about $700 , 000 . The District ' s share of property
tax may not be suff-icient and may require special funding;
however , approximately $3 . 9 million could be generated at
buildout by impact fees .
Fire service standards could decline if adequate
financing is not available, resulting in higher fire insurance
costs in the area.
Police Protection. Growth under the
ONBAGP would require more officers and facilities . Proposed
` development in Discovery Bay, Bethel Island and Brentwood would
add to the service load, as would growth elsewhere °in the East
County. Approximately 85 shefiff officers would be required to
serve the Oakley planning area at buildout .
b. Redevelopment Plan
Fire Protection. The proposed
redevelopment plan will intensify densities and add to demands
on the fire department . Fire district impact fees would
generate revenues for the District .
Industrial development in sub area 1 could present
additional fire protection demand. Industrial use materials
could present difficulties for the volunteer fire fighters .
Police Protection. Redevelopment
activities will increase short term demand on the Sheriff ' s
11/57385
74
Department . In the long term, growth within the redevelopment
area will be consistent with the growth projected in the ONBAGP .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
,:each of the mitigation measures specified by the EIR, with the
. exception of mitigation measure P3 . Accordingly, the Board
adopts the following .mitigation measures to reduce impacts
relating to fire and police protection.
a. ONBAGP.
P1 The County will identify
alternative sites that would be appropriate for future fire
stations. If the. County receives development proposals for any
of these sites , it will notify the Oakley Fire Protection
District and consider the potential impacts of the development
proposal to, the District before it grants approval of the
development proposal .
P2 Development plans shall be
reviewed by the Oakley Fire Protection District before approval
is granted.
P5 Subdivision applications shall be
reviewed for security design A crime prevention education
program to deter crime will be developed.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
P4 The Redevelopment Agency shall
insure that funding for specific equipment necessary to meet
fire suppression demands directly related to industrial
11/5738S
75
F '
Y
development within the Redevelopment Project Area, either
through Redevelopment Agency funding or developer
contributions , is made available.
C . Rejected Mitigation Measures .
Measure P3 , relating to use of Service
contracts between the Sheriff ' s Department and specific
''. development projects, is rejected for the reasons set forth
below.
3 . Findings .
a . ONBAGP and Redevelopment Plan
( 1) The Board finds that potentially
significant fire protection impacts will .be avoided by
implementation of mitigation measures P1 , P2 and P4 .
(2) Mitigation measure P3 is rejected
as infeasible because requiring individual development projects
to contract for police services on a case-by-case basis
conflicts with the ONBAGP policy of assuring safe, adequate and
correctly designed planned community facilities in that
individual service contracts do not guarantee adequate,
continuous police protection to all residents .
(3) The Board finds that potentially
significant police protection impacts will be substantially
lessened, but will not be wholly avoided, by implementation of
the above mitigation measures .
11/57385
76
r
.i
Q. Solid Waste •And Utilities .
1 . Background and Summary of Potentially
Significant Impacts .
a. ONBAGP .
Total solid waste generation at
buildout is estimated at 82 . 5 tons per ,day. Oakley Disposal
service can provide service. for the proposed plan. Additional
-landfill capacity is now available in Solano County. A new
landfill in,..,Contra Costa County should be operational in the
near term. . Resource recovery and recycling of solid waste
should lessen the impact of future growth on existing and
Y
future landfills .
E
,,,PG&E presently foresee no impacts on gas and electric
services .
Pacific Bell does not foresee any impacts of the
project on telephone service.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The solid waste generated in the
redevelopment area is included in the total estimate for Oakley.
The extension or: reinforcement of utility lines that
may be required for gas, electric or telephone service to the
redevelopment area is not a significant impact , but the routing
of lines may cause safety or visual impacts .
2 . Mitigation Measures :
The .Board finds that it is feasible to adopt
each of the mitigation measures specified in the EIR.
11/57385
77
y
Accordingly, the Board adopts the following mitigation measures
to reduce impacts relating to solid waste and utilities .
a. ONBAGP.
Q1 The County shall establish a
recycling and resource recovery program and center in Oakley.
Q2 The County shall require new
development to take advantage of privately-offered,
tax-subsidized energy conservation facilities and conservation
programs offered by PG&E .
