HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04111989 - 2.4 2. 4&
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C�ontra
FROM: - �k1.*N .VET E. BRAGDON, Costa,
• �DI-PE.CTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Coilly
DATE: `11 April 1989
SUBJECT: Determination on General Plan Amendment #3-87-CO. , in connection with
2795-RZ to rezone 207 acres from Agricultural District (A-4) and Final
Development Plan #3011-88, the Tentative leap for Subdivision #7110 and
210 residential lots, in the East Walnut Creek area. (S.D.III) .
Parcel No. 1357100-010,012,016 & #135-110-002.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RE655K ATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt General Plan Amendment #3-87-CO.
2. Approve rezoning application 2795-RZ, Smith-Perms Bilt
Development (Applicant) , Barratt Irvine (Owner) , to rezone 207
acres from Agricultural Preserve District (A-4) to Planned
Unit District (P-1) .
3. Approve Development Plan #3011-88 with conditions as amended
by the Board of Supervisors hearing on April 4, 1989.
4. Approve the tentative map for Subdivision #7110 as amended by
the Board of Supervisors hearing on April 4, 1989.
5. Adopt findings as set forth in Exhibit A.
6. Accept the environmental review documentation as being
adequate.
7. Adopt the ordinance giving effect to.the rezoning; waive
reading.
CONTINUED ON ATTAC M; YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTE ER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 11, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
On April 4, 1989, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to
approve General Plan Amendment request 3-87-CO, rezoning application
2795-RZ, Development Plan 3011-88 and Subdivision 7110 with amended
conditions and directed Community Development Department to prepare
the appropriate documentation for Board consideration on this date.
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director, advised the Board
of the staff recommendations contained in this April 11, 1989 staff
report.
Supervisor Schroder questioned whether all the changes in
conditions recommended by the Board on April 4, 1989 were included in
the conditions before the Board today.
Mr. Bragdon assured the Board that the recommendations as well as
mitigations agreed to by the applicant were in the material provided
to the Board today.
Supervisor Schroder moved approval of the staff recommendations.
Supervisor McPeak requested that staff clarify each of the
changes made in the conditions before the Board today.
" ; ,Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, responded to
a" Supervisor McPeak' s request and enumerated each item changed in the
rcondItions before the Board today, and she responded to inquiries from
Supervisor McPeak on the various items.
Therefore, on recommendation of Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are
APPROVED; and as in recommendation 1, Resolution 89/240 is ADOPTED;
and as in recommendations 2, 3, and 4, amended conditions attached
(Exhibit B) , ; and as in recommendation 7, Ordinance No. 89-21 is
ADOPTED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT V ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
-- SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development (Orig. ) ATTESTED April 11, 1989
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK. OF •
Public Works-Tom Dudziak THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra Costa County Consolidated AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Fire Protection District
Assessor BY DEPUTY
Smith/Perma Bilt-Barrat Irvine
L8:b3-87-CO.bo
MF/df
s
EXHIBIT "A"
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE RANCHO PARAISO DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-87-0O3
APPROVAL OF REZONING 2795-RZ,
APPROVAL OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3011-88.,
AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 7110 UPON APPLICATION OF
SMITH-PERMA BILT DEVELOPMENT
PART I : FINDINGS RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) .
I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Approvals And Applications .
Smith-Perma Bilt Development ( "Applicant" ) , on its own
behalf and on behalf of Barratt Irvine ( "Owner" ) has proposed
and made application to Contra Costa County ( "County" ) for
approval of a residential subdivision development (the "Rancho
Paraiso Development" ) originally consisting of 219 residential
lots on a site of approximately 210 acres- located in the
unincorporated portion of the County at the easterly extension
of Arbolado Drive, approximately 4 , 000 feet east of Oak Grove
Road and easterly of Northgate Road, from its intersection with
Sutton Drive, in the east Walnut Creek area, which site is
commonly known as Rancho Paraiso (the "Rancho Paraiso Site" ) .
The applications consist of requests for four actions : a
general plan amendment (County File No . 3-87-CO) , a rezoning
(County File No . 2795-RZ) , a final development plan (County
File No . 3011-88) , and a tentative map (Subdivision File
No . 7110) (collectively the "Applications" ) .
After the Applications were submitted, the applicant
made a series of changes in the Rancho Paraiso Development in
response to perceived environmental impacts, and to help
mitigate those impacts . In addition, changes and reductions in
the scope of the Rancho Paraiso Development were made both by
the Planning Commission and by this Board. These changes and
reductions in the scope of the Project are as follows :
( 1) One lot was eliminated at the end of the
cul-de-sac at the northwestern corner of the Rancho Paraiso
Site, to increase the area available for the open space and
trail linkage between Arbolado Park, the open space areas on
1
the Project site, and the Lime Ridge Open Space Area . With -the
elimination of this lot , the Rancho Paraiso Development will
provide a corridor which is a minimum of 150 feet wide for
access and for related open space areas . Pursuant to this
change, the design of the Rancho Paraiso Development presented
to the Planning Commission included 218 units ..
(2) Prior to consideration of the Applications
by the Planning Commission, the Applicant modified the Rancho
Paraiso Development so that the cul-de-sac and accompanying
home sites on the south knoll were pulled back 300 feet from
the existing crest of the knoll to a point on the knoll behind
its crest . This modification was to preserve the existing
crest of the knoll as a natural landscape feature on 'the Rancho
Paraiso Site, minimize grading on the crest of the south knoll ,
and reduce the visual impact of the home sites on the south
knoll .
(3) In recommending that this Board approve the
Applications , the Planning Commission made a further reduction
in the number of units on the Rancho Paraiso Site to a total" of
210 units .
(4 ) Prior to this Board ' s consideration of the
Applications, the Applicant met with representatives of the
City of Walnut Creek, environmental groups, and this' Board. As
a result of these negotiations, the Applicant modified the
Project by eliminating the development of home sites on the
south knoll of the Rancho Paraiso Site; and placing those home
sites on other, lower areas of the Rancho Paraiso Site,
preserving an overall development proposal of 210 units .
(5) In approving the Applications , this Board
imposed Conditions of Approval limiting the overall number of
units to 205, and specifying that no units will be developed on
the central knoll to the west of the 440-foot contour line.
(6) At the request of the County Public Works
Department , the Applicant modified the Project to eliminate the
previously proposed detention basins . The Public Works
Department advised the Applicant that these detention basins
were undesirable, and recommended certain Conditions of
Approval to ensure that any impacts of the Rancho Paraiso
Development upon storm drainage remain insignificant . .
As a result of these changes in the Rancho Paraiso
Development, that development has been reduced from the
219 residential units originally proposed and analyzed in the
Draft EIR, to a total of 205 units , with no home sites on the
south knoll and restrictions on the location of home sites on
the central knoll .
2
In addition to the Rancho Paraiso Site, two additional
properties which abut the Rancho Paraiso site were included by
County staff for consideration as part of the General Plan
Amendment application. These properties are the ten-acre
Devito Ranch and the three-acre Cox property. As discussed on
the DEIR pages 2-3 , both parcels are surrounded on three sides
by the Rancho Paraiso property, and both parcels abut the
existing Pheasant Run subdivision. The Final EIR assumes that
these two sites will be developed at densities allowed by the
proposed General Plan Amendment . Thus , while the Rancho
Paraiso Site consists .of 210 acres, the general plan amendment
area consists of 223 acres . The Rancho Paraiso Site, the Cox
property, and the DeVito property, which together constitute
the general plan amendment area, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "Project Site. "
Based upon the application for these four actions and
the subsequent modifications , this Board of Supervisors has
approved the following items (collectively, the "Approvals" ) :
( 1) An amendment to the County General Plan
,,, (County File No . 3-87-CO) (the "General Plan" ) , specifically
amending the land use, circulation and recreation elements of
that General Plan. The land use amendment changes the
designation of the Project Site from "agricultural preserve" to
"Single Family Residential Medium-Density, " "General Open
Space, " and "Parks and Recreation. " The land use designations
in this General Plan Amendment are described on Map A attached
to the Staff Report evaluating the General Plan Amendment . The
Circulation Element is amended to designate Arbolado Drive and
a new access road connecting from the Rancho Paraiso property
back to Northgate Road as collectors, as shown on Map B
attached to the Staff Report on the General Plan Amendment .
The Recreation Element is amended to add a hiking and
equestrian trail which will connect Lime Ridge with Northgate
Road, and the generalized .location of this trail is shown on
Map A in the Staff Report evaluating the General Plan Amendment;
(2) A rezoning of the Rancho Paraiso Site from
"Agricultural Preserve District (A-4) " to "Planned Unit
District (P-1) " (the "Rezoning" ) ;
(3) Approval of Final Development Plan
No. 3011-88 for the Rancho Paraiso Development (the "Final
Development Plan" ) ;
(4) Approval of the tentative map for the Rancho
Paraiso Development (Subdivision File No . 7110) (the
"Subdivision" ) .
3
The Rezoning, the Final Development Plan, and the
Subdivision were approved subject to certain conditions of
approval (collectively the "Conditions of Approval" ) . These
Conditions of Approval include the reduction to 205 homes .
These Conditions of Approval also include a prohibition against
developing any home sites in the area of the central knoll to
the west of the 440-foot contour line . For the purpose of
these findings, the Approvals , the Conditions of Approval , and
the Rancho Paraiso Development as modified by the Approvals are
collectively referred to herein as the "Project . "
B. The Environmental Impact Report .
( 1) The County prepared an initial study of
environmental significance dated April 6, 1988 (the "Initial
Study" ) . Pursuant to the recommendation of the initial study,
the County determined- that an environmental impact report was
necessary pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) . A notice of preparation of
an EIR (the "Notice of Preparation" ) was prepared. The Notice
of Preparation was duly circulated to appropriate responsible
agencies , and comments were received from those agencies . This
Board finds and determines that the Notice of Preparation
satisfied the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
applicable County regulations in that the Notice of Preparation
described the Project, the Project ' s location, and the
environmental effects of the project .
(2) Pursuant to the Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation, the County prepared a draft environmental impact
. report on the Project dated July 1988 (the "DEIR" or "Draft
EIR" ) . Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines , a notice of completion
of the DEIR (the "Notice of Completion" ) was filed with the
State Office of Planning and Research ( "OPR" ) . This Board
finds and determines that the Notice of Completion satisfied
the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable
County regulations in that the Notice of Completion contained a
brief descriptionW'of the Project, the proposed location of the
Project, an address where copies - of the draft EIR are
available, and the period. during which comments would be
received on the DEIR.
(3) After receiving comments on the DEIR, the
County prepared a response to comments document dated
October 1988 (the "Response Document" ) . The Initial Study,
Notice of Preparation, DEIR, Notice of Completion, and Response
Document together comprise the final environmental impact
report on the Project pursuant to CEQA (collectively the "Final
EIR" ) .
4
(4 ) The Final EIR analyzes the impacts of the
General Plan Amendment, tre Rezoning, the Final Development
Plan, and the Subdivision. The General Plan Amendment applies
to the entire Project Site, while the other Approvals apply
only to the Rancho Paraiso Site, which includes 210 acres of
the overall Project Site ' s 223 acres . Also, the General Plan
Amendment envisions a total of 237 single family houses (after
accounting for the reduction in Rancho Paraiso homes from 219
to 205) , including 205 homes on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
( 5) Because the Final EIR analyzes the General
Plan Amendment in addition to the other Approvals, and because
the General Plan Amendment includes more acreage and homesites
than does the. Rancho Paraiso Development alone, the projected
impacts analyzed in -the Final EIR, although largely
attributable to the Rancho Paraiso Development, may not be
entirely attributable to the Rancho Paraiso Development .
C. Certification Of The EIR.
On August 23 , 1988, the Planning Commission held a
;•: duly noticed public hearing on the DEIR to receive comments and
testimony in addition to the written comments which were
submitted during the comment period. Following this hearing,
the expiration of the comment period and the preparation of the
Response Document, the Commission held a duly noticed meeting
on October 25, 1988 , to consider the adequacy of the Final
EIR. At that meeting the Commission certified that the Final
:, EIR was adequate and satisfied the requirements of CEQA, the
;;. CEQA Guidelines and applicable County regulations .
In adopting Resolution No . 5-1989 on February 14 ,
1989 , the.•Planning Commission again found that the EIR was
completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
applicable County regulations . The Commission also found that
the Final EIR was presented to the Commission and that the
Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Final EIR prior to approving the Project and the Approvals .
A
This Board, in approving the Project and the
Approvals, finds that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable
County regulations . This Board further finds and determines
that the Final EIR was presented to this Board, and this Board
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIR prior to approving the Project and the Approvals .
5
D. Description Of The Record.
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings made herein,
the record before this Board relating to this action includes
without limitation, the following:
( 1) The Applicant ' s application for the
Approvals;
(2) The Staff Report on the General Plan
, Amendment;
(3) The Staff Report on the Rezoning, :the Final
Development Plan,. and the Subdivision;
(4) All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by the Planning Commission during the public
hearings on the Approvals, the Draft EIR, and the Project;
(5) All documentary and oral -evidence- received
and reviewed by this Board during the public hearings on the
Approvals and the Project;
('6) The Final EIR; and
(7) All matters of common knowledge to this
Board, such as
(a) The County General Plan,
(b) The County Zoning Code, and
(c) Other County policies and regulations .
The discussions which follow under the various
captions "Facts" for each category recite some of the
background information, suggested mitigation measures , and
:; . modifications to the Project as reflected in the Approvals . In
some „instances , the facts relating to this Board' s
consideration of mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval
.,are set forth separately under the caption "Mitigation
. Measures . " The;..discussions which follow under the various
captions "Findings" for each category contain findings made by
this Board, based on the entire record before this Board,
including without limitation the information which is recited
under the discussion of "Facts . "
This Board intends that any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
made if it appears in any portion of this document, and that
, all of the language included in this document constitutes
6
findings and determinations by this Board, whether or not any
particular sentence or clause incli.des a statement to that
effect .
In the discussions under the headings "Facts" below,
the summarized facts may be primarily or entirely based on the
Final EIR. This Board intends that each finding herein is
based on the entire record, including written and spoken
testimony to the Commission, and the omission of any relevant
fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by
this Board that a particular finding is not based in part on
the omitted fact . This Board ' s findings as set forth herein
are based on all of the facts in the record before this Board.
II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
This Board adopts and makes the following findings
regarding those certain potential environmental impacts of the
, Project evaluated in the Initial Study which were determined in
. the Initial Study not to be potentially significant adverse
environment impacts of the Project .
A. Facts .
The Initial Study indicated that the Project would
result in a negligible additional consumption of energy, would
not affect the extraction of natural resources (other than the
agricultural and biotic impacts which are discussed in the
Final EIR) , and would not increase the risk of explosion or any
release of hazardous substances or other danger to public
health and safety. The Final EIR states at page 89 of the
Response Document that these conclusions were arrived at by the
County Community Development Department because the Project is
not energy intensive when compared to other types of housing,
because there are no known?, natural resources underlying the
Project Site whose use, extraction or conservation would be
affected by this Project (excepting the agricultural and biotic
;. impacts described in the Final EIR) and because there are no
..4.substantial. .hazards-or-havardous substances on the Project Site
.,, or which would be brought with the Project Site such that the
,, Project may present a danger to the public health and safety.
B. Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and upon the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) The impact of the Project on
energy consumption is not significant, because the Project is
not energy intensive compared to other types of housing.
7
The Project will not affect the
extraction of natural resources other than the agricultural and '
biotic impacts which are analyzed in the Final EIR because,
other than these agricultural and biotic impacts analyzed in
the Final EIR, there are no known natural resources underlying
the Project Site which would be affected by the Project .
( iii) The Project does not increase the
risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or other
danger to public health and safety, because there are no
substantial hazards or hazardous substances present on this
Project Site or which would be brought to this Project Site
such that the Project might present a danger to the public
health and safety.
( iv) Because these impacts were
determined to be insignificant in the Initial Study for the
reasons set forth above, no mitigation measures or conditions
of approval are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA
relating to the foregoing insignificant impacts .
(v) To the extent that any of the
above impacts on energy consumption, natural resources
extraction, and public health and safety are significant,
despite the conclusions of the Initial Study as stated above,
the economic, - social and other benefits of the Project outweigh
t., any such significant impact , as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV, below) .
III . , FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO
BE INSIGNIFICANT, AVOIDED, OR MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE
The Final EIR states on page 90 of the Response
Document that each potentially significant environmental impact
of the Project which is not listed as "unavoidable" in the
Final EIR can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
imposition of the recommended mitigation measures . The
findings of this Board regarding unavoidable impacts are set
1; forth in Section IV, below, (findings regarding unavoidable
.,-- impacts) - and -in Section V;:;u..below . (the Statement of Overriding
Considerations) . The findings of this Board regarding
environmental impacts which are determined in the Final EIR to
. be insignificant, avoided, or mitigated to a level of
insignificance are set forth in this Section III .
8
.J .
A. Land Use And Open Space.
1 . Facts .
The following subsections (a) through (g) discuss the
various land use and open space impacts of the Project,
including a summary of recommended mitigation measures .
(a) Project Site impacts .
( i) The Final EIR Response Document
states on page 91 that , although Walnut Creek General Plan
designations are analyzed in the Draft EIR, the County in
acting upon this Project is not required to conform to the
provisions of the City of Walnut Creek General Plan. Also on
page 91 , the Response Document states that the State General
Plan Guidelines do not require that county land use decisions
comply with the general plans or the ordinances of nearby
cities .
( ii) The Project would extend the east
.,. Walnut Creek urbanized area into the Project Site, ultimately
eliminating approximately 215 acres from the county' s
170 , 000-acre range land inventory (DEIR, pages 38-39) .
Development of the Rancho Paraiso Development on the Project
Site would require demolition of the existing Paraiso Ranch
complex. The Applicant ' s grading plan is designed to provide
contoured hillsides , level building areas to reduce visual
impacts, and landslide repair . The original grading plan
covered approximately 75% of the Rancho Paraiso Site and would
have resulted in the removal of 66 of the 80 existing trees on
the site, although the Applicant would replant and revegetate
various areas on the Rancho Paraiso Site pursuant to the
...,agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and
the other Conditions of Approval , as discussed later in these
findings . The modifications to the Project reduced the grading
impacts by eliminating most grading on the south knoll and
reducing the overall amount of grading on the Rancho Paraiso
Site. Pursuant to the General Plan Amendment, eventual
subdivision and development of the Cox and DeVito- properties
could involve similar demolition of the ranch complex on the.
Devito site and the single-family home on the Cox property.
( iii) . The DEIR does not propose any
mitigation measures relating to Project Site impacts within the
mitigation measures for land use and open space impacts as
listed on page 51 through 55 of the DEIR. The DEIR concludes
on page 192 that several Project Site impacts are unavoidable
and irreversible adverse impacts of the Project, as set forth
in Section IV.A, below, of these findings .
9
( iv) The Project has been modified to
eliminate one lot near the border of the Rancho Paraiso Site
and Arbolado Park, to provide for additional linkage between
Arbolado Park and open space areas . The Project has also been
modified by eliminating the development of home sites on the
south knoll , and limiting the development of home sites on the
central knoll by requiring that no home sites be developed
westward of the 440-foot contour line on the central knoll .
These modifications will preserve the south knoll as a natural
landscape and visual feature of the Rancho Paraiso Site, reduce
the impact of the Project on the central knoll , and reduce the
.,. overall impact of the Project on the Rancho Paraiso Site .
',4 These modifications to the Project are discussed in further
:: detail in Section I .A, above.
(b) Open space impacts . .
( i) The Project retains 112 acres of
the Project Site as permanent open space, and ownership and
4;. maintenance aspects of open space areas have not yet been
;. finalized (DEIR, pages 38-39) . The Final EIR states on
page 109 of the Response Document that the 112 acres of
permanent open space would be located around the perimeter of
site, on the lower portion of the central knoll , and the north
facing side of the southern knoll . All of these open space
. areas are on the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso Site, which is a part
of the 223-acre Project Site. A majority of the open space
areas would be comprised of steeper portions of the site with
slopes of 25% or greater .