Q3 Energy-conserving appliances shall
be integrated into the design of future development according
to the energy efficiency standards adopted by the State Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
The mitigation measures adopted above
are adopted for the Redevelopment Plan.
3 . Findings .
a . ONBGAP.
( 1) The Board finds that the
potentially significant impacts of the ONBAGP on solid waste
and utilities services will be avoided as a result of the
adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above.
b. Redevelopment Plan.
'Y
The Board finds that the potentially
significant impacts of the Oakley Redevelopment Plan on solid
11/5738S
78
waste and utilities services will be avoided as a result of the
adoption of mitigation measures Ql' through Q3 .
III . FINDINGS RELATING TO ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS
A. ONBAGP
1 . Description of Alternatives .
The Draft EIR evaluates four alternatives to the
proposed ONBAGP . A fifth alternative suggested by a
commentator on the Draft EIR is included in the Final EIR. In
addition, various mitigation measures suggested in the EIR
present further variations on these alternatives .
The environmental impacts of alternatives are
evaluated in the draft EIR at pages 267-299 , and the potential
impacts are compared in summary form in Table 40 . The prime
agriculture preservation alternative is evaluated at
pages 38-40 of the Responses to Comments . Each of the proposed
alternatives will result in environmental impacts , although the
nature of the impacts and their extent vary among alternatives .
a . Existing East County General. Plan
with agriculture designation south
of Laurel Road.
This alternative assumes that the planning area will
be built-out according to the existing land use designations
allowed in the East County Area General Plan, subject to the
Interim Agriculture designation of the property south of Laurel
Road. It assumes that the property south of Laurel Road would
not develop at the underlying residential densities specified
in the existing plan and preserves the interim agriculture
11/57385
79
i
-;°-designation south of Laurel Road throughout the planning
period. As a result , only minimal development would occur
south of Laurel Road, while full buildout would occur north of
Laurel Road. This alternative would allow 7 , 465 to 13 , 500
residential units in the planning area at buildout , and a
f population between 19 , 860 to 36 , 625 at buildout . This
alternative would result in significantly fewer impacts to the
`t physical environment than the ONBAGP. This is primarily
because the -area south of Laurel Road, where much of the prime
agricultural soils in the planning area are located, would not
be allowed-to develop for residential uses . It would also
`X. result , however, in development of from 3 , 700 to 5 , 000 fewer
residential units than the ONBAGP. It would also designate
substantially less land for industrial uses that the ONBAGP.
b. Existing East County General Plan with
underlying residential designation
south of Laurel Road.
The existing East County General Plan contains a
residential land use designation of 1-3 units per acre which
applies to the land in the planning area south of Laurel Road.
In, the existing plan, this residential designation is overlain
by the Interim Agriculture designation. This alternative would
eliminate the Interim Agriculture designation and allow
development south of Laurel Road at the underlying residential
densities shown on the existing plan. This alternative would
allow an estimated 9 ,445 to 19,315 residential units at
buildout and a population between 25,230 to 52,745 at
11/5738S
80
h
buildout . The area south of Laurel, Road would be fully
developed, but at a relatively low density of one to three
units per acre. This alternative is very similar to the
ONBAGP in terms of the number of houses that would be
developed. However, the distributions of residential densities
- are significantly different from the ONBAGP.
C . Existing lots of record alternative .
This alternative would allow only existing lots of
record to develop in the planning area . ,, All further
subdivision", activity would be prohibited. Under this
alternative, future residential development would be limited to
approximately 315 units, and population growth to approximately
900 new residents . This alternative would result in the fewest
impacts -to the physical environment; however, it would also
result in a greatly reduced level of residential development .
d. Mid-range alternative.
This alternative assumes that the planning area will
build out according to a land use pattern that is similar to
the proposed ONBAGP, but with a lower residential density.
Under this alternative, allowable residential densities are
lowered one notch across .the rank of the ONBAGP ' s .permitted
density ranges . This alternative would allow a total of 5 , 900
to 12, 530 residential units at buildout , for a buildout
population of between 15, 665 to 34 ,340 . This alternative also
provides for roughly half the acreage for industrial and
commercial uses provided by the ONBAGP.
11/5738S
81
` e. Prime agricultural soils preservation
alternative.