The Final EIR proposes two
;�; mitigation measures relating to open space impacts of the
'�. Project . Ownership, maintenance and use aspects of the
permanent open space should be finalized prior to submittal of
the final map application for the Project (DEIR, page 51) . The
County should prohibit future development on the open space
areas within the Project site as a condition of final map
approval (Response :Document, page 87) .
(iii) The. Project was modified to
`'.provide additional open space and access near Arbolado Park by
.. eliminating one home site. The Project was also modified to
' -provide additional open 'space and preserve the knolls on the
site by eliminating the development of home sites on the south
knoll and restricting the `'development of home sites on the
central knoll . These modifications provide more usable and
less fragmented open space on the Rancho Paraiso Site, and
provide a better linkage to the Lime Ridge Open Space Area.
. The product modifications are discussed in Section I .A, above.
10
(c) Surrounding land use impacts .
( i ) Although testimony before this
Board indicates that this Project is similar to other projects
approved by the County, the DEIR states on page 39 that the
Project would represent the first large scale hillside
subdivision in the East Walnut Creek area, and the easternmost
extension of residential development in the Walnut Creek urban
area. The Project represents the first significant extension
of residential development into hillsides approaching Lime
Ridge, and Project elevations would range from 266 to 486 feet ,
about 220 feet higher than exi=sting urbanization in the East
Walnut Creek area . As shown by figure ( 1) on page 100 of the
Response Document , the uppermost elevation of homesites within
the Rancho Paraiso project is approximately 486 feet , while the
elevation of Lime Ridge itself is approximately 1 , 000 feet .
( ii) The Project ' s impacts on the Lime
Ridge open space recreation area would be primarily visual , as
the development would be clearly visible from hiking trails in
the area (DEIR, pages 39-40) . The Final EIR states on page 109
.... of the Response Document that the visual impacts on Lime Ridge
f;
. are significant . The visual impact of the project on Lime
.,r Ridge and the possibility of mitigating the Project ' s visual
impacts are discussed on pages 163-164 of the DEIR.
( iii) The DEIR discusses the Project ' s
relationship to nearby residential development on pages 40-41
and testimony before this Board also discussed this
relationship. This Project is in-fill development because it
does not include substantial expansion of existing services and
service lines . This Project is likely to increase property
values in the Pheasant Run subdivision. The Project would be
contiguous with the existing Pheasant Run subdivision,
replacing Pheasant Run as the eastern edge of the Walnut Creek
urban area . The Project would be different in character from
.. Pheasant Run and other nearby subdivisions , as Pheasant Run and
nearby subdivisions have a substantially higher density of
development . Lot sizes within the Project would be larger than
,•- those in Pheasant Run. The Project would include significantly
larger homes than exist in neighboring residential areas . The
Project includes large areas of undeveloped hillside open space
covered with natural grasses rather than smaller, well groomed
common areas . The Final EIR concludes on page 110 of the
Response Document that, although Project open space losses
could be expected to have a moderate adverse impact on the
quality of the Pheasant Run neighborhood, density and other
design differences between the Project and the Pheasant Run
neighborhood are not a significant impact of the Project . In
addition, this Project will act as a transition between the
nearby residential areas and the public open space areas .
11
• f
(Response Document, page 110) . The Project Site was previously
considered for acquisition and addition to the public open
space, however , the City decided notto proceed after a survey
disclosed that the nearby property owners would not support an
. assessment district to fund the acquisition.
( iv) The Project ' s relationship to the
Walnut Creek firing range is discussed on page 41 of the DEIR.
The Project would increase the number of children inothe area,
the potential for vandalism at the firing range and the
potential for injury to trespassers .
(v) The land use-related visual
�. impacts of the. Project as set forth " in paragraphs ( i) and ( ii ) ,
above, are discussed under the heading "Visual Factors , "
Section III .M, below.
(vi) The DEIR does not propose
. mitigation measures relating to Project impacts on surrounding
land uses, except for mitigation measures relating to visual
impacts (discussed in Section III .M, below of these Findings)
y. and the mitigation measures relating to agricultural impacts
(discussed immediately below) .
(vii) The Project modifications ,
'Vparticularly the elimination of development on the south knoll ,
, together with the topographical features of the Rancho Paraiso
Site, will result in the creation of a " land dam" or natural
barrier between the Rancho Paraiso homes and surrounding
agricultural properties, especially the Ginochio Ranch. This
barrier will reduce the impact of the Project upon surrounding
land uses .
(d) Agriculture impacts .
( i) The agricultural impacts of the
Project are discussed on DEIR pages 42-44 and in the Response
: Document . The Project would eliminate approximately 180 acres
P; of grazing area, contributing to significant cumulative
declines in the county rangeland inventory, although the DEIR
,.. states on -page 137 that overgrazing on the Project Site has
significantly affected its- vegetation. Non-native species have
%,,replaced native species of plants, vegetation density and vigor
has been reduced, the number of woody plants has declined, and
these changes have probably caused a decline in use of the
. Project Site by wildlife. The existing cattle grazing
.operation and equestrian operation on the Rancho Paraiso Site
would be required to find a comparable location elsewhere or
. cease operation.
12
The Devito property would be
subject to construction phase impacts, potential incompatible
land uses resulting from the introduction of new residential
development , and increased potential for future development of
the Devito property itself as residential lots . The Rancho
Paraiso homes to be located adjacent to the Devito Ranch could
be subject to possible nuisance aspects of current equestrian
activities , including odors , dust, flies and noise . These
impacts could cause residents to complain about the existing
ranch activity, thereby discouraging this use of the DeVito
property. Future development of the DeVito property pursuant
to the General Plan Amendment could eliminate the existing
commercial equestrian facility there and provide for the.
construction of additional home sites there.
( iii ) The Project would change the
character of the existing rural setting around the Rancho Adobe
riding facility, increasing the potential for trespassing and
vandalism` on the Rancho Adobe property. After construction,
the Rancho Paraiso Development would not be expected to affect
the well-being of the Rancho Adobe horses, although Rancho
;, Paraiso homes near the Rancho Adobe facility would be subject
to potential nuisance impacts . The owners of the property
underlying the Rancho Adobe riding facility have already agreed
to sell the property to real estate developers who plan a
residential subdivision for the property.
( iv) Pursuant to the original proposals
; for the Rancho Paraiso Site, the Ginochio Ranch Property would
..: have been separated by a permanent open space buffer of 150 to
.. 200 feet along the southern and southeastern edges of the
Rancho Paraiso Site . With the modification of the Rancho
Paraiso Development to eliminate the construction of home sites
on the southern knoll , the Ginochio Ranch Property will be
separated by a substantially larger permanent open space buffer .
(v) 4 Although the physical separation
:,, between agricultural uses and residential uses would reduce the
potential for complaints, the introduction of resident
;:. homeowners would present the potential for injury to livestock
. by domestic pets, grass fires, trespassing, and vandalism. The
,. new access roads could increase opportunities for dirt bike
access to the Ginochio property, although the Project
modifications to eliminate development on the south knoll and
thus create more of a "land dam" or natural barrier between the
Rancho Paraiso Development and the Ginochio Property may reduce
or eliminate the opportunities for dirt bike access to the
Ginochio Property. Also, the Rancho Paraiso Development would
set a precedent for subdivision of hillside grazing land;
although the Final EIR notes on page 37 of the Response
Document that conversion of any portion of the Ginochio ranch
13
J
property to a nonagricultural use would require cancellation of ,
the current Williamson Act Contract , subject to specific -
findings which must be made by the Board of Supervisors . The
Final EIR also states on page 110 of the Response Document that
the Ginochio ranch may be subject to less development pressure
`because it is a large economically viable operation under a
Williamson Act Contract . It may be difficult for the Board of
Supervisors to make the findings which would be required for
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on the Ginochio
Ranch, and if the Board of Supervisors cannot make such
findings , the Ginochio Ranch property would be subject to the
Williamson Act contract for at least ten years .
(vi ) In approving the Approvals, the
Board stated its intent that these Approvals shall not be
considered as a precedent for Board consideration of any
development applications in the surrounding area .
(vii) The Final EIR recommends six
mitigation measures relating to the Project ' s impact on
agriculture and surrounding agricultural land uses . These
measures include recorded notice to prospective purchasers ,
leash laws and signs to control dogs, measures to prohibit dirt
bike access to Ginochio Ranch, possible reduced knoll
development, the open space buffer abutting Ginochio Ranch, and
consultation between the Applicant and Ginochio Ranch regarding
fencing and other measures .
(e) Trail and park impacts .
(i) The Project ' s impacts upon nearby
trails and the Northgate Community Park (Arbolado Park) site
are discussed on DEIR page 40 . Six of the originally proposed
Rancho Paraiso lots abut the park boundary, although the number
of such abutting lots has been reduced by one. These homes
would be subject to noise and other nuisance impacts associated
with park activity. Equestrian activity along the proposed
trail near the west property line of the Rancho Paraiso Site
could be intrusive for the homes sites abutting the trail , and
no formal easement has been established for this trail at this
time.
( ii) The Final EIR proposes two
mitigation measures relating to adjacent park and recreation
areas . The DEIR on pages 51-52 recommends that final Project
plans be coordinated with City of Walnut Creek planners to
ensure a Project design compatible with City plans for the Lime
Ridge Open Space Area, Arbolado Park, and hiking and equestrian
trails . The DEIR also recommends that project compatibility
with the Arbolado Park be improved by introducing a physical
14
linkage between the park and the open space areas of the Rancho
Paraiso Development .
( iii) The Final EIR proposes mitigation
measures regarding trail linkages on pages 53 of the DEIR and
73 of the Response Document , including a trail link for the
Arbolado Park equestrian trail head, a permanent hiking and
riding trail near the western property line, and coordination
of trail alignment plans . The DEIR recommends that the final
map application include design provisions to mitigate trail
impacts on abutting lots, and notices to prospective purchasers .
( iv) The Final EIR states on pages 47
and 48 of the Response Document that an easement for access
purposes between Arbolado Drive and the Lime Ridge open space
recreation area currently exists on the Rancho Paraiso
property. The Final EIR recommends" as a mitigation measure
that the Applicant negotiate with the City of Walnut Creek to
establish a precise alignment for this easement .
(f) Relationship to local land use and open
space policy.
( i) The DEIR pages 44-51 discusses the
consistency of this Project with local land use and open space
policies . In addition, the Staff Report on the Rezoning, Final
Development Plan and Subdivision concludes that the Project is
consistent with the current County General Plan review and is
also consistent with existing County General Plan elements,
including the safety element .
( ii) The DEIR states on pages 45-48
that the General Plan definitions of single-family . residential
medium density and general open space are consistent with the
type of residential development and permanent open space
preservation proposed by this Project . The DEIR also raises
the question of whether tli'e Project is consistent with the
general open space provision designed to preserve "scenic
ridges which are highly visible from urban areas . " As stated
ona es 99 and 100 of the Response Document, this
p g p question
requires, first, a determination of whether the land in
question is a ridge, second, whether the land is scenic, and
third, whether the land is highly visible from urban areas .
The DEIR repeatedly refers to "knolls" on the Project Site, and
page 100 of the Response Document clarifies that the County
General Plan does not define "scenic ridges . " Generally, a
ridge is an elongated crest at the top of the opposite slopes
of a hill range. Figure 1 on page 100 of the Response
Document , shows that the maximum height of the Rancho Paraiso
homesites will be 486 feet , that the central knoll attains a
15
maximum height of 524 feet , and that Lime Ridge is
approximately 1 , 00 ) feet in elevation.
( iii) The consistency of this Project
with the Contra Costa County Safety element , which is
referenced on page 40 on DEIR page 48, is discussed in
Section III .J, below.
(g) Unavoidable impacts of the Project .
( i) The DEIR on page 192 lists several
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impacts of the project ,
�., including the permanent alteration of natural land forms ,
,,. substantial reduction in the rural character of the project
vicinity, loss of agricultural use lands, and loss of open
space. The Final EIR states on page 90 of the Response
Document -that each impact which is identified in the EIR and
which is not listed as "unavoidable" in the Final EIR can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by imposition of the
recommended mitigation measures .
I
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) Adoption of mitigation measures
recommended in the Final EIR.
The Conditions of Approval require finalization of
open space area ownership, prohibit future development of open
space areas on the Project site, and require coordination of
development plans and consultation with....Walnut Creek open space
planners to insure compatibility, consistent with these Project
Approvals, with the Lime Ridge and Arbolado Park areas . The
,, Conditions of Approval also require notices to purchasers of
lots regarding nuisances which may arise from hiking and
equestrian trails or abutting agricultural operations , leash
laws, and other measures to control dogs .
In addition, the Conditions of Approval require design
-. provisions to mitigate trail impacts on abutting lots, signs
and other measures to prohibit dirt bikes from using road and
/ open space areas as -access,,-to the Ginochio Ranch, and
consultation with Ginochio Ranch representatives regarding
fencing and other measures to protect the Ginochio Ranch. The
Conditions of Approval also require a precise alignment for the
'City' s access to the Lime 'Ridge Open Space Area.
(b) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project .
The Project includes a physical linkage between the
,open space areas of the Project Site and Arbolado Park, because
16
of the modification of the Rancho Paraiso Development to
eliminate one home site and provide for an access corridor of
at least 150 feet in width. This open space component next to
Arbolado Park may include an equestrian trail head. The
Project also includes a substantial open space buffer between
residential development on the Project Site and the Ginochio
Ranch. This open space buffer includes the south knoll on the
Rancho Paraiso Site, as no homes will be developed on the south
knoll pursuant to the modifications in the Rancho Paraiso
Development . In addition, the Project now includes limitations
upon the development of home sites on the central knoll .
In adopting mitigation measures, this Board is subject
to State CEQA Guideline 15092(c) , which states that , for a
project including housing development , this Board "shall not
reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation
measure if it determines that there is a another feasible
specific mitigation measure available that will provide a
comparable level of mitigation. "
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The land use impacts of this Project,
excepting those impacts which are listed in the Final EIR' s
unavoidable, are mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final
EIR, and by the changes which have been made to reduce the
scope of the Rancho Paraiso Development and to eliminate or
restrict development on the knolls on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
The mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, except as
specifically set forth below, have been incorporated into the
Conditions of Approval for the Project or have been
incorporated into the Project itself .
(b) Although this Project may have
unavoidable adverse impacts in permanently altering natural
land forms, reducing the rural character of the Project
vicinity and the loss of agricultural use and open space lands,
the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project are
either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(c) The recommendation that the Project be
modified to eliminate development on the south knoll has been
incorporated into the Project . The Project now consists of a
development plan which avoids home sites atop the south knoll .
17
(d) The Project also consists of a
developmer.t plan which avoids home sites atop the central
knoll , because of the limitation- upon developing sites on that
knoll to the west of the 440-foot contour line. Accordingly,
the Project now incorporates the proposed mitigation measure of
reducing hilltop building pads .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
the modification of the Project to eliminate developmenton the
south knoll and restrict development on the central knoll may
. not be considered equivalent to the aforementioned proposed
.,. mitigation measure, this Board finds that this proposed
mitigation measure, by requiring a reduction in the size of the
.. Project, is substantially similar to, and is rejected for the
. same reasons as, ,'the No-Project and the Open Space Acquisition
Alternatives, as set forth in Section VI , below. In addition,
: this Board finds that the adopted restriction upon development
on the central knoll and the elimination of the development on
the south knoll are feasible specific mitigation measures which
reduce the impacts of the Project, and accordingly the Board
may not adopt this proposed mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA
% Guideline 15092(c) .
(f) The Project is consistent with the
-,. County General Plan, and particularly with the open space
, provisions of that General Plan. Although the Project Site is
located in an area which may be described as scenic, this
Project is best characterized as located on knolls or on hill
sides, and not on scenic ridges . Accordingly, this Project is
consistent with general plan provisions calling for the
y., preservation of scenic ridges which are highly visible from
urbanized areas, and other similar provisions of the General
,,., Plan and other County policies . This Project is also A
consistent with similar development which has been allowed
elsewhere.,-in the County on hillside lands .
(g) Specifically, the Project is consistent
. with General Plan policies to limit development on hillsides to
;,maintain natural vegetation because many hillsides on the
a
Project Sitewill not be developed and natural vegetation will
be increased �by.-eliminatin,.g .grazing- and the Fish and Game
mitigation agreement . The� Project as modified includes high
;quality engineering, - does not include conventional cut-and-fill
:,pads, includes restoration of natural hillside contours, and is
designed to minimize damage to visual landmarks, and is
consistent with General Plan policies governing these items .
The Project, as revised to limit development on knolls, avoids
extreme modification of the topography, includes safe and
-,suitable sites for homes- and roads, and locates homesites in a
,. manner which is sensitive to available resources and
constraints .
18
(h) In addition, the Project is consistent
with General Plan policies because natural features were
considered for preservation, and substantial changes were made
to preserve natural features such as the south knoll . The
Project was modified to reduce grading and avoids excessive
grading. The Conditions of Approval and project modifications
are designed, in part , to protect visual qualities of the ridge
which is above and behind the project site . The Project
includes stable slopes, landslide repairs, and decreasing
residential density when compared to existing adjacent
residential development .
( i) This project is not required to be
consistent with the Walnut Creek General Plan or Walnut Creek
policies`- or ordinances and accordingly this Board makes no
finding regarding the consistency of this Project with those
documents .
(j ) The findings of this Board relating to
the Safety Element or the County General Plan are set forth in
Section III .J, below, relating to geology and grading.
B. Population And Housing.
1 . Facts .
S
(a) The DEIR indicates on pages 58-60 that
the Project, together with other potential development in the
°' related General Plan Amendment area, including the Cox and
Devito parcels, is projected to contain up to a maximum of 251
... residential units by 1995, with an •added area population of
;. approximately 880 people. As the Rancho Paraiso Development
has been reduced from the originally proposed 219 units to
205 units, the projection for the entire General Plan amendment
area is now 242. units instead of 251 units .
(b) z.This housing and population total
represents around 1% of the projected 1995 figure for the
:o. Walnut Creek area, and approximately 30% of the total projected
":` increase in Walnut Creek .area :housing and population totals
from 1985 to 1995 . In discussing the relationship of the
Project to local housing policies, the DEIR sets forth as
interpretive matters whether or not the Project is consistent
with policies within the housing elements of the Contra Costa
County General Plan and the City of Walnut Creek General Plan.
The relevant portion of the Contra Costa County Housing Element
provides that it is the policy of the County to provide housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the population
throughout the community by encouraging the development of
mixed income family housing developments, and the DEIR notes
that this policy encourages a balance between high-end housing
19
opportunities and mixed income developments within individual .
;,: Frojects, .although such a balance is not required within every
`.. project . (page 60 ) . The Response Document further states on
page 94 that the Project, together with the remainder of the
General Plan area, would account for less than 1% of the total
Central County projected growth and roughly 9% of the growth
increment projected for Walnut Creek, pursuant to the housing
projections developed by the Association of Bay Area
. Governments . The Response Document on page 95 states than the
Rancho Paraiso Development is designed to appeal to a local
"move up" market , which creates available housing in the less
expensive homes which are sold by the purchasers of Rancho
Paraiso homes ,
�. (c) On page 60 , the DEIR states that the
, impacts of this Project relating to population and housing
growth "are not in and of themselves significantly adverse, and
thus do not warrant mitigation. "
(d) The Final EIR Response Document states
on page 91 that, although Walnut Creek General Plan
designations are analyzed in the Draft EIR, the County in
.Y,. acting upon this Project is not required to conform to the
--provisions of the . City of Walnut Creek General Plan. Also on
page 91 , the Response Document states that the State General
.. Plan Guidelines do not require that county land use decisions
comply with the general plan or the ordinances of nearby cities .
(e) The Conditions of Approval require the
Applicant to make a contribution to the County Homeless Fund
equal to the profit on the sale of two developed lots , or
$100,000 , whichever is less .
2 . :� Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and upon the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that ;
(a) The impact of the Project on housing
:--and population . is not a significant adverse impact on the
environment because the additional:housing and population which
,-; will be provided ,by the Project is well within the applicable
:', local and regional guidelines, and based upon the DEIR..' s
conclusion that these impacts are not "significantly adverse . "
(b) Because these impacts were determined
in the DEIR not to be potentially significant adverse impacts
.. on the environment for the reasons set forth above, no
mitigation measures or Conditions of Approval are required to
be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to the impact of the
project on housing and population.
20
(c) Because this Project will appeal to a
. local "move-up" market making available more affordable resale
housing within the local area, based upon the statement in the
DEIR that a balance between higher-end residential development
and mixed income developments is not required in every project,
and because of the funding for the homeless which is a
condition of approval for this Project , the Project is
consistent with the housing element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan.
(d) The Project is not required to conform
to or be consistent with the housing element of the City of
Walnut Creek General Plan. Nevertheless by providing
additional housing, this Project will help to attain the goals
of the Walnut Creek General Plan.
(e) The contribution by the Applicant to
the County Homeless Fund is a benefit of this Project .
(f) To the extent that any of the above
impacts on housing and population are not insignificant ,
despite the conclusions contained in the Final EIR, the
economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh any
such significant impact, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
C. Transportation.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project relating to
transportation are discussed at pages 61-86 of the DEIR and in
various portions of the Response Document . Although the
Project includes a number of traffic mitigation measures, the
Project would, when built out, generate 2 , 526 trips on an
average weekday, including 190 morning peak-hour trips and 250
afternoon peak-hour trips (DEIR, Table 7) . This projection
assumes eventual development of the Cox and DeVito properties
in addition to the Rancho Paraiso Site. Table 7 states that
the Rancho Paraiso`Development, based on its original proposal
for 219 units, would generate 2,204 daily trips . Tables 9A and
9B on pages 57 and 58 of the Response Document show that, using
either the Circular 212 level of service computation method or
the computation method recommended by the City of Walnut Creek,
the level of service at most intersections will remain the same
with the development of this Project . Only two intersections
will experience a change in level of service. The signalized
intersection at Ygnacio Valley Road and La Casa Via would
change from level of service "B" to "C" during the morning peak
hour . The intersection of Oak Grove and Walnut would change
from level of service "C" to "D" during the morning peak hour .
21
The level of service applicable to other intersections will not
;,..,change,�as aresult of this Project .
(b) The midlink roadway volumes resulting
from Project-generated traffic are set forth on Table 10 on
,.,_page 59 of the Response Document . The DEIR states that,
despite increases in traffic volume, all of these midlink roads
would be expected to operate well within the design capacity of
;.the roadway with the Project-generated increases .
(c) The most notable project impacts in
local neighborhood streets would be along Arbolado. Drive
q between Oak Grove and Sutton, and along Northgate Road, east of
. Sutton. Traffic flows on Sutton Drive would not be expected to
,, change noticeably as a result of the project . As stated on
page 79 , Drive
the cumulative increase in traffic on Arbolado
would be highly noticeable . I
(d) The Final EIR states on page 77 of the
Response Document that temporary traffic congestion generated
,.. by special occurrences such as snowfall on Mt . Diablo, or
generated by weekend Mt . Diablo State Park traffic, would not
be significantly affected by the traffic improvements
associated with the Project , nor would the increase in
.,,, congestion associated with the Project be expected to
-; significantly worsen emergency access constraints during these
unusual events .
(e) The cumulative traffic impacts of the
Project are discussed on. pages 80-84 of the DEIR. The DEIR
on page 192 that the Project would contribute to
,. significant cumulative lodal ,lsubregional , and regional traffic
.1 impacts by generating 2, 526 daily vehicle trips . This impact
.. of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact (See Section IV, below) . The listing of
unavoidable impacts does not include any Project-specific
, traffic impacts .
(f) The DEIR proposes a number of
transportationmitigation .-measures . These include widening and
.0repairing 'Northgate Road, l.�securing. a• right of way from the
-i=,.Project Site to NorthgateeRoadi a three-way stop sign at
-.,Northgate Road, warning signs on Northgate Road, andan,
in-bound left turn lane on; Northgate Road. The DEIR also
recommends access gates and fire roads for open space access,
payment of traffic impact fees, an interjurisdictional
agreement to fund road improvements , and widening Arbolado Road
: to 45-foot-wide city collector standards . Also, the Response
' Document suggests that this Board consider modifying project
,design to reduce vehicle traffic on Arbolado Road by one half ,
-land suggests making the Project loop road discontinuous or
22
reducing the numbers of units on the northern portion of the
Rancho Paraiso Site as possible design changes which would
reduce traffic impacts on Arbolado Road. The DEIR also
suggests interim contributions to traffic improvements funds to
mitigate cumulative impacts , and limits on construction-period
traffic .
(g) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
reduced in scope from the initial proposal for 219 units which
was analyzed in the Final EIR, to the current limitation to
20,5 units . These reductions in the scope of the Project will
reduce the traffic impacts of the Project .
(h) The ability of this Board to mitigate
traffic impacts by reducing the number of units is limited by
CEQA Guideline 15092(c) .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) Adoption of mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
The Conditions of Approval for this Project require
the widening and repair of Northgate Road, a sidewalk on the
north side of the road and an all-weather shoulder on the south
side, striping for a bicycle lane, securing the right-of-way to
connect the project site to Northgate Road, and a left-turn
lane on Northgate Road. The Conditions of Approval also
.~. provide for access gates and fire roads for emergency access to
open space areas, the widening of Arbolado Road, and time
%• limits on construction-period traffic .
(b) Mitigation measures required by county
ordinance.
The various traffic impact fees relating to
Project-specific and cumulative traffic impacts are required to
be paid pursuant to county ordinances relating to traffic
,;fees . The requirement that traffic impact fees be paid by the
Applicant, .: and the allocat=ion of these fees, is set forth in
the advisory notes to the Conditions of Approval . Accordingly,
the mitigation measures relating to this are incorporated into
the Project .
(c) Additional mitigation measures .
In addition to the mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR, the Conditions of Approval further mitigate
construction impacts by requiring construction equipment to use
certain routes in accessing the site and providing that the
23
„Applicant shall maintain and restore Northgate Road to the
extent necessary,
(d) Northgate Road mitigation measures .
In addition to the mitigation measures set forth
above, the Final EIR as presented to this Board recommends that
the T-intersection of the Project access road and Northgate
Road should be controlled by a three-way stop. The Final EIR
does not state that this stop sign is necessary to mitigate an
otherwise significant impact . The County Public Works
Department does not recommend three-way stop signs at this
intersection at this time, as traffic volumes will. be
{ relatively low.- and sufficient gaps will available for turning
movements . This Board has the authority, pursuant to
Section 21082 . 2 of the Public Resources Code and California
court decisions , to make technical changes in environmental
impact reports generally.
`.Accordingly, this Board hereby makes a technical
A amendment to the EIR deleting the recommendation that a stop
sign be included at the intersection of the Project access road
. and Northgate Road, and substituting the following statement :
With the mitigation measures which are
imposed. upon this Project or incorporated
into this Project , the impact of the Project
upon traffic at the intersection of
Northgate Road and the Project access road
will be insignificant . Traffic volumes will
remain relatively low and sufficient gaps
will be available for turning movements,
particularly in light of the construction of
the left-hand turn lane .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
.this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific impact of the
Project upon traffic and transportation i,s not significant,
-£' because of the size. of the Project , the many mitigation
measures incorporated into the project, and the conclusions
stated in the Final EIR.
(b) The apparent recommendation in the
Response Document of ,the mitigation measure requiring a
redesign of the- Project to reduce Arbolado Road impact has been
incorporated into the Project, by the reduction in the size of
` the Project to 205 units .
24
(c) In the alternative, the apparent
mitigation measure recommended Project redesign to reduce
Arbolado Road impacts is substantially similar to the Project
Alternatives discussed in Section VI , below. The possible
reduction in the number of units is similar to Alternative B,
the modified residential plan providing for a maximum of
140-150 units on the Rancho Paraiso Site . The elimination of
the loop road is similar to Alternative C, the mixed-housing
development, which includes two long dead-end cul-de-sacs
running up each of the draws on the Rancho Paraiso Site. This
Board rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible and
undesirable, for the same reasons (and based upon the same
findings) that this Board rejects Alternatives B and C, as set
forth in detail in Section VI , below. In addition, this Board
rejects thismitigation measure as infeasible and undesirable,
because the elimination of a loop road would reduce the safety
and emergency access on the Project 'Site in case there is ever
an obstacle on one or the two Project access roads and because
redesigning the Project to reduce Arbolado Road impacts will
result in increased impacts on other roads which would be used
as access to the Project .
t (d) The impact of the Project upon the
intersection of Northgate Road and the Project access road will
be insignificant .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
the impact of the Project upon this intersection is not
insignificant', the recommendation of the three-way stop sign is
rejected as 'infeasible and undesirable because sufficient gaps
will be available for turning movements , the installation of a
stop sign will interfere with the smooth flow of traffic, and
other mitigation measures which are imposed as Conditions of
Approval , including the removal or trimming of shrubbery around
this intersection, will mitigate any impact of the Project to a
level of insignificance, thus eliminating the need for this
.. mitigation measure.
(f) Although the cumulative impacts of the
Project will be. mitigated ;.by the imposition of mitigation
measures recommended by the EIR and its relative impact is
small , this Project will have an unavoidable adverse impact in
contributing to cumulative traffic problems (See Section IV,
below) .
(g) To the extent that any of the impacts
of the Project relating to traffic and transportation are not
insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic , social , and other benefits to the
project override any such significant impacts , as more fully
25
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
D. ` Municipal Services - Water Supply.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts and benefits of the Project
relating to water supply, and the water supply requirements of
the Project, are discussed at pages 87-92 of the DEIR, as
revised at pages 82 , 92 , and 112 of the Response Document . The
impacts of the Projectinclude the likely expansion of the
Contra Costa Water District ' s (the "Water District" ) sphere of
influence and district boundary after approval of this Project
to include that portion of the Project Site designated for
residential development , approval by the Water District of a
service district zone 4 to serve upper elevation residences ,
additional requirements for water to serve the homes within the
" proposed Northgate service area, and storage of water to meet
the Water District ' s standards as specified on page 91 of the
b.,. the
and page 112 of the Response Document . Through the
possible subsequent quent expansion of Water District boundaries , the
Project also may present to some nearby property owners who do
not now receive treated water the opportunity to obtain such
treated water .
.t
(b) The Project ' s impacts on the existing
water supply for the Cox and Devito properties is discussed on
page 92 of the DEIR, as modified at page 82 of the Response
Document . The Project could provide these properties with the
opportunity to receive treated potable water , but the DeVito
:. pond would be shut off from runoff from the northern draw on
the Rancho Paraiso site, and this runoff is described by
representatives of the DeVito ranch as the pond ' s primary water
source. The Applicant contends that DeVito has no right to a
continued flow of this surface water . The DeVito pond is part
of an easement in favor of=• Rancho Paraiso . This pond would
continue to 'receive water "from the District Canal unless the
' existing agreement between the District and Rancho Paraiso was
' terminated, or the agreement between Rancho Paraiso and DeVito
was terminated.
(c) The Project has been modified to
include a road which parallels the eastern boundary of the
DeVito Property. Pursuant to the Rancho Paraiso Development
plans and the Conditions of Approval , this road will include
storm drains and the Applicant will .be required to collect and
convey waters which would otherwise flow across this road.
These changes to the Project will prevent runoff from the
Rancho Paraiso Site which. may contain contaminants from
reaching the DeVito Property and the DeVito Pond.
26
(d) The cumulative impacts of the Project
are described on rage 92 of the Response Document . The Water
District has indicated that it is able to serve the water needs
of the Project Site subject to mitigation measures recommended
in the Final EIR, and that the District has substantial excess
capacity at the current time . Together with the Project , other
ongoing development within the Water District service area will
cumulatively impact both the capacity of the existing water
delivery system and overall demand for water supply, although
the Final EIR states on page 92 of the Response Document that
the cumulative impacts of this Project on water supply are
insignificant .
(e) The DEIR recommends on page 92 four
mitigation measures to insure adequate water supply to the
Project Site. One of these mitigation measures was modified on
page 82-83 of the Response Document " These mitigation measures
include the Water District annexation of developed portions of
the Project Site, approval of pressure zones 3 and 4 ,
construction of a water storage and distribution system, and a
:. new agreement between the Applicant , the Water District , Cox,
and DeVito .
x-;
(f) On page 92 of the Response Document,
the Final EIR recommends measures to reduce the cumulative
impact of the Project upon water supply. These measures are
not required to reduce this impact to a level of
` insignificance, based upon the Final EIR' s prior conclusion
that the cumul'ative impacts of this Project upon water supply
a.-are insignificant . The three recommended mitigation measures ,
which were
, proposed by the Applicant but which were not
originally a part of the Project , are compliance with all Water
District standards , conservation in landscaping and irrigation,
.and other conservation techniques .
(g) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
need for additional publi& services , including water supply,
;, will be increased. as a result of the Project . No other impacts
relating to water supply are listed as unavoidable .
(h) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
reduced to a total of 205 units, and this reduction will reduce
the demand for water to service the Rancho Paraiso homes .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) The Conditions of Approval for this
project require irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by
the zoning administrator , conservation practices in landscaping
and irrigation, and an educational pamphlet to homeowners
regarding conservation practices . In addition, the Conditions
27
of Approval require the applicant to comply with the provisions ,
of the Contra Costa County ordinance relating to water
conservation, and require review of the plans for the water
.. reservoir facility by the Zoning.: Administrator . The Conditions
of Approval also require the Applicant, subject to Zoning
Administrator review and approval , to arrange a new legal
agreement regarding pumped water for the DeVito pond. If an
agreement between the Applicant , the Water District, Cox, and
Devito is not reached, that physical provisions shall be made
to make treated water available to the Devito property. In
..addition, the Conditions of Approval require the Applicant to
demonstrate that the Project ' s storm drainage system will
adequately protect the DeVito pond against adverse water
quality impacts .
(b) The approval by the Water District and
LAFCO of the annexation of developed portions of the Project
Site to :=the Water District, the expansion of the Water
District ' s sphere of influence, the approval by the Water
, . District of pressure zones 3 and 4 , and the compliance of
project designs with Water District and Fire District flow
. standards are included as Conditions of Approval .
(c) In the alternative, the mitigation
: measures referenced in paragraph (b) above are within the
;. responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, the
Water District and LAFCO, and not this Board. Specifically,
the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission and
the Water District must issue these approvals , the Water
District must determine compliance of the water storage and
distribution system with its standards, and the Contra Costa
Consolidated Fire District must determine the compliance of the
water storage and distribution system with its standards . The
negotiation and execution of a new agreement including the
Water District is subject to the Water District ' s approval .
:.. Normally, the various Water District approvals would be
obtained after approval by this Board of this Project . These
mitigation measures can and should be adopted by these other
agencies .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
-'. this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The cumulative impact of the Project
upon water supply is not significant, because the Contra Costa
Water District has the capacity to serve the Project and the
District currently has substantial excess capacity.
(b) The Project-specific impacts of the
Project upon water supply are mitigated to a level of
28
insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended by the EIR, which mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Project or
can be adopted by the Water District , based upon the Final
EIR' s conclusion that these mitigation measures are required to
provide adequate water service to the Project .
(c) This Board has imposed a Condition of
Approval requiring the Applicant to :.obtain a new legal
agreement acceptable to the Applicant , the Water District, Cox,
and DeVito regarding continued maintenance of the current water
pumping arrangement , subject to Zoning Administrator review and
approval . If no agreement can be reached, then physical
provision should be made to make treated water available. This
Condition of Approval is substantially similar to mitigation
measure number (4 ) proposed on page -92 of the Draft EIR.
(d) In the alternative, if the Condition of
Approval mentioned above is not substantially similar to
mitigation measure (4) , then proposed mitigation measure (4) is
wholly or partly infeasible and undesirable. Although this
Board can impose appropriate conditions of approval on the
Applicant, this Board cannot compel the Water District or any
private party to enter into such an agreement . The recommended
mitigation measure may be impossible to achieve, depending as
it does on the conduct of parties not subject to this Board' s
Condition of Approval . The recommended mitigation measure is
:rejected as infeasible and undesirable, although this Board has
: _adopted a Condition of. Approval which implements this
r recommended mitigation measure to the maximum extent possible .
(e) The additional Condition of Approval
adopted by this Board relating to compliance with the water
,.; conservation ordinance and design of the reservoirs is not
required as a mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA, although
this Condition of Approval will further mitigate the water
supply impacts of this Project .
(f) The various approvals and actions of
the Water District, LAFCO, . and the Fire District, and
=, compliance with the standards of the Water District and the
Fire District, are incorporated into this Project as Conditions
of Approval .
(g) In the alternative, the various
approvals and actions of the Water District , LAFCO, and the
Fire District as summarized above are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not this Board.
The mitigation measures and changes in the Project which are
summarized above can and should be adopted by these other
agencies .
29
(h) The impacts of the Project upon water
supply are further mitigated by the reduction in the Rancho
Paraiso Development to 205 units .
(i) Although this project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in creating a need for public
services , including water supply, the Project-specific and
cumulative impacts of this Project are either insignificant or
have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the adopted mitigation measures , other conditions
of approval , and project modifications .
(j ) In
n the alternative, to the extent that
any of the water supply impacts of,'the Project are not
insignificant `or reduced to a level or insignificance by the
imposition of mitigation measures , despite the conclusions of
' ' the Final EIR, the environmental , economic, social , and other
benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such
significant-impacts, as- more fully stated in the Statement of
. overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
E. Municipal Services - Sewer .
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project upon sewer
services are discussed at pages 92-95 of the DEIR, and at
pages 88 and 93 of the Response Document . The Project would
,, require expansion of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary
,. District ( "Sanitary District" ) boundary and sphere of influence
to include developed portions of the Project Site, and together
with other developments, would require additional collection
and treatment capacity and additional energy for treatment .
The Sanitary District has indicated that a number of design
u. requirements, set forth on page 94 of the DEIR, would apply to
the Project .
(b) On page 93 of the Response Document,
... the Final EIR states that nearby lines currently have
sufficient capacity to service the Project Site, although
certain offsite.- improvements may be necessary. On that basis
the Final EIR concludes that Project impacts on sewage
"', collection facilities are considered insignificant, both on an
individual , or Project-specific, basis and on a cumulative
basis.
(c) The Final EIR recommends four
mitigation measures to insure adequate sewer supply for the
Project Site, as set forth on page 95 of the DEIR and on
page 88 of the Response Document . These mitigation measures
include annexation of developed portions of the Project Site, a
30
study to determine capacity of the local collection system
' between the Project Site and the 10- inch sewer mains located
along Oak Grove Road, design and construction of the gravity
flow system, and compliance with the Sanitary District design
standard as a Condition of Approval to the final map.
(d) On page 64 of the Response Document, in
response to a comment from the City of Walnut Creek, the Final
EIR states that the capacity study referenced in paragraph ( ii)
would be required to be completed by the Sanitary District
prior to final map submittal for County approval .
(e) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
need for additional public services , including sewer treatment ,
will be increased as a result of the Project . This impact of
the project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project . (See Section V, below) . No
other -impacts relating to sewer service are listed as
unavoidable.
(f) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
reduced to a total of 205 units .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) Annexation of developed portions of the
Project Site to the Sanitary District is required as an
Condition of Approval prior to recordation of the Final
Subdivision Map.
(b) , The capacity study, the design and
construction of the gravity-flow systems to be responsive to
geologic conditions and potential slide and erosion hazards on
the project site, and compliance with Sanitary District design
standards have been included as Conditions of Approval . The
Sanitary District has the authority to require any changes or
.... mitigation measures which may be required as a result of the
4. capacity study, and this is included as a Condition of Approval .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) Impacts of this Project relating to the
provision of adequate sewer service to the Project are
insignificant . To the extent any such impacts are significant ,
they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final
EIR, which. mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Conditions of Approval for the Project or should be adopted by
31
the Sanitary District, based upon the Final EIR conclusions
that these mitigation measures are required to provide. adequate
sewer service to the Project Site .