This alternative, suggested by the Sierra Club in its
comment on the Draft EIR, would require that all prime soils in
the planning area be designated for agriculture, with a 40-acre
minimum parcel size. This alternative would also prohibit any
development on wetlands by designating the areas shown as
wetlands in the DEIR as Delta Recreation and Resources . This
alternative would reduce the amount of new housing provided
under the proposed ONBAGP by about 2', 000 units , and would
eliminate 200 acres designated for industrial uses .
f . Other alternatives .
Mitigation measures Bl through B4 suggest that certain
land designated for development in the ONBAGP be designated for
agricultural uses . These mitigation measures are further
alternatives to the ONBAGP land use plan that could,
individually or in combination with the project alternatives ,
be implemented as alternatives to the Projects . Further , a
land use plan combining features of the Projects and any of the
alternatives could be adopted.
g. No-Project alternative.
The East County`,Area General Plan would remain in
effect if the ONBAGP, were not adopted. Accordingly, the
"no-project" alternative' is preservation of the existing East
:t
County plan without alterations . The existing East County plan
provides that the Interim Agriculture designation south of
11/5738S
82
Laurel Road will remain ' in effect until three criteria are
met : ( i) Most of the area in Oakley north of Laurel Road is
built-out at the residential densities assigned by the General
Plan; ( ii) adequate utility capacity is available and service
lines or trunks are in proximity to the area; and ( iii ) the
costs of providing the development with public services are
fully assumed by the developer . After these criteria are met ,
the area south of Laurel Road may be developed at the
underlying residential land use of ;one to three units per
acre . As the EIR explains , if the East County Plan were not
changed, development in Oakley would occur under two sequential
` scenarios : ( i) Development would occur as described in
s
Alternative a, above, as long as the interim agriculture
designation remained in effect; and ( ii) once the criteria for
removing the interim agriculture. designation were met ,
development would then proceed as described in Alternative b,
above.'
2 . Findings relating to alternatives .
This Board finds and determines that the alternatives
to the ONBAGP are not desirable, are infeasible, and are
therefore rejected, for ;the following reasons :
a.'. The maintenance of agricultural use and
vacant lands in the planning area in preference to convenience
urban uses is not the best way to further the important goals ,
policies and programs relating to the preserving of
agricultural lands in eastern Contra Costa County. There is
11/5738S
83
' t
w ,
very high demand for housing and other urban uses in the East
County. If the County does not make provision for relatively
compact development in communities such as Oakley, then
pressures for development will likely spread to other, more
r agriculturally—productive areas in East County, which are
presently undeveloped. Further , unplanned checkerboard pattern
of residential development projects with inadequate public
zZ
facilities would be inevitable. The existing pattern of
development ,°•in Oakley, along with the fact that Oakley is
underlain chiefly by nonprime soils , makes it better suited to
accommodate urban development than other unincorporated lands
in the area. By providing an area of concentrated housing in
Oakley`, it is more economical to provide urban services .' Such
concentrated development in Oakley will help reduce development
pressures on the more valuable agricultural lands further south.
b. Alternative b, which would provide the same
amount of housing as the ONBAGP, is rejected because it would
not provide the same variety and diversity of housing as will
the ONBAGP. This is particularly important because a variety
and diversity of housing in Oakley will allow for greater
' diversity of residents in terms of age, race and social and
economic background.
C . The ONBAGP will provide significantly more
housing than any of the other alternatives, with the exception
of Alternative b, above . The other alternatives would limit
the opportunity to implement state, regional and county housing
goals .
11/5738S
84
r ,
•
L
d. The ONBAGP will., provide a greater amount of
land for industrial purposes than any ,of the alternatives . As
is explained in the statement of overriding considerations , the
ONBAGP will assist in implementing the extremely important goal
of providing jobs. In addition to the substantial economic
_benefits, =such additional jobs will make for a better
jobs/housing balance.
e. Specific economic , social or other
considerations described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, below, make infeasible alternatives to the
Projects . Approval of any of the alternatives would reduce the
P. benefits to be obtained from the ONBAGP - (described above) , and
the Oakley Redevelopment Plan (described below) . Since the
benefits of the Projects, particularly the ONBAGP, outweigh
their adverse impacts, those impacts are deemed "acceptable" by
this Board. In short, this Board finds and determines that the
ratio of benefit to impact is the most favorable to the County
and its existing and future citizens under the ONBAGP
development scenario .