(b) The impacts of this Project relating to
sewer service are further mitigated by the reduction in the
number of units to be developed.
(c) The annexation of developed portions of
the Project Site, the capacity study, the design and
:' construction of the gravity flow system, and compliance with
Sanitary District standards are included as Conditions of
;' Approval .to this Project .
(d) In the alternative, the annexation of
developed portions of the Project Site, the capacity study, the
design and construction of the gravity-flow system, and
compliance with Sanitary District standards are changes or
alterations which are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency, namely the Sanitary
District, and not this Board. The recommended changes and
', mitigation measures can and should be adopted by the Sanitary
District . To the extent that any changes may be required as a
"` result of the recommended capacity study which. will be required
' ;by the Sanitary District, the District has the authority to
require those changes prior to annexation of any part of the
.. Project Site . This annexation is a condition to final map
... Project
so the Project will not be developed unless any
mitigation recommended by the capacity study is completed.
5'
' (e) The remaining Project-specific and
+ cumulative impacts of the project upon sewer services are not
significant , because sufficient collection capacity to service
the Project Site exists in nearby lines .
(f) Although this Project will have an
;unavoidable adverse impact':in creating a need for public
services, including sewer services , the Project-specific and
cumulative impacts of this Project are either insignificant or
'. have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the' adopted -mitigation measures, other conditions
of approval , and project modifications .
(g) � In. the alternative, to the extent that
any of the sewer related impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
. Project override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
32
F. Municipal Services - Fire.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of Project on fire services
are discussed on pages 95-97 of the DEIR, and on pages 64 , 111
and 117 of the Response Document . The Project includes several
fire service benefits , including new facilities and hydrants
and better emergency access to open space areas . The Project
would require the construction of water storage facilities to
serve fire flow requirements, could increase the likelihood of
grass fires resulting from the introduction of housing units
and related increases in human activity in the grassland hill
sides , and would remove all or most grazing activity from the
project site, thus eliminating related fuel management benefits
and increasing the potential for hil,lside fires .
(b) The DEIR states that the overall level
of fire protection service within the district could be
' expected to decline based on additional demand for fire
services . Page 111 of the Response Document states that the
overall quality of fire protection service may actually improve
as a result of the Project because better roads and access for
; fire vehicles will be developed, improved access into the open
space areas will be provided, new water facilities and fire
hydrants are planned, fire hydrants and increased water
pressure will be provided in existing homes where facilities
are currently inadequate, and the introduction of fire
` management to the Project Site through landscaping irrigation
and architectural means will reduce the potential for
uncontrolled spread of fire in existing grasslands and
vegetation, thereby protecting the neighborhood from wild fires
(see comment 29 . 9) .
(c) The Final EIR proposes mitigation
measures to mitigate the identified impacts relating to fire
service. These include a ;'prorated fee, access gates and fire
roads to open space areas , plans for weed, grass and brush
control ; completion of the fire station at 3155 Walnut,
compliance with Fire District standards, and fire retardant
"roof materials .
(d) The Response Document notes on page 64
in response to Comment 17 :36 that cattle grazing around the
periphery of the open space areas could be required by the
county as a Condition of Approval , although this would
necessitate a change in the management plans of the open space
management plans of the Applicant, and may also be inconsistent
with vegetation and wildlife mitigation measures currently
being negotiated between the applicant and the Department of
Fish and Game.
33
(e) The Draft EIR states that the Project
will result`'in a need for additional public services , including
fire fighting services . This impact of the Project is listed
as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project . No other fire-related impact is listed as unavoidable.
(f) The DEIR states on page 96 that the
listed mitigation measures "would mitigate" the identified
impacts of the Project related to fire service.
2 . Mitigation.
`i
(a) The Conditions of Approval provide for
emergency access to` the open space areas of the Project Site.
The Conditions of Approval specify that perpetual easements for
emergency access shall be granted, emergency access shall tie
into existing fire trails , and access gates shall be at least
16 feet wide. The Conditions of Approval also include measures
,:. to control and abate hazardous weeds , including disked fire
:. breaks or greenbelt planting, and the use of fire retardant
roof materials .
i (b) The fee for additional fire service
:;_: resources is required to be paid pursuant to County ordinance .
.:The advisory notes to the Conditions of Approval specify that
,,: the fee for additional fire service must be paid.
(c) The completion of the fire station is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Consolidated
. Fire District, and that fire station is currently being
- constructed.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) With the imposition of the recommended
..mitigation measures, the` Project-specific and cumulative
1v?`impacts of . the Project upon fire services are not significant ,
„ based in part upon the DEIR' s conclusion that the recommended
mitigation measures would. mitigate the identified fire service
impact potentials .
(b) With respect to Comment 17 . 36 on
'page 64 of the Response Document, it is not necessary to modify
the Applicant ' s open space management plans to include cattle
grazing for fire abatement . The mitigation measure recommended
on page 96 of the DEIR calls for weed and brush control and
abatement plans, and states that "such plans may include disked
-fire brakes, cattle grazing and/or greenbelt planting. " The
34
' recommended .mitigation measure lists cattle grazing as one of
several alternative provisions which may be included i :i this
plan, and the use of cattle grazing as part of the plan is not
required in order to comply with this mitigation measure .
(c) The completion of the fire station at
3155 Walnut is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
the Fire District and not this Board. The Fire District is
proceeding with that construction, and this Board finds that
the construction of that -fire station as a mitigation measure
has been adopted by the Fire District .
(d) Although the Project will have an
unavoidable adverse impact in creating a need for additional
public services , including fire fighting services, the other
Project-specific and cumulative impacts are either
insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the fire service impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
. environmental , economic , social , and other benefits of the
project outweigh and override any such significant impacts, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
G. Municipal Services - Schools .
1 . Facts .
(a) As discussed on pages 97-98 of the
DEIR, as revised at page 112 of the Response Document, the
Project would result in added enrollment in the Mt . Diablo
School District . This impact may be short-lived due to an
overall .;decline in public school enrollment in the area
,,: combined with the fact that little developable land remains
near the impacted school .,...
(b) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
Project will result in a need for additional public services,
including schools . This impact of the Project is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible significant adverse impact of the
Project . No other impact relating to schools is listed as
unavoidable.
(c) The DEIR recommends three mitigation
measures for the projected impacts relating to schools . These
measures include erecting a temporary or portable classroom at
35
the Walnut Acres Elementary School site, or alternatively
reopening the Castle Rock Elementary School . In addition, the
recommended mitigation measures include payment of the school
ti
district impact fee pursuant to state law.
(d) A number of speakers at the public
hearings on the Project stated that the addition of new
students in an area of declining enrollment is a benefit of the
Project .
(e) The DEIR states on page 192 that this
., Project will increase demand for public services ,' including
schools . This impact is listed as an unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project . No other impact
relating to schools is listed as unavoidable.
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) The payment of the school impact fee is
required pursuant to the policies of the County and the
Mt . Diablo School District, and is not listed as a Condition of
Approval on that basis .
}' (b) The erection of temporary or portable
4'.
classrooms at the Walnut Acres Elementary school site, or the
alternative re-opening of the Castlerock Elementary School , is
within the jurisdiction of the Mt . Diablo School District , and
is not within the jurisdiction of this Board. The school
impact fees referenced above will help fund either of these
measures .
(c) Sections 65995 and 65996 of the
California Government Code limit this Board' s ability to impose
. mitigation measures relating to schools .
3 . Findings .
' Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
.- this Board, .this Board finds that :
t: (a) By operation of County and School
District ordinances and policies, the payment of school impact
fees is incorporated into this Project , and the Applicant will
pay the required school impact fee as and when required by
these ordinances and policies .
(b) Pursuant to state law, this Board may
not impose school mitigation measures beyond requiring payment
of appropriate impact fees . The construction of temporary
classrooms or the re-opening of a school are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Mt . Diablo School
36
District, and one of those alternative measures can and should
be implemented by the District . The impact fees to be paid as
part of this Project may, depending on School District
decisions, facilitate either of these two alternative measures .
(c) Although this Project will have an
unavoidable impact in creating a need for public services ,
including schools, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts
of this Project relating to schools are either insignificant or
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the adopted mitigation measures , other conditions
. . of approval , and project modifications .
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the school related impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or reduced or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the economic, social , and other benefits of the
Project,. outweigh and override any such significant impacts, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(e) The addition of new school students in
an area which has been subject to declining enrollment is a
benefit of the Project .
H . Municipal Services - Police Services .
1 . Facts .
(a) As discussed on pages 98-99 of the
DEIR, the addition of more population to the area pursuant to
development of this Project may result in approximately
764 additional police calls annually. This represents an
increase of approximately 15-17% in the number of calls in the
Beat 11 , which serves the Project Site. This increase may
require additional manpower to maintain adequate service, and
the Project alone may warrant the addition of another officer .
This increase may be offset by the shrinking of the Beat 11
area due to annexations . This impact of the Project may also
s- be reduced by -the limitation that no more than 205 units shall
be built .
(b) As a mitigation measure, the DEIR
states on page 99 that this Project would generate higher taxes
per dwelling unit than most homes in this vicinity due to their
expected higher than average taxable value. These property
taxes support the County' s general fund, which in turn funds
the services provided by the Sheriff ' s Department .
(c) The DEIR on page 192 states that the
Project will result in a need for additional public services,
37
including police services . This impact is listed as an
unavoidable'and irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(d) The Response Document states on
page 117 that police response time to the Project site could be
longer than County averages , This impact of the Project is
listed as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project . other than the two foregoing impacts , no police
service impact is listed as unavoidable.
2 . Mitigation.
(a) The mitigation set forth in the DEIR,
the generation of higher property taxes per dwelling unit in
the Project; is an inherent aspect of the Project, and is not
required to be adopted as an Condition of Approval by this
Board.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that:
(a) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in creating additional demand for
public services, including police services, and in that police
response times to the Project sites could be longer than the
County averages , the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of
. this Project relating ,to police services are either
'", insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
`x, measures , other conditions of approval , and project
. modifications .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the police service impacts of this Project are not
insignificant- or mitigatedto insignificance, the
environmental , economic., social, and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts , as
more fully stated in the Statement of overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
I . Municipal Services - Parks .
1 . Facts . '
(a) As discussed on page 99-101 of the
, DEIR, the project would theoretically generate the need for
approximately 1 .31 acres of community park and 2 . 19 acres of
neighborhood park. Also, the County park dedication ordinance
would require that the project dedicate 2 . 1 acres of land for
38
parks or contribute in lieu fees for the purchase of land or
other facility improvements .
(b) The DEIR sets forth mitigation measures
relating to parks , including dedication of open space, payment
of in-lieu fees , a possible agreement between the County and
Walnut Creek to the transfer of some portion of those in-lieu
fees, and possible park facilities onsite.
(c) The DEIR states on page 192 the Project
will result in a need for additional public services , including
park and recreation facilities . This impact is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project . No
other impacts relating to parks are listed as unavoidable .
(d) The General Plan Amendment includes the
designation of a trail in the Recreation Element . This trail
will connect Lime Ridge with Northgate Road. As shown in the
General Plan staff report, this trail follows the western
boundary of the Project Site.
(e) CEQA Guideline 15092(c) limits the
ability to this Board to reduce the number of housing units as
a mitigation measure .
2 . Mitigation.
(a) The following mitigation measures
,,recommended or discussed in the DEIR are either incorporated
'' into the Project plans submitted by the Applicant , or will be
;required as a matter of course pursuant to existing County
. ordinances which apply to the Project :
( i) The Applicant will be required to
offer open space areas contiguous to the City of Walnut Creek
for dedication to the City; If the City does not accept this
` offer , the future development rights for these areas must be
deeded to the County.
{Y.
( i i) ',, The payment of in-lieu fees
'consistent with the County parkland dedication ordinance.
(b) The agreement between the County and
the City of Walnut Creek regarding in lieu fees has been
incorporated into this Project . In approving the Approvals,
this Board stated that in lieu fees to be paid to the County
will be reserved for use in developing Arbolado Park, as
requested by the City of Walnut Creek.
(c) Although the development plan does not
include public park facilities onsite, the development plan for
39
the Project does include substantial open space, and the
Project design -near Arbolado Park has been modified to provide
for trail linkages between Arbolado'Park, the Project Site' s
peripheral open space area, and the Lime Ridge Recreation
Area. This Project now provides for an access corridor at
least 150 feet wide.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
t
(a) The designation of a trail connecting
Lime Ridge and Northgate Road and the preservation of at least
112 acres of open space without cost to the County or to the
City of Walnut Creek are benefits of this Project .
(b) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable'- adverse impact in creating a need for additional
.. public services , including park and recreation facilities, the
Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project are
J'Ll.' either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
.'-- measures , other conditions of approval , and project
_ modifications.
A:
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
,. any of the park and recreation impacts of this Project are not
;, insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
*. environmental , economic , social , and other benefits of this
,,. Project overrdde any 'such significant impacts, as more fully
%- stated in"the Statement of Overriding Considerations
- (Section V,. below) .
0 (d) The equestrian and hiking trail
. facilities to be located on the Rancho Paraiso Site, and the
preservation of the entire south knoll as permanent open space,
are substantially equivalent to the proposed development of
park facilities on that Site, and that proposed mitigation
,measure is thus incorporated into the Project In the
i�. alternative., tothe' extent. that this mitigation measure is not
,,:,equivalent to the facilities incorporated into the Project,
Board rejectsthismitigation measure as infeasible and
undesirable. The specific-. economic, social and other
considerations which makethismeasure infeasible are: ( i) the
planned development of Arbolado Park immediately adjacent, such
that there would be a duplication of park facilities;
(ii) Arbolado Park is publicly owned and can be developed as a
.,,park at substantially less cost; ( iii) park facilities on the
Rancho Paraiso Site would reduce either the space available for
.open space or the space available for homes; ( iv) a reduction
40
in the number of homes would reduce the benefits of the Project
as listed in Section V, below; (v) this Board cannot reduce the
number of homes to provide for park facilities if other
feasible mitigation measures will provide a comparable level of
mitigation; and (vi) the preservation of the south knoll as
open space, the development of equestrian and hiking trails on
the Rancho Paraiso Site, the provision of other open space
areas on the Rancho Paraiso Site, and the other Conditions of
Approval relating to open space and trails are specific,
feasible mitigation measures which provide a comparable level
of mitigation to the location of park facilities on the site.
J. Geology And Grading.
1 . Facts .
(a) The geology and grading impacts of the
Project are described on pages 103-127 of the DEIR, and in
various points within the Response Document .
(b) Approximately 150 acres of the 210-acre
Rancho Paraiso Site are to be graded. The purpose of the
grading program is to provide maximum graded slopes of 3 . 1 ,
allowing contouring of the hillsides to a gentle, natural form,
stockpiling and replacing topsoil , seeding natural grasses and
wildflowers that are no longer present as a result of
overgrazing on the Project Site, and reclamation of open space
to its natural , ecological progression, as stated on page 107
of the Response Document . As stated on page 121 of the DEIR,
,.... the proposed grading concept conforms with the grading concept
recommended for the Project Site by the County' s Senior
' Planning Geologist . The County' s Planning Geologist has stated
that the grading concept represents a fair balance between the
need for site stabilization as opposed to the need to minimize
the visual , hydrological , and land use impacts of the Project .
(c) As stated on page 104 of the Response
..., Document, the grading concept may conform with the intent of
., the Safety Element of the County General Plan, and this Board
::.." must decide an interpretive issue regarding consistency with a
specific safety element policy which states that slopes over
26% are not suitable for types of development which require
extensive grading or other land disturbances . Portions of the
Project Site exceed. 26% and substantial portions of these areas
will be graded. As stated on pages 101 and 102 of the Response
Document, this policy was included in the County Safety Element
to address ordinary hillside residential development utilizing
a cut-and-fill pad grading approach, where increasing
cut-and-fill slopes in proximity to the structure increase
potential for slope instability. This Project does not utilize
the cut-and-fill pad grading approach which is the subject of
41
this element of the Safety Element . As stated on page 102 of
the Resp
- Document, the Project can be determined to be
;)nse*
consistent with the purpose and goals of the Safety Element and
the Geologic Hazard Element of the County General Plan. In
addition, many of the areas with slopes over 26% which will be
graded are being graded to repair slides, not specifically to
build homesites on those areas .
(d) The City of Walnut Creek Preservation
Ordinance sets forth the City' s intent to encourage alternative
approaches to conventional flatland practices of development in
hill areas and to minimize grading and cutting fill
operations . The use' of less grading and more adaptive
il, individual building designs would result in increased adverse
,; visual impacts , as opposed to the placement of level units on
'. the flat knoll and draw areas . As stated on page 91 of the
Response Document , this Project is not required to comply with
the General Plan ortheordinances or policies of ,the City of
. Walnut Creek. This Project is not located in the City of
:- Walnut Creek.
(e) The impacts of the Project relating to
0-
.; the slope stability, settlement, expansive soils, soil
...... nutritional values , surface fault rupture, earthquake shaking,
.b. and ground failure are discussed on pages 121-123 of the DEIR.
'er.
.4tMany of;.these impacts are common to local urbanization or
similar developments in the San Francisco Bay Area .
(f) The DEIR states on page 124 that this
Board must determine whether or not current General Plan
-
policies encouraging open space preservation of major scenic
,.....'ridges :and overly steep areas apply to the Rancho Paraiso Site,
'
,,,and whether or not the County geologist ' s conclusions that the
;Project ,grading concept represents a fair balance between site
--stability needs versus Project impacts outweighs General Plan
and safety element policies .
(g) The DEIR recommends a number of
...mitigation measures , relating to. grading and geology, including
-an alternatiVe ,single-family development concept which would
= incorporate home types. whibh might be considered more adaptive
.to the steep topography, which is similar to the one of the
,., Project alternatives analyzed in Section VI , below. Additional
mitigation measures recommended are conventional engineering
techniques to mitigate slope stability hazards, removal of
,slide debris and replacement withengineeredslopes, evaluating
the seismic stability of existing and proposed slopes prior to
issuing a grading permit, geotechnical supervision of grading,
.,inspection and approval of fill slopes, minimized irrigation of
lots and graded slopes, and an erosion control plan. The DEIR
also recommends minimizing soil expansion by proper foundation
42
and subgrade treatment , and engineered fill to perform
satisfactorily under earthquake or ground failure conditions .
(h) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would include extensive
grading, which would permanently alter natural landforms .
These impacts of the Project are listed as unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impacts . No other impacts of this Project
relating to geology and grading are listed as unavoidable in
the Final EIR.
(i) The Final EIR confirms on page 90 of
the 'Response Document that each impact which is identified in
the EIR as potentially significant and which is not listed as
"unavoidable" in the Final EIR can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by imposition of the.:..recommended mitigation
measures .
(j ) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
modified to eliminate development of home sites on the southern
knoll , resulting in a significant reduction in the area of the
site, to be graded, and the grading upon the south knoll , the
primary visualandnatural landscape feature on the Rancho
Paraiso Site. In addition, the modifications to the. Project
and the Conditions of Approval will result in a reduced amount
of grading overall on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Conditions of Approval for the Project include
tminimizing irrigation through the use of drought-tolerant
.. plants, a program to minimize erosion, compliance with
recommendations of the geologic reportssubmitted with the
;application, and revegetation of graded slopes . The Conditions
of Approval also include evaluation and monitoring of the
seismic stability of the slopes to be graded, removal of slide
debris, supervision of grading, proper foundation systems, the
surface fault ,setback zone, engineered fill , conservative
.'*grading practices , subdrains and other mitigation measures
::,recommended in the Final E.,I-R.
3 , Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in altering natural landforms on the
site and presenting a risk of earthquake shaking, the other
., Project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project are
either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
43
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
`. measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(b) To the extent that any of the grading-
and geology-related impacts of this Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social -and other benefits of this
Project override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(c) This Project is consistent with the
. .,`' Safety Element of the County General Plan, based upon the
stated purposes of the Safety Element . The grading of
potentially unstable portions of the site, including areas over
26% 'in slope for purposes of site stabilization, as opposed to
the utilization of cut-and-fill pads on such areas, conforms to
the Safety Element . This grading approach is designed to
contour hillsides to a gentle, natural form and accordingly
provides benefits which are not available from the typical
cut-and-fill grading which the Safety Element seeks to avoid.