B. Redeveloplent Plan.
1 . Description of Project Alternatives .
The Draft EIR evaluates four alternatives to the
proposed Oakley Redevelopment Plan. The environmental impacts
of these alternatives are evaluated in the Draft EIR at pages
299-305 . The Board hereby incorporates this discussion by
reference. Each of the project alternatives will result in
11/5738S
85
r i
4
some environmental impacts . In many cases these will be
greater than those resulting from the proposed Redevelopment
Plan. Overall , the nature of the impacts and their extent vary
from one alternative to another .
a. "No-Project" alternative.
This alternative would eliminate the redevelopment
s aspect of development in the project area, while development
proceeds under the ONBAGP according to the land uses designated
in that plan. This alternative would result in a marginal
improvement in traffic impacts , but would not provide any of
`3 the benefits of redevelopment . It would allow "blight" to
continue in the area unless individual projects slowly
eliminated it .
b. East Area General Plan Alternative .
- This alternative would permit development of the area
under the existing East County Area General Plan without
redevelopment . The East County Area General Plan designates a
large area for medium density single-family units with some
medium density multi-family, rather than the land uses in the
proposed ONBAGP . Less land is designated for light industry
commercial and office space. Industry-related air quality and
noise impacts would be reduced under this alternative. The
greater proportionate area designated for residential
development as opposed to commerical retail and industrial uses
could result in more commuter traffic on SR 4 , as well as
traffic to shopping in other areas . Infill development is less
11/57385
86
1
V
likely under this scenar.io,. as redevelopment funds will not be
available for upgrading infrastructure.
C . Alternative redevelopment activities .
Activities .in the redevelopment area are designed to
implement the proposed ONBAGP in the redevelopment area .
Alternative activities could be funded with redevelopment funds
but may not be consistent with the proposed ONBAGP or fit
within plained land use patterns .
d. Alternative,, location.
The Redevelopment Agency is studying other
unincorporated areas in the County for redevelopment . Among
these is the City of Rodeo . Directing redevelopment efforts
elsewhere would have the .same impacts as the project area as
alternative b.. Additionally, other areas of the county may not
meet the redevelopment standards of the California Community
Development Laws regarding blight , etc . , and therefore may not
be eligible for redevelopment . Finally, redevelopment efforts
in one area are not exclusive of similar efforts in another
area, provided such areas are blighted and could sustain
redevelopment financing mechanisms .
e. ' :Other alternatives .
The alternatives to the ONBAGP are closely related to
the Redevelopment Plan and are incorporated by this reference .
2 . Findings Relating to Alternatives .
The Board finds and determines that the alternatives
to the Oakley Redevelopment Plan are .not desirable, are
infeasible and are therefore rejected for the following reasons :
11/5738S
87
a. The reasons for rejecting the ONBAGP
alternatives are likewise applicable to the Redevelopment Plan
'and are incorporated by this reference.
b. The alternatives would allow the
; redevelopment area to decline and would rely solely on market
rr:conditions in the area to reduce or eliminate existing 'blight"
,`;. conditions . The existing blight in the area is evidence that
,-, market conditions have not been an effective means of curing
these ills in the past .
C . The alternatives would not involve the
xytax-increment revenues generated through redevelopment (which
a revenues are needed to alleviate blight) ; without the
elimination of blight, new businesses would be discouraged from
locating in the area, and existing businesses would be
discouraged from staying in the area.
d. The redevelopment plan will encourage
improvement of the 'jobs/housing balance by allowing more
industrial , commercial and retail development than
alternative b.
e. The existing rate of residential growth
in the east County will continue to strain the County' s ability
to provide adequate public facility and infrastructure
improvements . Relocating the Redevelopment Project would
thwart the County' s ability to provide these improvements where
they are critically needed.
11/5738S
88
. L
V.
f . Specific economic, social or other
considerations of the Projects described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, below, make infeasible the
Redevelopment Project alternatives . Approval of any of the
alternatives would reduce the benefits to be obtained from the
Projects, particularly the Oakley Redevelopment Plan. Since
the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan outweigh its adverse
impacts, those impacts are deemed "acceptable" by this Board.