(d) In response to the DEIR' s recommended
'.'"determinations as stated in Paragraph (f) , above, this Board
" finds that the General Plan policies apply to the Rancho
Paraiso Site: This Project is consistent with General Plan
- policies and provisions encouraging preservation of scenic
; ridges and overly steep acres because this Project will be
; developed on knolls not on scenic ridges, and because the area
:.to be developed is not overly steep, as stated above in this
Board' s finding regarding the safety element . The County
Geologist ' s conclusion that the Project grading concept is a
,. fair balance between site stability needs and Project impacts
does not "outweigh" •'any policies of the General Plan. The
Geologist ' s conclusion is part of the evidence on which this
Board bases-its findings .than the grading concept is
appropriate and 'is consistent with the County General Plan.
K..... 1 Drainage And Water Quality.
1 . Facts.
(a) The Project impacts relating to
drainage and water quality are discussed on pages 129-135 of
the DEIR. Site runoff and nearby creek water quality are
currently adversely affected by grazing activities and related
wastes from the Project Site . On-site runoff as a result of
development of the Project is not expected to exceed current
rates . Although the DeVito Pond is located on an easement for
'.:water supply in favor of Rancho Paraiso, the source of water
44
supply for the DeVito Pond would change, as runoff from the
northern draw would not be available to serve this pond.
Absent mitigation, exposed graded slopes could be susceptible
to erosion, and water quality could be affected by runoff
carrying debris and wastes from paved surfaces . Development of
the Project Site could temporarily increase sedimentation rates
during the construction period and alter existing drainage
patterns .
(b) The Final EIR recommends mitigation
measures, including compliance with Contra Costa County Flood
Control District (the "Flood Control District" ) criteria as a
Final Map Condition of Approval , determination of the timing of
"'' controlled release flows from detention basins, construction of
detention systems to withstand 100-year storms, and
demonstration that the Project storm drainage system will
adequately protect the DeVito Pond against water quality
impacts . The Final EIR also recommends a fair share
- contribution towards drainage improvements, an erosion control
plan, and maintenance of on-site detention facilities by either
'the County or a Project homeowners ' association.
(c) The Final EIR states on page 90 of the
Response Document that each impact which is identified in the
Final EIR as potentially significant and which is not listed as
unavoidable in the Final EIR has been determined to be capable
of mitigation to a point of insignificance by imposition of the
recommended mitigation measures . No impact of the Project
,'- relating to water quality or drainage is listed in the Final
EIR as unavoidable.
(d) The modifications to the Project
: include a road which parallels the eastern boundary of the
.' DeVito Ranch. At the request of the Public Works Department,
the Project was also modified to eliminate the detention basins
previously proposed by the,,.Applicant . In place of this aspect
of the Project as originaUly proposed by the Applicant , the
Conditions of Approval require the Applicant to collect and
convey drainage waters on .the site, require compliance with
Flood Control District�lStandards , ,and specify that . the District
may include other detention basins or expansion of downstream
pipes if the District determines that these items are
necessary. In addition, the Rancho Paraiso Development has
been reduced to 205 units .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
(a) The Conditions of Approval for this
Project include maintenance of by the homeowners ' association
pursuant to CC&Rs, an erosion control program, revegetation of
graded slopes, conveyance of all storm waters entering the
45
subject ' s property, mitigating storm runoff impact by
J, contributing a $60 , 000 drainage fee, preventing storm drainage '
from drainirng across the sidewalks and driveways, and
furnishing proof the Public Works Department of the acquisition
of any necessary rights for drainage improvements .
(b) The Conditions of Approval require the
Applicant to demonstrate how the Project storm drainage system
will adequately protect the DeVito Pond against adverse water
quality impacts , with protection measures to be incorporated
into the agreement regarding the source of water for this pond,
subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval . The
Conditions of Approval also require the Applicant to use its
best efforts to negotiate a new agreement for water pumping
between the Water District, Cox and DeVito, with the provision
r of treated water as an alternative if an agreement cannot be
reached. These mitigation measures are designed to protect the
.-quality and the 'availability of water to the DeVito Pond.
(c) The Conditions of Approval also include
construction of drainage improvements to meet Flood Control
District criteria.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to water quality and drainage
are either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(b) Without limiting the foregoing finding,
the requirement that the current pumping arrangement for the
DeVito Pond be negotiated Ior treated water be made available,
the requirement that the or
demonstrate how the Project
storm drainage system will protect this pond, the provision of
' a road across the eastern boundary of the DeVito property, and
the requirement that the .-Applicant collect and convey storm
waters will mitigate any Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of 'this Project relating to the DeVito Pond to a level
of insignficance. Since the Project has been modified to
eliminate detention basin's as a part of the Project, the
mitigation measures specifically relating to construction and
operation of detention basins are rejected as infeasible on the
basis that the basins are not part of. the Project .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the water quality- and drainage-related impacts of this
46
Project may not be insignificant or mitigated to
insignificance, the environmental , economic, social , and other
benefits of this Project override any such significant impacts,
as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
L. Vegetation And Wildlife.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project relating to
vegetation and wildlife are discussed on pages 137-146 of the
Draft EIR and at various points in the Response Document .
(b) The Project-specific impacts on overall
vegetative values in the Project area are expected to be
relatively minor . No pristine habitats or undisturbed natural
communities would be adversely affected, although one
potentially significant impact may be the loss of willows and
oaks .
(c) Although no highly significant riparian
vegetation or habitat would be destroyed, the Project grading
plan would result in a loss of physical riparian conditions .
(d) No sensitive or unusual plants would be
affected by the proposed development, and through enhancement
and management of the open space areas, including the
; re-introduction of native grasses proposed by the Applicant,
there may be some increase in the suitability of the open space
.':. areas for supporting some of the region' s sensitive plants .
(e) Although the Project may affect
wildlife on the Project Site, including the need to relocate a
colony of burrowing owls, beneficial impacts upon wildlife are
likely with the proposed addition of riparian trees and
semi-permanent water sources in the upper reaches of the
• northern draw. The planting of shrubs and trees may help
diversify the restored grassland community, and the reduction
of grazing may also contribute to wildlife improvements .
(f) A`fpreliminary agreement has been
: reached between the Applicant and the California Department of
Fish & Game to mitigate the loss of certain habitat by
preserving and enhancing several sites near the top of the two
draws on the Rancho Paraiso Site . The Applicant has
incorporated this agreement, and compliance with the final form
of this agreement, into the Project .
(g) The Final EIR recommends several
mitigation measures relating to wildlife and vegetation,
including compliance with the Department of Fish and Game
Agreement, utilization of native plants and landscaping,
47
planting native trees or shrubs in grassland areas , seeding. ..
with wildflowers species , reducing or eliminating grazing on
open space areas, and fencing along the backs of residential
lots . The Final EIR also recommends an - educational brochure
explaining open space values , a detailed landscape plan,
vegetation at the edges of Project development areas to
diversify the grassland community, and replacement burrows for
the burrowing owls, with this relocation program incorporated
into the Department of Fish and Game Agreement and in
consultation with a burrowing owls expert .
(h) On page 192 , the Draft EIR states that
'the Project would contribute to significant cumulative regional
fosses in natural vegetative values relating to oaks, buckeyes,
and the like. In addition, the Draft EIR states the Project
would permanently alter the natural landforms and reduce the
rural character of the Project Site. These impacts of the
Project are listed as unavoidable and irreversible adverse
impacts . No other impacts of the Project relating to
. vegetation 'and wildlife are listed as unavoidable.
( i) The Final EIR confirms on page 90 of
ia. the Response Document that each impact which is identified in
,,Jkthe EIR as potentially significant and which is not listed as
<,, "unavoidable" in the Final EIR can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures .
(j ) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
modified to reduce the number of home sites, to eliminate
development on the south knoll , and to restrict development on
3:•
the central knoll .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
(a) The agreement between the Applicant and
California Department of Fish and Game has been incorporated
into this Project, pursuant to the Applicant ' s negotiations
with the Department of Fish and Game.
(b) The Conditions of Approval for this
Project include a final landscape plan prior to issuance of
building permits . This final landscape plan shall include
details of any irrigation and fencing, the use of
drought-tolerant plants, .a pamphlet summarizing the advantages
of using drought-tolerant''plants and drip irrigation, the
` replacement burrows for owls , controls to limit weeds, planting
of the mitigation areas , the use of native trees and plants,
seeding of selected areas with native wildflower seeds,
reduction or elimination of grading, a pamphlet explaining open
space values, appropriate seeding or planting to mitigate
48
visual impacts, and landscape screening around the proposed
water tank,; .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
( a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to wildlife and vegetation are
either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
„ insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures , other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(b) Specifically,.,, this Project will not
unavoidably affect vegetative values (except for oaks, willows ,
and buckeyes) , and the impact on burrowing owls will be
mitigated by the required relocation of their burrows . The
required landscape plan and fulfillment of the Applicant ' s
a,. agreement with the Department of Fish and Game will also
. mitigate the Project ' s impact on wildlife and vegetation and
;;`' will provide a benefit to the Project Site. The elimination of
:,. grazing - on the site will also provide a benefit to the Project
Site.
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the impacts of this Project may not be insignificant or
.;. mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of this Project override
any such significant impacts, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) Specifically, the aforementioned
. benefits of the Project override the cumulative reduction in
vegetative values such as ..oaks, buckeyes, and willows .
M. Visual Factors .
1 . Facts . ;.a. .:
(a) Although the Project uses large lots
and setbacks to help reduce visual impacts , the Project would
have a noticeable impact on the visual character of the site
vicinity (DEIR, page 155) .. As structures would be introduced
to elevations of up 486 feet, the Project would change the
visual character of the area, introducing an urban land use
into a visually pristine, relatively barren hillside area which
can be seen from many locations, although the elevations of the
Project are significantly below Lime Ridge. The development
plans includes two water tanks which would be constructed below
grade .
49
(b) As discussed on pages 155-164 of the
DEIR ;and as shown by the visual simulations in the DEIR, the
' impact of the Project on the view from' various vantage points
surrounding the Project depends on the distance and
conditions . The view from Sutton Drive would be significantly
affected by the Project, the view from the Pheasant Run
Greenway would be affected very little, and the view from
' Indian Hill Drive would be significantly affected by the
Project . The panoramic view. from Oak Grove at Castle Rock
would be impacted by portions of the Project located on the
central knoll and in the southern draw (and would have been
`impacted by: the portions of the .Project located on the southern
( knoll) and the view from Northgate Road near the proposed entry
- could be significantly affected. The view from Northgate Road
:; near the park entrance would have been noticeably affected by
the original development proposal , as a portion of the
development proposed for the southern knoll would have been
clearly visible. The view from Arbolado Drive would be changed
from one of ',rural grassland in the northern draw to one of
intensive residential development . The view from Walnut Avenue
.. would not be. significantly affected by the proposed
? development . . The view from Castle Rock would be significantly
`t' affected, as homes at all locations on the site would be
.;:visible and development from this angle would appear to occupy
relatively large area . Views from the Lime Ridge Open Space
!Area would be significantly affected as homes located on all
Project development areas would be clearly visible, especially
`=- those on the central knoll and in the southern draw. The
Project would be visible from Dinosaur Park, although would
appear minuscule in relation to the larger ridges and mountains
`,: arising above it, `and the development would not be visible from
the Diablo Hills Country Club.
(c) The relationship to the Contra Costa
=County General Plan is discussed on page 163 of the DEIR and on
pages 99-100 of the Response Document, in addition to other
,comments in the Response Document . The DEIR states that the
- County General Plan open"' space designation was created to
preserve "scenic ridges which are highly visible from urban
areas" and.. that the open space portion of the Project plan is
.-not used toachieve this objective because it does not include
.':the north and south knoll in the Project open space area. The
Project area is designated by the County Open Space
Conservation Plan as being-'-partially an "Urban Growth Area" and
partially a "Major Open Space Area. " The General Plan notes
that the Urban Growth Area should include open space configured
to "preserve -major ridges for visual quality. "
(d) On page 100 of the Response Document,
in response to the Applicant ' s comment that the Project is
consistent with these General Plan provisions, the Final EIR
50
states that whether the development of the Project on the
northern, central aad southern knolls of the Project site is
consistent with these General Plan provisions is an
interpretive question. The Final EIR states that the General
Plan does not define "scenic ridges, '' and states that generally
a ridge can be defined as an elongated crest at the top of the
opposite slopes of a hill range . The Final EIR states that the
question requiring a discretionary determination by this Board
is how high in elevation residential development should be
allowed on the hill sites, and the Final EIR states that
Figure 1 provided by the Applicant (showing the relation of
Rancho Paraiso development up to 486 feet with Lime Ridge at an
elevation of 1 , 000 feet) should be considered by this Board in
making its determination.
(e) The Draft EIR states that the degree of
visual impact could be substantially reduced through the
adoption of three mitigation measures . The first mitigation
measure is a reduced development plan which locates home sites
in the lower flatter portions of the site and along the sides
hof the two major draws . This mitigation measure is described
as Alternative A in the description of Project Alternatives in
the Draft EIR. The second mitigation measure is the
requirement of substantial landscaping as a part of the
development plan, preferably with native tree species . The
third mitigation measure is landscape screening around the
proposed water tanks to screen those below-grade tanks from the
views from higher elevations on Lime Ridge.
(f) The DEIR states on page 164 that many
of the Project ' s visual impacts cannot be mitigated.
(g) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
. .Project would have a significant visual impact, and that
development would extend into the hillside backdrop of East
Walnut Creek. These impacts are listed as irreversible and
unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the Project .
(h) The: Rancho Paraiso development has been
modified by limiting. the number of homesites to 205, by
restricting development on`'the central knoll to areas eastward
of the 440-foot contour... line, and by eliminating the
development of homesites on the southern knoll entirely.
( i) This Board' s ability to reduce the
number of units to mitigate visual impacts is limited by CEQA
Guideline 15092(c) when other specific feasible mitigation
measures are available .
51
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) The first proposed mitigation measure
is listed on DEIR page 164 as identical to Project
.. Alternative A, although the proper reference may be to
Alternative B, the modified single-family schedule with reduced
grading and reduced development . This mitigation measure is
not adopted as a Condition of Approval to this Project . The
facts and findings concerning the Project Alternatives are set
forth in Section VI , below,. of these findings .
(b) Notwitstanding the foregoing, the
project ha's been modified to reduce the amount of grading,
eliminate the development of homesites on the southern knoll ,
and reduce the number of homesites on the central knoll . These
modifications to the Rancho Paraiso development will eliminate
adverse visual impacts relating to the south knoll , and will
mitigate visual impacts relating to the project as a whole and
development of the central knoll .
(c) The two other proposed mitigation
measures requiring substantial landscaping and requiring
landscape screening around the water tanks are adopted by this
Board as, Conditions of Approval to this Project . These
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Condition
' of Approval requiring approval of landscape plans by the County
Zoning Administrator .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The imposition of the adopted
,:mitigation measures discussed above will mitigate the visual
impacts of this Project, but will not mitigate those impacts to
. a level of insignificance,;, The Project will have,. a significant
visual impact .
(b) This Board finds that the elimination
of development on the southern knoll , restriction of
development on the central' knoll , and the reduction in overall
,.grading pursuant to the modifications in the Rancho Paraiso
development, together with .the reduction in the number of units
to 205, will mitigate the` visual impact of this project to the
same extent as the first proposed mitigation measure. These
modifications to the Project are specific feasible mitigation
measures which provide"a comparable measure of mitigation, and
accordingly the Board may not adopt this proposed mitigation
measure pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15092(c) . In addition, the
substantial mitigation which is provided by these Project
52
• modifications eliminates the need to adopt this recommended
mitigation measure .
(c) In the alternative, this Commission
rejects the first proposed mitigation measure and finds that
this mitigation measure is substantially identical to Project
Alternative B, the modified single-family development with
reduced grading and reduced development on the knolls on the
Project Site. This mitigation measure is rejected as
infeasible and less desirable than the Project , for the same
reasons , and based upon the same facts and findings , as the
Project Alternatives are rejected, as set forth in Section VI ,
below, of these findings .
. . (d) This Commission finds that this Project
is consistent with General Plan provisions for preservation of
scenic ridges , based upon the same facts and findings relating
to General Plan consistency as are set forth in Section III .A. ,
above. In particular , this Board finds that this Project is
located on knolls and hillside at the base of a scenic ridge,
but not on the scenic ridge itself .
'. (e) To the extent that the visual impacts
of this Project may not be insignificant or mitigated to a
level of insignificance, the environmental , economic , social
. and other benefits of this Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
N. Air Quality.
1 . Facts .
(a) The air quality impacts of the Project
are discussed on pages 171-174 of the DEIR. Air quality
impacts of the Project would result primarily from increases in
local traffic volumes . The carbon monoxide concentration for
peak-hour and eight-hour concentrations would be well below
accepted standards . Although the Project would contribute to
;.cumulative regional air pollution emissions by increasing the
number of motor vehicles in'.. the air basin, no air quality
standard would be exceeded as a result of Project development
nor would any standard be approached by emission levels . The
Final EIR states on page 94 of the Response Document that no
standard in the Bay Area Air Quality Plan is expected to be
exceeded as a result of the Project, so the Project is
considered to be consistent with this Plan.
(b) The DEIR states that residential uses
are generally not considered to a significant direct stationary
source of pollutant emissions . Such emissions from the Project
53
are not expected to produce significant adverse local or
regional affects .
(c) The construction of the Project would
result in dust emissions which would be noticeable at the
Pheasant Run subdivision and other adjacent land uses,
particularly during working hours and windy periods . Emissions
from gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment would
increase local pollutant concentrations slightly, but would not
be expected to result in any measurable increase in the
: frequency;of ambient air quality standard violations .
(d), The DEIR recommends mitigation measures
to reduce the impact of the Project upon air quality. First,
the DEIR states that mitigation measures recommended in the
transportation section are expected to reduce vehicular
emissions . These mitigation measures are discussed in
Section III .C, above, of these findings . The DEIR also
suggests that the Applicant should implement particulate
control measures during the construction period of the Project ,
such as sprinkling exposed portions of the site twice daily,
•:; scheduling major dust-generating activities for the early
gid: morning and other hours when wind velocities are low, and
:;• covering storage piles .
(e) The Final EIR states on page 90 of the
Response Document that each impact which is identified in the
Final EIR as potentially significant but which is not listed as
"unavoidable" in the Final EIR has been determined to be
capable of mitigation to a point of insignificance by
imposition of the' recommended mitigation measures . The listing
.: of unavoidable impacts on page 192 of the DEIR, as modified by
the listing of, certain unavoidable impacts in the Response
Document, does'not contain a listing of any air quality impact .
(f) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
modified by reducing the number of units to 205 .
2 . Mitigation measures .
4
4 (a) As> a Condition of Approval , the
.. Applicant will be required.,to develop, in conjunction with the
.,County Building Inspection Department, a program to minimize
erosion and dust resulting from the grading operations .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
,. this Board, this Board finds that :
54
(a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of the Project relating to ai : quality are not
significant or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures, and
will be further mitigated by the modifications in the Project .
In particular , the reduced amount of grading and the reduction
in the number of homesites will reduce the air quality impacts
of this Project .
(b) To the extent that any impact of the
Project might be significant despite the imposition of
mitigation measures , the economic, social and other benefits of
: the Project override any such significant impacts , as more
;fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
.(Section V, below) .
0. Noise .
1 . Facts .
(a) The noise-related impacts of the
,.; ' Project are discussed on pages 175-178 of the DEIR. These
;_; potential impacts include the compatibility of the proposed
residential uses on the Project Site with the anticipated noise
environment, the potential for Project-generated traffic noise
and the potential noise impacts on neighbors during
,vconstruction of the Project .
(b) The only potential future noise
compatibility problem will be the impact of intermittent
gunshot noise from the firing range on future residents of the
.'. Rancho Paraiso Project . The potential for adverse response to
, this noise could be minimized by notifying the prospective
buyers of the location of the firing range and the frequency of
its use.
(c) The analysis of noise resulting from
increases in traffic along streets serving the Project Site
indicates that noise levels would increase by one decibel or
}, less along all streets serving the Project Site except for
Arbolado Road and Northgate Road. On Arbolado Road, the
Community Noise Equivalent Level ( "CNEL" ) is calculated to
increase by two 'decibels as a result of the added traffic . An
increase in CNEL of less than two decibels is generally not
deductible and would not be expected to generate adverse
community response. The .CNEL along Northgate Road would
increase by about four decibels , but would remain below a CNEL
of 55 decibels . An increase of four decibels is noticeable,
but because the CNEL would remain below 55 decibels in outdoor
use areas, no significant adverse community impact is
anticipated.
55
(d) Noise during Project construction would
be generated by trucks travelling down Arbolado Road or
Northgate Road to and from the Project Site. This intermittent
.. noise from trucks would be noticeable and could interfere with
sleep if trucks passed during sleeping hours . Noise levels
generated by construction equipment on the Project Site would
be between 60 and 65 decibels, and such levels would not be
expected to interfere with normal outdoor or indoor activities .
..(e) The DEIR proposes two mitigation
measures relating to noise. First•, future residents of the
nearest Project home should be notified of the location of the
Walnut Creek firing range and the possibility that noise
generated by the use of the firing range could be audible on
the Project Site. Second, to minimize the impact of
construction truck traffic on the adjacent neighborhood,
i.construction truck movements should be limited to 8 a .m. to
5 p.m, on weekdays . The DEIR states that no mitigation
measures for traffic-generated noise impacts are required.
.- The Final EIR states at page 90 of the
Response Document that each impact which is identified in the
DEIR as potentially significant which is not listed as
unavoidable" in the Final EIR has been determined to be
'. capable, of mitigation to a point of insignificance by
imposition-. of the recommended mitigation measures . The list of
"unavoidable" impacts on page 192 of the DEIR, as modified by
the Response Document, does not contain a listing of:, any
P
unavoidable impact relating to noise .
(g) The Project has been modified by
limiting the number of homesites on the Rancho Paraiso
development to 205 .
2 . Mitigation measures .
..,(.a) In. approving this Project, the
."Commission has adopted as Conditions of Approval both of the
; mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR to reduce the
..%.,impacts of .the Project relating to noise. One of the
Y;-, Condi'tions of -Approval requires recorded notice to purchasers
of homes or lots that the site is adjacent to the Walnut Creek
..,,,. police. firing range and that some residents may experience
noise. Another Condition-,,of Approval requires that the
. transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to
weekdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. , a restriction
which goes beyond the recommended mitigation measure in the EIR.
56
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of the Project relating to traffic-generated noise are
not significant, based upon the conclusions in the Final EIR
and the statement that no mitigation measures for
traffic-generated impacts are required.
(b) The reduction in the number of units
for the Rancho Paraiso development to 205 will further reduce
the noise impacts of this Project .
(c) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of the Project relating to compatibility with the
.existing noise environment and construction noise impacts will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
the adopted mitigation measures , other conditions of approval ,
and project modifications, as described above.
5. (d) To the extent that any of the impacts
of the Project relating to noise may be significant
notwithstanding the imposition of mitigation measures and the
.,conclusions of the Final EIR as set forth above, the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
i Project override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
P. Archaeology.
1 . Facts .
( a) The DEIR indicates on page 179 that a
recent cultural resource study of the Project Site, including a
document search, determined that no recorded prehistoric or
4 historic archaeological sites listed with the California
: Archaeological Inventory ate. located on the Project Site. An
archaeological survey, specifically covering this site has not
been performed, the site is adjacent to or contains three
intermittent streams which might contain archaeological
deposits, and there may be" archaeological deposits associated
with the existing Rancho Paraiso ranch house on the Project
Site and its accessory structures . The DEIR concludes that ,
absent any mitigation measures , the grading required by the
Project, particularly the covering of the drainage channels,
could potentially disrupt or destroy one or more archaeological
sites on the Project Site, if any such archaeological sites
exist .
57
,(b) On page 179 , the DEIR recommends the
following two mitigation measures relating to the potential
impact of the Project on archaeological sites :
(i) An archival and field study of the
area by a qualified archaeologist to identify possible cultural
resources which should not be adversely impacted. If such
sites are identified, the Applicant should contract with the
archaeologist to conduct a more detailed examination of the
site.
(ii) If archaeological deposits are
. . encountered during Project grading or construction, work in the
immediate vicinity of the find will halt, and a qualified
archaeologist should be contracted to evaluate the finds .
Mitigating measures as they may or will be prescribed by the
archaeologist and,may or will be required by the County
following such evaluation should be undertaken prior to
resumption 'of 'construction activities .
(c) The Final EIR Response Document
confirms on page 90 that each potentially significant adverse
impact which is not listed as "unavoidable" in the Final EIR
has been determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of
insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures . 1, The impactsofthis Project upon archaeological
resources are not listed as "unavoidable" in the Final EIR.
(d) The Rancho Paraiso development has been
modified to reduce the amount of grading, and .to restrict
',' development on the central knoll, and to eliminate the
�� development of homesites on the- south knoll .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and upon the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that ;
(a) ' The foregoing two mitigation measures
.. have.. beenadopted and expanded by this, Board as part of the
Conditions ',of Approval referenced in 'Section I of these
findings . In particular , "this Board has adopted a single
Condition of Approval which incorporates both of these
. , mitigation measures and expands upon these mitigation measures
. by stating that any recommendations resulting from the
archaeological resource investigation may be made requirements
for development following review by the County Zoning
-, Administrator . With this addition, the County retains the full
authority to impose development requirements and future
Mitigation measures to protect any archaeological resources
,which may be revealed either by the archaeological resource
58
investigation.,:of the Project Site, or by the discovery of any
resources during construction, grading or excavation, ai.d the
director of Community Development retains the authority to stop
work in the area of any find, as stated in the aforesaid
Condition of Approval . Accordingly, the mitigation measures
suggested in the Final EIR, as adopted and expanded by this
Board as part of the Conditions of Approval , will completely
and fully mitigate any potentially significant Project impacts
relating to archaeological resources which may be discovered as
a result of the archaeological resource investigation or during
construction, grading or excavation.
(b) Considering the foregoing facts and the
adoption of the above-described mitigation measures as
Conditions of Approval , and other measures incorporated into
the Project, the impact of the Project upon archaeological
resources is insignificant or has been avoided, and therefore
does not constitute a significant adverse impact upon the
environment .
,. (c) The modifications to the Project ,
including the elimination of homesites on the south knoll , the
restriction of homesites on the central knoll , and the
v' reduction in grading, will reduce the potential impact of the
Project upon archeological resources by reducing the' area to be
graded and thus the area which may be affected by the Project .
(d) To the extent that any adverse impact
upon archaeological resources could be potentially significant,
the above-described mitigation measures which have been adopted
as Conditions of Approval , and other measures incorporated into
the Project , have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse impact
of the Project upon archaeological resources to a level of
insignificance.
.(d) To-the extent that any of the above
impacts upon archaeological resources are not mitigated to a
level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the
.. economic , social and other. benefits of the Project outweigh any
such impact, as ,more full'y:;;
Contra Costa, Sanitary District . The DEIR characterizes the
annexation to the 'Water District a:; having a "minor'.' potential
growth-inducing impact for two reasons : (a) the annexation
could result in the creation of a Northgate Assessment District
` which could have the capacity to serve up to 100 residential
development units in addition to the Project; and (b) the
expansion of service zone 4 could result in a reservoir on the
Rancho Paraiso property which could have unintentional excess
,_ capacity based on .conservative estimates of fire flow and
emergency demand, . which excess capacity could be used to serve
` potential future residential development on the Ginochio
- property if the Williamson Act contract on all or part of that
property is allowed to expire .
(b) Testimony in the record indicates that
this Project is an " in-fill" development adjacent to existing
developed areas . The Project as revised includes a substantial
natural barrier to additional development, and this Board
publicly stated that approval of this Project shall not be
considered a precedent for extending future development beyond
-! this Project Site and the existing adjacent developments .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The growth inducing impact of the
Project is,'. not a significant adverse impact on the environment
`; because development potential within the Northgate Assessment
'-District, if formed, will exist whether or not the annexations
=:occur; and the cumulative additional development capacity does
= not exceed 100 residential units . Future residential
'development of the Ginochio property is unlikely because of the
existing agricultural preserve contract, the expressed
intention of the current property owner, this Board' s stated
.intenti-ons that, the Ginochio land should remain in agricultural
, uses, and this Board' s statement that this Project shall not
.serve as precedent for further development byeond the area of
this Project and existing .development . The Project Site abuts
:':; property currently served°`by both the Contra Costa' Water
°District an& the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and
,-therefore the Project would not cause "leap frog" development .
k:
(b) Because these impacts are determined
not to constitute significant adverse impacts on the
environment, no mitigation measures or Conditions of Approval
. are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to the
impact of the Project on growth inducement .
60
(c') To the extent that any of the impacts
of the Project relating to growth inducement may be
significant , notwithstanding the conclusions of the Final EIR
as set forth above, the environmental , economic, social and
other benefits of the Project override any such significant
impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain
environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the Final EIR
which may be determined to be significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts of the Project .
A. Land Use.
The Final EIR confirms on page 90 of the Response
Document that each impact which is identified in the Final EIR
as potentially significant but which is not listed as
unavoidable has been determined to be capable of mitigation to
a point of insignificance by imposition of the mitigation
measures which are recommended in the Final EIR. Within the
evaluation of Project impacts relating to land use, a number of
potentially significant impacts are evaluated, but are not
. . listed as unavoidable within Section VI .B, and are thus
determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of
(' insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures . The findings relating to these impacts are contained
within Section III .A of these findings . In addition, the Final
.. EIR indicates four unavoidable impacts of the Project relating
to land use, each of which is discussed below.
1 . Reduction in the rural character of the
Project,, vicinity.
(a) Facts .
The DEIR states on page .192 that the rural character
of the Project vicinity would be substantially reduced as a
result of the Project, and this impact of the Project is listed
as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project . The impact of the Project on the area-wide land use
pattern is discussed in more detail on page 39 of the DEIR.
Also, on page 110 of the Response document, the Final EIR
states that project density and other design differences
between this Project and the Pheasant Run neighborhood do not
constitute a significant impact . The Project has been modified
to reduce the number of units and to preserve the south knoll .
61
(b) FZndings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) The reduction in the rural
character of the Project vicinity, while unavoidable, is not
significant . The Project is an in-fill development which will
primarily utilize existing services , and the differences in
character between this Project and the immediately adjacent
.developed area, the. Pheasant Run Subdivision, are
insignificant . The changes to the Project will reduce the
. impact of the Project on the rural character of the Project
;. vicinity, by preserving additional open space, by preserving
the southern,,knoll , and by reducing the number of units.
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this impact is otherwise significant, this impact is
mitigated to a level of insignificance by several features
which are a part of, or have been incorporated into, the
Project, including the transition between residential
development and open space which is provided by the Project ,
% the provision of. riding and hiking trails
pursuant to the
-;' Conditions of Approval , and the provision of notice to
., prospective home buyers regarding the impacts of riding. trails ,
hiking trails, and adjacent agricultural lands, so as to help
minimize conflicts which may develop between prospective home
buyers and adjacent agricultural uses .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite
.;.the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override this potentially significant adverse
impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
'Considerations (Section V;:>-: below) .
( iv) As discussed in Section VI , below,
.:"regarding alternatives to .the Project, the above-described
; impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
..Project identified in the``Final EIR, except under the
`. no-project alternative and:under the open space acquisition
alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
62
2 . Loss of agricultural land.
(a) Facts .
( i) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would result in the loss of
221 acres of land now in agricultural use, and this impact of
the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project .
( ii) This potential loss of 221 acres
is based on the assumption that the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso
Site the 10-acre Devito property, both of which are currently
in• agricultural or open space uses, would be developed. The
remaining 3-acre Cox parcel is. already used as a residence . It
appears that the actual potential loss may be 220 acres, the
sum of the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso Site and the 10-acre DeVito
property.
( iii) The impact of the Project on
` agricultural uses on the Project Site is discussed in further
,,.,, . detail on pages 38 and 39 of the Draft EIR, and also on page 42
of the Draft EIR, where the EIR notes that the Project would
"' contribute to the cumulative decline in the County rangeland
inventory which has been occurring in recent years . - Also, the
equestrian operation on the Rancho Paraiso property, although
more appropriately categorized as a recreational rather than an
agricultural facility, would be required to find the comparable
location elsewhere or cease operation.
( iv) The Rezoning, Final Development
Plan, and Subdivision apply only to the Rancho Paraiso Site .
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board fiiTds that :
( i) ., The actual loss of agricultural
..,. land pursuant to the General Plan Amendment,. if both Rancho
Paraiso and the DeVito property are ultimately developed, will
be 220 acres, not 221 acres . As the Rezoning, Final
Development Plan, and Subdivision apply only to the Rancho
Paraiso Site, the immediate loss of agricultural land pursuant
to this Project will be 210 acres , with a potential additional
loss of 10 acres if the owners of the DeVito Ranch decide to
develop residential units on their property.
( ii) The loss of agricultural land
which may result from this Project, while unavoidable, is not
significant . The Rancho Paraiso site has provided grazing for
63
40 to 50 head of cattle, while there were 29, 000 of cattle in
the County in 1937 . The Rancho Paraiso facility is a marginal
agricultural use, and the design of the Rancho Paraiso
Development and the Conditions of Approval will avoid any
adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties . The
agricultural use has also contributed through overgrazing to
environmental damage to the Project Site, and the Project would
restore some of the damaged vegetative values and habitat .
( iii) In .the' alternative, to the extent
that the loss of agricultural land is a significant impact,
that impact has been avoided by the mitigation measures which
have been adopted as Conditions of Approval or incorporated
into this Project .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
' that this impact of the project is not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, this impact would be an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the EIR, based in
part on the marginal nature of the Rancho Paraiso site as
G agricultural land. To the extent that this impact of the
Project is not insignificant or mitigated to a level of
insignificance' the environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of this Project override this significant impact, as
' more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(v) As discussed in Section VI , below,
`' regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, to the extent that the open space
acquisition alternative would allow agricultural uses to
continue, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
To the extent that this
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project is
not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the
mitigation measures and conditions of approval described
herein, the environmental,;I. economic , social and other benefits
. of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
64
3 . Loss of open space.
(a) Facts .
( i) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would result in the loss of
113 acres of open space, and this impact of the Project is
listed as an unavoidable and irreversible significant adverse
impact of the Project . The DEIR states on page 38 that
112 acres of the Project Site would be retained as permanent
open space.
( ii) The Response Document on page 109
states that this open space will be located around the
perimeter of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and on portions of the
central and southern knoll . These open space areas are all
within the Rancho Paraiso Site.
( iii) The overall Project Site consists
of 223 acres, and over 112 acres of the Rancho Paraiso Site
Will be preserved as open space. The modifications to the
.., Project, including the preservation of the south knoll , will
increase the amount of open space on the Site, and will result
4"in the preservation of open space as a more complete. whole,
which is less fragmented than the open space originally
, proposed.
( iv) The Rezoning, Final Development
Plan and- Subdivision apply only to the Rancho Paraiso Site.
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
M Because the overall Project Site
is 223 acres, and over 112i�acres of open space will be
preserved, the actual potential loss of open space pursuant to
the General Plan Amendment will be, at most, 111 acres . As the
other Approvals apply only .to the 210—acre ,Rancho Paraiso Site,
and 112 acres of that site will remain in open space, the
immediate loss of open space as a result of the Project will
be approximately 98 acres, , with a potential additional loss of
13 acres if the owners of the DeVito and Cox properties decide
to develop residential units on their properties .
( ii) The loss of open space as a result
of this Project, while unavoidable, is not significant , over
50% of the Project Site will remain in open space, the Project
is adjacent to substantial public open space areas, and the
Project is designed as a transition between adjacent
65
residential development and these open space areas . The
!,., remaining open space will also be improved as a result of this
Project by elimination of grazing, improved trail access,
revegetation, and improved emergency access . The Project also
includes the preservation of the south knoll , the most visible
and significant open space area on the Project Site. This
change from the original proposal substantially reduces the
impact of the Project upon open space.
( iii) In the''alternative, to the extent
;:: that this impact of the Project is potentially significant,
. this impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
several features which are part of , or which have been
incorporated into,-- the Project . These features include the
dedication of 112 acres of the Project as permanent open space
without the expenditure of public funds to acquire that portion
of the Project Site;. the requirement that covenants , conditions
and restrictions for the homeowners association provide for the
maintenance -of common open space areas pursuant to the
{, Conditions of Approval ; deeding of future development rights
; for all common areas to the County pursuant to the Conditions
' of Approval; the offering of open space parcels contiguous to
the City .of Walnut Creek for dedication for possible addition
�, to the Lime Ridge. Open Space Area pursuant to the Conditions of
,';. Approval , and the provision of riding and hiking trails
,6'fpursuant to the Conditions of Approval .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
,-; Project ';is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite
2 the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic , social and other benefits
:: of the Project override this significant adverse impact., as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(v) : As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
%: adverse impact of. the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
. and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives -to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
-under the no-project alternative and under the open space
,: acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
66
4 . Potential adverse impacts on the Ginochio
Ranch.
(a) Facts .
The Final EIR states on page 35 of the Response
Document that development of the Project, including the
introduction of the Project roads and residences , would present
added potential for adverse impacts on operation of the
Ginochio Ranch, including increased frequency of injury to
livestock by domestic dogs , and increased potential for grass
fires, trespassing, and vandalism. This impact of the Project
is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of
the Project .
The Conditions of Approval ,-Provide that purchasers of
homes adjacent to agricultural lands shall be notified of the
possible nuisances which could be caused to agricultural
operations, and be notified that a leashing of pets may be
required as provided for in the covenants , conditions and
restrictions . In addition, the Final EIR on page 87 of the
Response:. Document includes the provision of a 150- to 200-foot
open space buffer along the southern and southeastern edges of
the Project Site as a mitigation measure . The Conditions of
Approval also require the Applicant to confer with
representatives of Ginochio Ranch regarding the provision of
adequate fencing between the properties .
The modifications to the Project will provide a
;;. substantially greater open space buffer between the developed
homes and the Ginochio Ranch. With the preservation of the
south knoll , ..a substantial natural barrier between the Project
., Site and the Ginochio Ranch will be permanently preserved as
open space.
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, `.-this Board finds that :
( i) The impact of the Project on the
Ginochio , Ranch, while unavoidable, is not significant . The
Project includes a substantial buffer between new residential
development and the Ginochio Ranch, and will not threaten the
operation of the Ginochio Ranch. The preservation of the south
knoll substantially reduces the impact of this Project upon the
Ginochio Ranch by including a much greater buffer between the
new residential development and the Ranch, and including within
this buffer a natural land barrier in the form of the southern
knoll , which will be preserved as permanent open space. The
continued operation of the Ginochio Ranch as an agricultural
67
operation is likely pursuant to the Williamson Act Contract
governing the land and the protection to pre-existing
agricultural operations which is provided by the California
Civil Code.
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this adverse impact is potentially significant, this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
several features which are a part of, or which have been
incorporated into, the Project . These features include the
open space buffer along,,the southern and southeastern edges of
the Project, the preservation of the south knoll as open space,
the required negotiation between the Applicant and
representatives.Iof Ginochio Ranch regarding adequate fencing,
notice to prospective home buyers regarding possible nuisances
. . which could be caused. to agricultural operations, and the
provision of a sign program to restrict access by dirt bikes to
the Ginochio Ranch.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
A`:_ Project �is not-mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite
� the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
therein, the'' environmental , economic, social and other benefits
., of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of overriding Considerations
(Section.'V, below) .
( iv) As discussed in Section VI , below,
{':regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
, adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
.,more fully described in Section VI , below.