In short, this Board finds and determines that the ratio of
benefit to impact is the most favorable to the County and its
existing and future citizens under the Oakley Redevelopment
Plan scenario .
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Generally.
1 . " This Board makes the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding any unavoidable
environmental impacts of the Projecst, as discussed above, and
the anticipated environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Projects .
2 . This Board has fully considered the EIR' s
discussion and analysis of cumulative impacts , growth inducing
impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts , and irreversible and
irretrievable committments of resources . This Board hereby
adopts and incorporates the findings and conclusions of the EIR
as its findings on these impacts of the ONBAGP and the Oakley
Redevelopment Plan.
11/57385
89
.Y
r T
5 3 . This Board finds that , to the extent that
any such impacts ( including cumulative impacts) attributable to
the Projects remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in
light of the social , economic and other considerations set
forth herein because the benefits of the Projects outweigh any
of their significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts. This Board also finds that the mitigation measures
which were recommended in the EIR but were not adopted are
infeasible because such measures would impose restrictions that
would limit the attainment of the below-described specific
social , economic and other benefits of the Projects which this
Board finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts of the Projects .
This Board further finds that the alternatives to the Projects
set forth herein are infeasible because such alternatives would
limit the attainment of the specific , below-described social ,
economic and other benefits of the Projects which this Board
finds outweigh the environmental benefits of the alternatives .
B. Specific Benefits of the Projects .
Specifically, this Board finds that the following
social , economic and other considerations warrant approval of
the ONBAGP and the Oakley Redevelopment Plan, notwithstanding
the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts of the Project :
1 . Provision of Needed Housing
The Projects will provide needed housing for the
area and region. The East County, like most of the Bay Area,
is experiencing steady and rapid population growth as Bay Area
11/57385
90
+ F Y
families seek affordable housing within commuting distance of
{ their jobs . These jobs are often in Bay Area cities to the
west . Communities in Central Contra Costa County have also
experienced this rapid growth. Because of their closer
proximity to major employment centers , several Central County
cities have been experiencing such growth for years and are now
nearly built out . Some have adopted restrictions on growth.
The result of all of this is that housing costs in the Central
County are ,considerably higher than in. the East County. The
communities;, of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood are also
experiencing rapid growth and are unable to meet the demand for
housing. This growth will require that long-term housing
goals, policies , and programs are established which seek to
meet this: .housing need. Planned growth under the Projects will
relieve some of the pressure on already highly developed areas,
as well as providing the diversity of housing types and prices
that.- is required tb accompany projected County and Bay Area
growth.
2 . Public Services and Facilities .
The lowest. cost option for providing
infrastructure is to consolidate development into an urban
core, as proposed: in therONBAGP. Planned growth including
residential, commercial and industrial development will
encourage the orderly provision of infrastructure and avoid
piecemeal development which may burden existing facilities and
services .
11/57385
91
r 1
3 . Provision of Local Employment
Opportunities .
The East County. employed population generally
commutes to jobs to the west . This has generally lead to a
skewed jobs/housing- balance. Some communities , including
Oakley, lack a strong local-employment base, which would help
correct the existing jobs/housing ratio. Adoption of the
4= Project ' s will help remedy the existing jobs/housing imbalance
by both providing more commercial , industrial and retail
designations, and by establishing a financing mechanism which
will encourage redevelopment of areas, which in turn, will
create greater employment opportunities . Development pursuant
to the Projects will also provide development-related jobs
(construction, design, marketing) throughout the life of the
plan.
t
4 . Protection of Agricultural Uses
Not all lands in the East County can be retained
for agriculture. Providing a area of relatively compact
development in Oakley will likely reduce development pressures
on more valuable lands to the south. Urbanization in an area
of less agricultural importance will help avoid inappropriate
urbanization in areas farther east , where agricultural uses
should 'be preserved.
5. Public Revenues .
Development pursuant to the Projects will
substantially increase the assessed valuation of the planning
11/5738S
92
J
area and beneficially impact property values, thereby creating
substantial additional property tax revenue for the County on a
long-term basis .
6. Elimination of Blight .
Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will enable the
County and the Redevelopment Agency to eliminate blighting
influences in the Project Area and provide a mechanism for
strengthening the employment base of the area, providing
circulation and infrastructure improvements and improving and
upgrading the existing structures in the Project Area, so that
the Project Area may be of physical , social and economic
4,1 benefit to the Oakley Area and the County as a whole.
V. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OR
REPORTING OF MITIGATION MEASURES
A. . Adoption of Monitoring Program.
Section 21081 . 6 of the Public Resources Code requires
this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding
CEQA mitigation measures.. in connection with these findings .
This Board adopts the. fo,llowing program in fulfillment of this
requirement : .;
1 . Implementation and Reporting.
a. The County Community Development
Department and Redevelopment Agency shall prepare an overall
plan to implement the mitigation measures adopted in these
findings by incorporating them as policies within the projects ,
11/57385
93
or by preparing implementing regulations , ordinances ,
standards, programs and plans , or by incorporating them into
future development approvals as appropriate to the particular
mitigation measure, and shall take such action as necessary to
effectuate the plan.
b. The County Community Development
Department and Redevelopment Agency shall file a written report
with the East County Planning Commission ( "Planning
Commission" ) within 3 months on the implementation plan.
Thereafter , the County Community Development Department shall
report annually to the Planning Commission on the
implementation status of the mitigation measures . Where
appropriate and feasible the report shall also provide a
projected timetable for the implementation of each mitigation
measure .
C . The Planning Commission shall review
the written report and determine whether there is any unusual
and substantial delay in, or obstacle to, the implemention of
the adopted mitigation measures which requires further action.
'A
d. If the Planning Commission determines
that such further action is required, it shall consult with
staff in order to determine the additional actions to be taken
to ensure the implemention of such mitigation measures . The
Planning Commission shall take those reasonable actions as
permitted by law which will ensure the implementation of the
mitigation measures .
11/5738S
94
a•••a
2. Other Considerations .
a. In adopting this mitigation measure
monitoring program, this Board is aware that within the
heirarchy of local land use regulations , the ONBAGP and Oakley
Redevelopment Plan enjoy paramount and policy-oriented
positions . In practical terms, that special status and
character necessarily means that many if not most of the
mitigation measures proposed in relation to the ONBAGP and
Oakley Redevelopment Plan Projects will require subsequent and
possibly additional implementation actions and approvals in
order to be fully effected. These include mitigation measures
which will be incorporated in policies within the ONBAGP and
Oakley Redevelopment Plan, measures which will be effected
through subsequent land use regulations , ordinances , standards ,
programs, and plans (which, under controlling law, must be
established or amended to be consistent with and implement the
goals, policies and programs of the ONBAGP and Oakley
Redevelopment Plan) ; and measures which will be made
project-specific conditions to subsequent development
approvals . Nonetheless, the written mitigation monitoring
report required and established by these findings shall
a
describe anticipated means by which the measures shall
ultimately be effected and simplementation status .
JSR: lmj/11
5738S/12.21. 9
72975-001
'8S
95
;t s
VP r ERRATA SHEET FOR OAKLEY/NORTH BRENTWOOD
AREA GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS (Doc No . 57385 )
Page Line Presently. Reads Should Read
5 3 measure measures
8 19 on in
12 6 redisignations redesignations
14 2 ONBGAP ONBAGP
14 6 period after "t-ime comma- after "time"
(time . ) (time, )
16 20 ONBGAP ONBAGP
20 9 soild soils
22 8 between be
32 17 ONBGAP ONBAGP
35 23 or of
36 13 ONBGAP ONBAGP
39 1 leveling leveeing
39 5 requirement requirements
45 15 maintenacne maintenance
53 14 ONBGAP ONBAGP .
54 .: 4 ONBGAP' ONBAGP
54 20-21 delta Expresswawy Delta Expressway
56 19 spece space
58 2 ONBGAP ONBAGP
60 16 for the
61 21 obtrain obtain
63 17 ONBGAP ONBAGP
1
a "
-- Page Line Presently Reads . Should Read
68 2 downstown downtown
74 14 shefiff sheriff
78 18 ONBGAP ONBAGP
89 17 Projecst Projects
91 4 delete "closer"
92. 6 local-employment local employment
I
92 8 Project ' s Projects
92 18 a area an area
2