B. Grading And Geology-Permanent Alteration Of
,37
Natural Land Forms On The Site .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project., Site would include extensive
grading, which would permanently alter natural land forms .
This impact of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Project has been modified to
include the preservation of the south knoll as permanent open
space, and the south knoll is the- most visible and significant .
68
natural land form on the site. The Project has also been
modified to reduce the number of units overall , and to restrict
development on the central knoll .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The above-described unavoidable adverse
impact of-.' the Project will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by several features which are a part of , or have
been incorporated into, the Project . These features include
the reduction in the number of individual lots and homes to be
built from `219 to 205, the redesign of the Project to avoid
development on the southern knoll entirely, and to restrict
development on the central knoll , the reduction in the amount
of grading on the Project Site overall , the design of the
Project to avoid typical "cut and fill" graded pads and
terraced hillsides , and revegetation of the graded slopes
pursuant .to the Conditions of Approval . In particular , the
redesign of the Project substantially reduces the impact of the
Project upon natural land forms on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this significant, unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact
of. the Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval
described herein, the environmental , economic, social and other
`? benefits of the Project override this significant adverse
" impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
. (c) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
,and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no=project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
C. Visual Impact .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states that suburban
development would extend into the hillside backdrop of East
Walnut Creek, above the 260-foot contour, as the Project ' s
homesite elevations would range from 260 to 486 feet . This
69
impact of the Project, is listed as an unavoidable and
irreversible significant adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Final EIR states on page 105 of the
Response Document that an alternative design using less grading
and more adaptive individual building designs and the
clustering of such adaptive units on the Project hillsides,
rather than the placement of level units on the flat knoll and
draw areas pursuant to this Project, may result in adverse
visual impacts as viewed from below which are worse than the
impacts created by this Project .
(c) By utilizing. large lots, setting the
houses back from the edge of the graded slopes, and providing
landscaping, the view of the Project homes from offsite will be
obscured to some extent (Comment 28 . 4 , Response Document ,
page 105, with verbatim text in Section V of the Response
Document; also, Applicant ' s Figures 4 and 5 , page 106 of the
Response Document) .
(d.) The Project has been modified to
preserve the southern knoll as permanent open space, and the
southern knoll is the most significant visual feature of the
Rancho Paraiso site . In addition, the Project has been
modi;fied :to reduce the number of units to be developed to 205 ,
and to restrict development on the central knoll.
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire. record before
this Board, . this Board finds that :
(a) The above-described unavoidable adverse
impact of the Project will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by several features which are a part of , or
which have been incorporated into, the Project including
Project changes made subsequent _to the preparation of the
DEIR. These features include the utilization of large lots,
setting the houses back from the edge of the graded slopes, and
the provision of landscaping pursuant to the Applicant ' s
:.: Project design. ., These features also include review of a final
landscape plan by the County zoning administrator pursuant to
the Conditions of Approval , and landscape screening around the
proposed water storage tanks to screen. views of these tanks
from higher elevations on 'Lime Ridge, as adopted by this Board
in making the findings-, set forth in Section III .M, above,
regarding visual factors .
(b) These factors also include the
modification in the Project ' s design to preserve the southern
knoll as permanent open space and eliminate the development of
70
homesites on the southern knoll , the restriction on developing
homesites on the central knoll , and the overall reduction in
the amount of grading and the number of homesites to be
developed on the Rancho Paraiso site. These modifications to
the Project ' s design substantially reduce the visual impact of
the Project, such that the visual impact of the Project is not
mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the
impact on views from Lime Ridge is insignificant, as those
views already are predominantly of developed residential areas .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project
is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic , social and other benefits
of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
f adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
one irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
Y acquisition alternative, and except for a reduced visual impact
pursuant to the modified single-family reduced grading
alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
D. Traffic Impacts .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
Project would contribute to cumulative local , subregional , and
regional traffic impacts by generating 2, 526 daily vehicle
trips . This cumulative impact of the Project is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Draft EIR at pages 84 through 86,
together with the Final EIR at pages 34-35, 50-52, 63 , and 84
of the Response Document sets forth a number of mitigation
measures relating to Project-specific and cumulative Project
impacts, which mitigation measures and related Conditions of
Approval are set forth in detail in Section III .C, above .
(c) The Project has been modified by
reducing the number of units to be developed upon the Rancho
Paraiso Site to 205 .
71
2 . Findings
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . The changes in intersection
level of service are minor in themselves and especially in
comparison to the impact of previous and future regional growth
. on the Ygnacio Valley corridor . None of the local streets or
intersections would exceed their design capacity or experience
a significant change in level of service. The Project also
includes measures which will improve local .traffic safety, and
a contribution to regional traffic improvements addressing the
pre-existing- regional traffic problem.
(b) ' The Project has been reduced from 219
units to 205 units . This modification in the Project will
reduce the traffic impacts of the Project . Together with the
., conditions of approval and mitigation measures imposed upon
this Project, this modification will reduce the Project ' s
,impacts upon traffic to a leval of insignificance. Thus, to
,..°I,,the extent that this impact of the Project is potentially
.: significant, this impact is mitigated to a level of
insignificance by several features which are a part of, or
',, which have been incorporated into the Project . These features
include the various mitigation measures and Conditions of
,. Approval which are set forth in detail in Section III .C, above .
(c) ' To the extent that this unavoidable and
,, irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and
: Conditions of Approval described herein, the environmental ,
- economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
this adverse impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) ,
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
'i.: regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
"impact of Projpct would d similarly be an unavoidable
.; and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
Pno-project alternative and under the open space acquisition
,.alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
.described in Section VI , below, and except that the modified
single-family development scheme with reduced grading and
reduced development on the knolls would have a similar, but
reduced, cumulative traffic impact, and this alternative is
rejected as more fully described in Section VI , below.
72
E. Municipal Services - Need For Additional Public
Services .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project would increase the need for
additional public services , including water , sewage treatment,
fire fighting, schools, police, and park and recreation
facilities . This impact of the Project is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Final EIR at page 92 of the
Response Document states that the cumulative impacts of this
Project on water service are insignificant, and the DEIR at
page 92 states that adequate water service can be provided to
the Project with the imposition of several specified mitigation
,. measures . The Final EIR at page 93 of the Response Document
.. states that Project impacts on sewer facilities are
insignificant, both on an individual (or Project-specific)
basis and on a cumulative basis . The DEIR states on page 96
that the imposition of specified mitigation measures would
mitigate. the identified potential impacts on fire service .
(c) Also, state law limits the ability of
this Board to reject or modify this Project based on school
sAmpacts , and the Project includes a school impact fee which may
be used to fund school improvements . If the Project results in
a need for additional police services, only one additional
officer will .be required.
(d) The Conditions of Approval require
annexation of the Project Site to the Contra Costa Water
District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and
compliance with the County ordinance regarding water
conservation. In addition, pursuant to County ordinances
normally applicable to development projects such as this
Project ;.. the Applicant will pay a variety of fees relating to
municipal services., as discussed in greater detail in
Sections IIID through III '' I , above.
(e) As stated at page 38 of the DEIR, the
Project design includes the retention of 112 acres as permanent
open space. The Project is also located near the Mt . Diablo
State Park and immediately adjacent to the proposed Arbolado
Park.
(f) The Project has been modified to reduce
the number of units in the Rancho Paraiso development to 205 .
This will result in reductions in the need for additional
public services . As fewer homes will be built, the Rancho
73
Paraiso Site will have fewer inhabitants, and less residential
,,,, landscaping- will be installed when compared to the original
proposal .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project ' s impact on demand for
-municipal service's, while unavoidable, is insignificant . The
impacts `on water supply are insignificant, sewer impacts are
insignificant , a new fire station will be completed at 3155
Walnut, the impact on fire services is insignificant
considering the substantial
tial residential development already in
.,the Project vicinity, at most one additional police officer
will be required, school fees will fund any needed school
improvements , and there are substantial exisitng and proposed
park and' open space areas surrounding the Project , including
open space within the Project Site.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
.;-, the Project ' s impact on demand for municipal services is
potentially significant, this impact of the Project will be
M or which
,:: mitigated by several features which are a part of,
been incorporated into, the Project . These features
include the mitigation measures for water and sewer services
., described on page 92 and 93 of the Response Document , the other
.,:: mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described under
vthe "Facts" ",above, and in Sections III .D through III . I , above,
the retention of over 112 acres of the Project Site in open
space, the provision of hiking and equestrian trails, the
preservation of the south knoll as open space, and the overall
.. reduction in the number of units to be developed on the Rancho
,Paraiso Site.
(c) IhTthe alternative, to the extent that
•;-.this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project
is not mitigated
ated to a level of insignificance, .despite the
�-, mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
: heroin, the-'environmentaL .
" mic, social and other benefits
'-econ 0
.,,..of the Project override this potentially significant adverse
impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
, Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
. adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
.,and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
,under the no-project alternativeandunder the open space
74
acquisition alternat-.ve, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
F. Municipal Services - Police Response Time.
1 . Facts .
(a) The Final EIR states at page 117 of the
Response Document that police response times to the Project
Site could be longer than the County averages . This impact of
the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The DEIR states at page 99 that police
services are provided by the Sheriff ' s Department and funded
through the County ' s property tax, and that this Project would
..generate higher taxes per dwelling unit than most homes in the
vicinity due to the expected higher-than-average taxable value
of homes within the Project . The DEIR also states that the
Project might require an additional officer on Beat 11 .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . The existing median response
time is under two minutes for life-threatening priority calls ,
and this response time should not be longer than it is for
other unincorporated areas of the county.
(b) In the alternative, the above-described
unavoidable adverse impact of the Project will mitigated by the
increased property taxes which will be generated by development
of the Project . In particular , the Project homes will
.. generally have higher taxes per dwelling unit than most homes
in the vicinity, and thus will provide substantial funds to the
County to fund addi,tional.,manpower in the Sheriff ' s Department ,
should such increased manpower be needed in the Project
vicinity, due in whole or in part to development of the Project .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
this potentially significant, unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to a level of
insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and Conditions
of Approval described herein, the environmental , economic,
social and other benefits of the Project override this
potentially significant adverse impact, as more fully stated in
; the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
75
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
G. Vegetation.
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would contribute to significant
:•, cumulative. regional losses in natural vegetative values
relating to such vegetation as Oaks and Buckeyes . This impact-
of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
significant adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Conditions of Approval for this
" Project include requiring maintenance of open space pursuant to
"' covenants, conditions and restrictions, a final landscape plan
including fencing, deeding or dedication either to the County
`" or the 'City. of Walnut Creek of certain open space areas ,
P revegetation of all cut and fill slopes .
. (c) Various mitigation measures relating to
vegetation which are set forth in the DEIR and in the Response
- Document have been adopted as Conditions of Approval . These
... Conditions' of Approval include utilization of native trees,
." planting` of native trees in grassland open space areas , initial
seeding of selected areas of wildflower species, reducing or
.eliminating grazing `in open space areas , fencing along the
backs of residential lots , an educational brochure, the
detailed landscape plan itself , and vegetation at the edge of
,,..Project development areas -.:to help diversify the grassland
community.
(d) The Project has been modified to reduce.
the' number: of residential:'units overall , to eliminate the
development of home sites on the southern knoll , and to
restrict the development of home sites on the central knoll .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and' the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . Overall , the Project will
76
improve the vegetative values and habitat on about half of the
Project Site:
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this impact is potentially significant, this impact of the
Project will mitigated by several features which are a part of ,
or which have been incorporated into the Project . These
features include the Conditions of Approval and the mitigation
measures referred to under the "Facts, " above, the retention of
over 212 acres of the Project Site as open space, the
improvement of habitat and vegetative values on that open
space, the reduction in the number of units to be developed,
and the preservation of the south knoll as permanent open space
without any development of home sites on the south knoll .
(c) To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval described herein, the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
this adverse impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of
: Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
:: adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
.. under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
H. Earthquake Shaking.
1 . Facts .
(a) Th'e Final EIR states on pages 117-118
of the Response Document that the Project would be subject to
the potential hazards of earthquake shaking. This impact of
the Project is listed , as an unavoidable and irreversible
significant adverse i.mpact ''of the Project .
(b) The DEIR states on page 127 that the
risk of earthquake damage from ground shaking must be
considered an unavoidable impact in any area of high
seismicity, and the DEIR on page 123 states that the San
Francisco Bay region is seismically active. The DEIR also
states on page 127 that the risks of earthquake damage from
ground shaking for new residential construction can be
minimized by the use of conservative grading, design and
construction practices . The DEIR also recommends that owners
77
of developed lots be encouraged to purchase earthquake
,... insurance to protect the investment in their homes and avoid
.. catastrophic dollar losses . These mitigation measures , along
with other mitigation measures relating to earthquake safety
and grading, have been imposed upon this Project as Conditions
of Approval .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board; this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . The risk is not significant
relative to other developed areas because the entire region is
?.subject to' earthquake risks , and routine construction practices
minimize this risk .
(b) In the alternative, this impact of the
Project will be mitigated to •a level of insignificance by
:f several features which are a part of, or which have been
ti incorporated into, the Project . These features include
f=, conservative grading, design and construction practices and
?. compliance with provisions of the Uniform Building Code
:�=: relating: to seismic safety, which compliance is required of all
developments such as this Project . The economic impact of
earthquake shaking may also be mitigated by owners of developed
lots who purchase earthquake insurance on the new homes as that
insurance .will cover most of the cost of any damage. The
.,. Conditions of. Approval contain numerous requirements for
;,:grading and construction practices relating to earthquake
safety, and require 'the Applicant to encourage homeowners to
purchase earthquake insurance.
(d) -As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
: adverse impact -of •the .Proj,ect would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
no-project alternative and under the open space acquisition
:? alternative, which alternatives are rejected as` more fully
.L-1: described in Section VI , below. In addition, the risk of
; ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is a risk of almost
;.. any residential or other development within the seismically
active San Francisco Bay region.
(c) To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and
;Conditions of Approval described herein, the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
78
this adverse impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, Lelow) .
V.. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , and to the
extent that any impact of the Project is significant , this
Board adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental impacts
of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated
economic , social and other benefits of the. Project .
A. Generally.
This Board finds that, to .the extent that any impacts
( including cumulative impacts) attributable to this Project
remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the
environmental , social , economic and other considerations set
' forth herein because these Project benefits outweigh any
significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
the Project . This Board also finds that the mitigation
measures which. were recommended in the EIR but were not
incorporated into the Project are infeasible with respect to
the Project, because such measures would impose limitations and
restrictions on the development of the Project so as to
::prohibit the attainment of specific social , economic and other
?; benefits of the Project which this Planning Commission finds
outweigh the unmitigated impacts of the Project . This Board
further finds that the Project alternatives set forth in the
EIR are infeasible because such alternatives would prohibit the
attainment of specific social , economic and other benefits of
the Project which this Board finds outweigh the environmental
benefits of the Project alternatives . Specifically, this Board
finds that the following social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding
any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts of the Project :
1 . Provision of Needed Housing.
The Project.;will::,yprovide needed executive housing for
Walnut Creek residents and the region, which will indirectly
stimulate economic growth in the area as more local employees
are able to find suitable ,.-housing. The primary purchaser at
Rancho Paraiso will be a ocal resident who is a move-up
homebuyer desiring a larger, more upscale home. Therefore,
construction of the Project will also make existing housing in
different price ranges available to the surrounding community
and the region. In addition, the Project will improve the
jobs/housing balance of Walnut Creek and the surrounding region
and will help the unincorporated Walnut Creek area to meet the
housing needs and goals identified in the Contra Costa County
79
General Plan. Finally, although this Project is not required
to be consistent with the Walnut Creek General Plan, this
Project will nevertheless help fulfill the housing objectives
identified in this general plan as well , as indicated in the
EIR on pages 59-60 .
2 . Public services and facilities .
The Project will also contribute substantial in-lieu
park dedication fees to the County, substantial school fees to
the Mount Diablo Unified School District , all applicable County
traffic mitigation fees , and funding for offsite drainage
improvements, as indicated in the EIR and the conditions of
approval for the Project .
3 . Additional school enrollment .
The Project will provide additional students for the
schools operated by the Mt . Diablo Unified School District .
Numerous local residents testified that these schools have
faced declining enrollment in the past, and that these schools
' face the possibility of closure if such declining enrollment
continues . These schools are among the best schools in the
- Mt . Diablo Unified School District . The increase in enrollment
which wi'l1 result from children residing in Rancho Paraiso
Y homes who attend these schools is a benefit of the Project .
4 . Funding for the homeless .
As a Condition of Approval , the Applicant is required
1:.1. to make a substantial contribution for county homeless
programs . This substantial funding would not be available with
:.: respect to this site if this site is not developed, and this
" funding represents a substantial social and economic benefit of
this Project .
5 . Traffic improvements and public services .
The Project includes construction of traffic control
=: improvements on: North Gate Road which will significantly
increase "traffic safety iri'. the area, and provision of potable
,� water which will correct a serious water quality and health
': problem in the region': surrounding the Project Site. This
=. increased water storage capacity and increased availability of
service mains for fire hydrants will substantially increase
fire protection ability for local area residents . In addition,
the Project will provide all-weather fire vehicle access to
. open space areas and :a hazardous weed abatement program for
improved fire control , and will generate substantially
. increased property tax revenues for the County to fund needed
public facilities and services, such as police service.
80
6.. Provision of construction jobs .
Testimony before this Board at the hearing on the
Approvals demonstrated the Applicant will provide construction
jobs over a period of several years , primarily to workers
resident in the County.
7 . Environmental benefits and open space.
The Project includes a number of environmental
benefits . The elimination of grazing on the Project Site will
eliminate the adverse impact of grazing upon the vegetation and
wildlife on the Project Site, and the mitigation measures
pursuant to the Applicant ' s agreement with the Fish and Game
Department will provide better natural vegetation and wildlife
habitat on the Project Site.
The Project will permanently preserve more than 500 of
. the Project Site as open space, with no cost to either the
County . or the City of Walnut Creek for acquisition. Project
plans and Conditions of Approval call for improving public
access to these preserved open space areas, and also include
plans for the provision of connections between the nearby trail
system and the network of regional trails, and preservation and
enhancement of currently degraded wildlife habitat areas ,
• through the planting of native plants, trees and wildflowers, a
reduction or elimination of cattle grazing on open space areas ,
and provision of substantial landscaped buffer zones to
::. diversify and enrich the native grassland community and
encourage grassland and wildflower growth.
In addition, the Project will permanently preserve the
southern knoll as open space. This southern knoll is the most
significant and most visible natural land form on the Rancho
Paraiso site.
8 . Public Revenues .
The Project will. substantially increase the assessed
valuation of the Project!Si.te and beneficially impact property
values in the vicinity, thereby creating additional property
tax revenue for the county on a long-term basis . During
construction of the Project, additional public revenues will
result from sales tax on building materials and payroll tax for
construction workers .
9 . Child Care.
Pursuant to Conditions of Approval No. 17, the
provisions of .the Contra Costa County child care ordinance will
be complied with prior to recordation of the final subdivision
81
map. Compliance will involve a substantial payment of the
Applicant to fund child care programs . This funding from this
Application would not be available without approval of this
Project .
The benefits listed in these Subsections A. 1-A. 9 ,
together with all other applicable information in the record,
are the basis for the additional specific findings of
overriding consideration set forth below.
B. Agriculture and Land Use Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable_ impacts of the Project on
agriculture and land use (reduction 'in rural character,
potential conflicts between agricultural and residential land
=• uses , loss of agricultural land, and- loss of open space) , this
-.'Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , social ,
economic and other considerations warrant approval of the
Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of the
Project cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project .
! This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
F= except by approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open
Space Acquisition Alternative, which Alternatives would
eliminate the Project benefits as set forth above .
C. Visual Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable visual impacts of the
Project ,(development on the hillside behind the East Walnut
"-' Creek area', view impacts) this Board finds that the social ,
economic and other considerations set forth above warrant
approval - of the Project notwithstanding these impacts which
cannot be -avoided despite the numerous mitigations measures and
`: Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project . This Board also
finds that these impacts cannot be completely avoided except by
approval of the No Project• Alternative or the Open Space
Acquisition Alternative, which Alternatives eliminate the
,.. Project benefits as set forth above. In addition, this Board
finds that a change in visual character of the Project Site
=: from agricultural and- openl' space uses to approximately 50%
: residential use� is a largely subjective one which will be
.'perceived by some as an insignificant and/or '- positive change .
.In addition, the preservation of the south knoll and the
.provision of landscaping are visual benefits of the Project .
D. Geology/Grading Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable impacts of the Project on
geology and soils (grading of the Project Site, altered natural
-landforms, and exposure of people to potential hazards of
82
earthquake.. shaking) , this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding these impacts
which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project .
this Board also finds that these impacts cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open
Space Acquisition Alternative which Alternatives eliminate the
Project ' s benefits as set forth above .
E. Traffic and Circulation Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts
of the Project , this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding these impacts
which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and conditions of approval imposed on the Project .
' This Board also finds that these impacts cannot be entirely
'avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative or the
Open Space Acquisition Alternative, which Alternatives
eliminate "the .benefits of the Project as set forth above .
F. Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable cumulative impacts of the
Project on vegetation and wildlife, this Planning Commission
finds that the aforementioned environmental , social , economic
and other considerations warrant approval of the Project
notwithstanding these impacts which cannot be avoided despite
the numerous mitigation measures and conditions of approval
imposed on the Project . This Board also finds that these
impacts cannot be entirely avoided except by approval of the No
Project Alternative or the Open Space Acquisition Alternative,
which Alternatives eliminate the Project benefits as set forth
above.
G. . Municipal Services Impacts .
With respect to the Project ' s impact on the need for
additional public services (water , sewage treatment, fire
services, police services, school facilities, park and
recreation facilities , and police response times to the Project
Site) , this Board finds that the aforementioned environmental ,
social , economic and other considerations warrant approval of
the Project notwithstanding these impacts which cannot be
mitigated despite the numerous mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project . This Board also
finds that these impacts cannot be entirely avoided except by
approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open Space
83
Acquisition Alternatives, which alternatives eliminate the
Project benefits as set forth abo ,re. .
.VI . FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
makes the following findings regarding alternatives to the
Project discussed in the Final EIR.
A. No Project Alternative.
1 . Facts .
=" (a) As described on DEIR pages 181-182, the
'No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its
: current state and the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Final
Development Plan, and Subdivision would not be approved. The
Project Site would remain under its current General Plan
designationof agricultural preserve, and no development could
.'occur on the property which is not a commercial agricultural
: use .or related compatible use .
(b) The No Project Alternative would
encourage continued grazing use of the Project Site preserving
.., agricultural and open space lands, some of which would be
; developed pursuant to the Project . Local traffic and demands
.-'; for municipal services would not increase, and this alternative
` would not require reconstruction of slide areas and grading on
the Project Site. This alternative would, at least
temporarily, preserve the Project Site as grasslands,
%..maintaining the existing rural environment, and would not
` generate additional drainage run-off, require removal of trees ,
Iresult in adverse visual impacts, disturb potential
archaeologic values, or create noise and air -quality impacts .
(c) The No Project Alternative would also
allow continued overgrazing of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and
..thus allow' continued reduction in the natural vegetative and
,,A.vwildlife habitats of the hillside area. This alternative would
_:.make it more difficult to bring treated water service to the
- Northgate area and would lessen or eliminate the possibility of
"t> the water district serving this area, which currently receives
'`substandard water service.
(d) As stated elsewhere in these findings,
many of the environmental impacts of this Project have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance, and this Project would
provide many benefits, including dedication of open space and
the preservation of the south knoll without public expense
funding for transportation improvements and public services,
traffic improvements on Northgate Road, improved water service,
84
wildlife mitigation measures, housing, and temporary
construction jobs .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the No Project Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the
No Project Alternative, for the following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project
Alternative.
(b) The No Project Alternative would
dramatically restrict the Water District ' s ability to provide
adequate treated water service to the Northgate area, by
eliminating a major force behind the movement to bring treated
water service to this area.
(c) The No Project Alternative would
eliminate the traffic improvements to Northgate Road; which in
addition to mitigating , local impacts of the Project, would
improve an area which has been a safety problem in the past .
. (d) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would result in continued overgrazing of the Rancho Paraiso
Site and subsequent reduction in the. natural vegetative and
.: wildlife habitats , while eliminating the restorative mitigation
measures which have been agreed to by the Applicant and the
Department of Fish and Game;
(e) Approval. of the No Project Alternative
would result in .the loss o'f' 205 home sites which would be
developed on the Rancho Paraiso Site, the loss of additional
home sites pursuant to the General Plan Amendment, and the loss
, of available .housing in other price ranges as the "move up"
market for this Project would not be created. Approval of the
No Project Alternative would also result in the loss of
substantial funding for county programs to benefit the homeless .
(f) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would result in the loss of construction jobs which would be
created by development of the Rancho Paraiso site over a period
of several years .
(g) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would eliminate a potential source of funding for regional
85
traffic improvements, along with other fees which would be
collected in connection .with the Project .
(h) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would eliminate the possibility of obtaining a substantial
portion . of the Project Site as permanent public open space
without cost to the County or to the City of Walnut Creek .
( i) The preservation of the existing
General Plan designation for the Rancho Paraiso is inconsistent
with the previous cancellation of the Williamson Act contract
r: regarding that property.
(j ) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso Project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
not be obtained.
B. Modified .Residential Development Plan.
1 . Facts .
(a) As described at DEIR pages 182-183 , the
Modified Residential Development Plan Alternative would provide
:,.. a comparable single-family housing product with less, gr.ading
and with no homesites atop the central and south knolls . This
;. alternative would reconfigure the development plan to use
individual home designs which are more adaptive to hillside
.,. topography, not including large, flat homesites , so that the
' homesite -would require less grading and the homes would not be
set back from the hillside slopes . This alternative would
eliminate development on the tops of the knolls, providing for
` development of roughly 25% of the site. This alternative would
yield at most 140-150 `units on the Rancho Paraiso Site, or
170=180 units total .
.(b) The DEIR states that this alternative
would reduce the impacts of grading due to more gradual slopes ,
and could accommodate mass landslide repair (although landslide
repair requires grading) . This alternative would be consistent
. with`County.-; and•..Walnut..Creek hillside development policies, and
would include a 35-40% reduction in traffic generation and
.. similar reductions in Project demands for public services .
(c) Substantial grading would still be
required to provide for safe development of the Project Site,
due- to landslide deposits . The County Planning Geologist
stated that a subdivision using individually designed
structures and terrain-conforming foundations is impractical
due to the size and number of landslides on the Project Site.
Although this alternative is reduced in size when compared to
86
the Project , the alternative would still result in significant
losses of grazing and open space lands, net increases in
traffic generation, and net increases in demand for municipal
services . This alternative would have a more adverse visual
impact as viewed from below, due to the design of
terrain-conforming homes which are not set back on large lots .
The Project as proposed by the Applicant incorporates large
lots and setback of homes , which will provide a less severe
visual impact than this Alternative.
(d) The Project has been modified to reduce
the amount of grading on the site, to eliminate the development
, of home sites on the south knoll , and to restrict the
development .of home sites on the central knoll .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the modifications to the
` Project, including the elimination of home sites on the south
knoll , the restriction of home sites on the central knoll , and
the reduction in grading and the overall number of home sites,
x provide a comparable level of mitigation as could be achieved
. by the modified residential development plan, thus obviating
the environmental benefits of adopting this plan.
In the alternative, this Board finds that this
.Modified Residential Development Plan Alternative is infeasible
and less desirable than the Project and rejects this
Alternative, for the following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
'." the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving this Project
Alternative.
(b). The County Geologist has described
terrain-conforming homes •on this -Project Site as impractical .
(c) Approval of this Alternative would
result in the loss of 60-70 homesites which would be created by
development of the Rancho Paraiso Site pursuant to the Project,
resulting in a corollary loss of available housing in other
price ranges as the "move up" market resulting from this
Project would be created to a lesser extent .
(d) Approval of this Alternative would
result in the loss of construction jobs, which would be created
87
by development of the larger Rancho Paraiso Development over a
period of . seversl years .
(e) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
.. be obtained to a lesser degree, due to the smaller size of this
Project and the lower amount of fees which would be generated
by the Project .
(f) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval , including the provision of substantial
funding for county homeless projects , in return for the
approval ;of the proposed Project.. Approval of this alternative
instead of thelproposed project would eliminate the social ,
economic and other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso
Project pursuant to these Conditions of Approval , as the
Applicant ' s acceptance of these conditions is conditioned upon
the approval of the Project :
(g) This Project would result in a more
adverse visual impact, due to the use of building designs which
conform to the.. terrain, but are not shielded visually by the
use of large lts and setbacks .
C. Mixed Housing-Type Development .
1 . Facts :
(a) As described on DEIR pages 183 and 186 ,
the Mixed Housing Development Alternative would reflect the
design approach proposed in 1983 , containing 132 single-family
units and 64 attached units, for a total of 196 units on the
" Rancho Paraiso property, and an overall total of 227 units .
This development plan contains two long dead-end cul-de-sacs
running up each of the major draws on the Rancho Paraiso
property, with a connection across the rear of the central
knoll by an access road limited to pedestrian and emergency
traffic . Homesites are concentrated in minor cul-de-sacs in
the lower flatland portion of the site and along the sides of
the major draws The houe`ing units would be -aimed- at a variety
: of housing",market sectors ' different from the market which is
''targeted by the Applicant . - This' Alternative also includes a
road along the entire western property line connecting Arbolado
Road and Northgate Road.
(b) This Alternative would not attain the
marketing objectives of the Applicant, and represents a
significant deviation in character from the housing site and
:market sector normally targeted by the Applicant . The market
feasibility of the Applicant ' s approach has been clearly
88
demonstrated by the recent Bryant Ranch.. and Saunders Ranch
projects . As stated in the DEIR, the market feas' ibility of the
mixed use approach remains questionable .
(c) Large cuts at the eastern end of the
draws would be required, and this grading would be visible from
surrounding neighborhoods . This Alternative would provide only
moderate decreases in per capita-related impacts such as
population and housing, traffic, municipal services, air
quality and noise.
(d) The development of attached units on
..the Rancho Paraiso site would be less . compatible with
surrounding development, and would provide less of a transition
between existing development to the west of the Rancho Paraiso
site and the open space areas to the ,east . For these reasons,
it would creat greater negative impacts on the residents of
surrounding developments than would the proposed Project .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Mixed Housing-Type
..Development Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than
the Project, and rejects this Alternative, for the following
reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
,,.,the Project , excepting only those impacts which are listed in
.,..the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project
Alternative. Among other things, the mitigation measures have
substantially reduced the visual impacts of the Project by
minimizing development on the knolls within the Project Site
and have substantially reduced the amount of grading which will
be necessary.
(b) The Project has already been determined
by ,this -Board to be in compliance with the County General Plan,
including its provisions relating to ridgelines, thereby
obviating the need to approve this Alternative in order to
obtain compliance with the County General Plan.
(c) This Alternative would reduce the
property taxes to be generated by development of the Project
Site, because of the lower price at which units would be sold,
thereby reducing the ability of these property taxes to fund
improvements in police services . Approval of this Alternative,
which may not include phased construction of homes over a
number of years, would not produce a stable number of
89
construction jobs over a period of years, as the Project would
do .
(d) To the extent that the number of units
is reduced pursuant to this Alternative, and to the extent that
this Alternative reduces the ability of the Applicant to
provide the many mitigation measures associated with the
Project, the environmental , social , economic and other benefits
derived from the Rancho Paraiso project as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations may be obtained to a
::, lesser degree . if this Alternative is approved.
(e) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval , including the provision of substantial
funding for county homeless projects, in return for the
approval of the .proposed Project .,. Approval of this alternative
instead of the proposed project would eliminate the social ,
economic and other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso
Project pursuant to these Conditions of Approval , as the
Applicant ' s ,acceptance of these conditions is conditioned upon
the -approval of the Project .
D. Alternative Sites .
1 . Facts..
(a) The DEIR discusses on pages 186-188 the
possibility of locating a similar project on alternate sites .
The DEIR concludes that the Ginochio Ranch is not a feasible
alternative site because of its Williamson Act contract, the .
inability t6 cancel this contract . An assemblage of several
smaller sites in the surrounding Northgate area is infeasible
=,, because .all of these properties combined account for about
,; approximately 22 acres , substantially less acreage than the
amount necessary to provide a viable alternative for the
Project . The adjacent Lime Ridge open space areas have been
_.acquired by the City of Walnut Creek for open space purposes,
', thus ruling out and making infeasible any residential use of
that property.
(b) Outside ..of the immediate vicinity, the
° DEIR evaluates. several alternate sites within the subregion.
`The use of the Pine Creek Retention Basin Reserve Land
constituting approximately. 40 acres would not meet the basic
objectives of the Project' because of the amount of acreage.
The use of the two vacant parcels owned by the Newhall Land and
Farming Company, and not owned by the Applicant, along Ygnacio
Valley Road is infeasible because the provisions of the City of
Walnut Creek Traffic Control Initiative prohibit single-family -
development of ,these parcels at intensities greater than ten
., units per parcel . The Newhall Ranch area adjacent to the City
90
of Concord may represent a potential alternative to the Project
Site, although this site is currently proposed to be developed
with 924 single-family detached dwelling units and the
development proposal would need to be intensified to
accommodate an additional 251 units in order to serve as an
alternative to this Project . This would increase Project
density to 2 .3 units per acre, which may be inconsistent with
the Newhall Ranch Area Plan.
(c) The DEIR concludes that the only
feasible alternate site is the central county Newhall Ranch
area adjacent to the City of Concord. A project at this site
!`would defer or eliminate certain impacts on the Project Site,
including the visual impact on the knolls, traffic impacts at
certain intersections , and impacts on the immediate
neighborhood in the Northgate and Arbolado Road areas . An
alternate project located in this site would, however , result
in more concentrated traffic impacts on critical Ygnacio
Valley, Treat Boulevard, and Clayton Road corridors , plus
related noise and air quality impacts . Local access to this
alternative site would have an adverse impact on residential
neighborhoods abutting the alternate site. This alternate
project would also result in significant adverse visual ,
grading, drainage, open space, and biotic impacts on the
Newhall Ranch fill site lands .
2 . Findings .
This Board adopts the conclusions of the Final EIR
that alternative sites other than the Central County Newhall
Ranch Site are infeasible. This Board finds that the Central
County Newhall Site is infeasible, and less desirable than the
Project, and rejects this Alternative, for the following
reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving this Alternative .
(b) The Alternate Site Alternative would
dramatically restrict the Water District ' s ability to provide
adequate treated water service to the Northgate area, by making
it more difficult to bring treated water service to this area.
(c) The Alternate Site Alternative would
eliminate the traffic improvements to Northgate Road, which in
addition to mitigating local impacts of the Project, would
improve an area which had been a safety problem in the past .
91
(d) Approval of the Alternate Site
Alternative would result ' in continued overgrazing of the
Project Site and subsequent reduction of the natural vegetative
and wildlife habitats , while eliminating the restorative
mitigation measures which have been agreed to by the Applicant
in the Department of Fish and Game.
(e) Approval of the Alternate Site
Alternative would eliminate the possibility of obtaining a
substantial portion of the Project Site as permanent public
open space without cost to the County or the City of Walnut
Creek.
(f) Like the No Project Alternative, the
Alternate Site Alternative would presumably preserve existing
General Plan designations for the Rancho Paraiso property. The
existing General Plan designation for the Rancho Paraiso
property is, inconsistent with the previous cancellation of the
Williamson Act contract regarding that property.
(g) The traffic impacts of the Alternate
Site'Alternative would be more severe than the traffic impacts
of this Project, due to the concentrated impact on critical
intersections in the Ygnacio Valley, Treat Boulevard, and
Clayton Road corridors . The Alternate Site Alternative would
also have increased noise and air quality impacts related to
this traffic .
(h) Access to the alternate site proposed
would have adverse impacts on abutting residential
nei hborYoods,g and the alternate site proposal would also have
significant adverse impacts on Newhall Ranch hillside lands .
(i) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval for the Project, including substantial
funding for county homeless projects, on the condition that the
proposed",-'Project is approved. If the Alternate Site
: Alternative is adopted, these economic and social benefits of
the Project, including the provision of substantial funding for
county homeless ,programs,iwould not be obtained.
(j ) - At least with respect to the Project
Site, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits
derived from the Rancho Paraiso Project as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be obtained.
92
E. Acquisition For Open Space.
1 . Facts .
(a) This Alternative, as stated on pages 43
and 44 of the Response Document, proposes the acquisition of
the Rancho Paraiso Site by the City of Walnut Creek or some
other open space organization as a permanent public open space
recreation area.
(b) This Alternative would extend the Lime
Ridge Open Space Area into the Rancho Paraiso Site . If
continued grazing were allowed, this Alternative would mitigate
the direct and secondary agricultural impacts to the proposed
action. This Alternative would also mitigate other adverse
land use, open space, visual , traffic, municipal services ,
geotechnical , drainage, biotic , air quality, noise, and
archaeologic potential impacts identified in the Final EIR.
(c) This Alternative will not attain the
basic objectives of the Project . This Alternative could also
result in continued overgrazing of the Project Site unless
grazing is limited or eliminated. This Alternative would also
have the same adverse impacts as the No Project Alternative on
efforts to improve existing substandard water service in the
Northgate Road areas .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Open Space Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than this Project and the
Approvals, and restricts the No Project Alternative, for the
following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
. the Project and adopted as , Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits ; of approving the No Project
Alternative.
(b) ' The Open Space Alternative would
dramatically restrict the-..'Water District ' s ability to provide
adequate treated water to the Northgate area by making it more
difficult to bring treated water service to this area.
(c) The Open Space Alternative would
eliminate the traffic improvements to Northgate Road, which in
addition to mitigating local impacts of the Project, would
improve an area which has been a safety problem in the past .
93
(d) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
. may result in continued overgrazing of the Project Site and
subsequent reduction in the natural vegetative and wildlife
habitats . Approval of this Alternative would eliminate the
restorative mitigation measures which have been agreed to by
the Applicant and the Department of Fish and Game.
'(e) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
would result in the loss of 210 homesites which would be
created by development of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and would
., result in the loss of a potential of 242 homesites pursuant to
the General Plan Amendment, and would also result in the loss
.. of available housing and other price ranges as the "move up"
market resulting from this Project would not be created.
w (f) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
` would result in the loss of an unspecified number of
construction jobs which would be created by development of the
Rancho Paraiso site over a period of several years .
(g') Approval of the Open Space Alternative.
would eliminate a potential source of funding for regional
traffic improvements, along with other fees which would be
collected in connection with the Project .
(h) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
'i would eliminate the possibility of obtaining a substantial
portion of the. Project Site as permanent open space without
.: cost to the `County or the City of Walnut Creek . The Applicant
has stated. in hearings before this Board that the property is
; not for sale, and the County, City, or any other public agency
, would need to expend. sums both to purchase the property and to
'` obtain the legal means of purchasing the property. The
, expenditure of substantial public funds to acquire the Rancho
'Paraiso. Site for open space, as opposed to obtaining
approximately half of the Site as open space without cost to
. . any public agency pursuant. to this Project, would reduce the
' ability of the purchasing agency- to purchase open space
"properties in other areas .
( i) Th'e purchase of the Project Site is
, infeasible and was previously rejected by the City of Walnut
Creek, when it was determined that local homeowners would not
support an assessment ' district to finance acquisition of the
Rancho Paraiso Site as open space`.
(j ) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval, including substantial funding for
county homeless programs, in return for the approval of the
'Project . If the Open Space Alternative is adopted instead of
the Project, these economic and social benefits, including the
94
' substantial funding for county homeless programs , would not be
obtained.
(k) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso Project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
not be obtained.
VII . ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. Electric Power Transmission Lines .
1 . Facts .
(a) No electric power transmission lines
are located upon the Rancho Paraiso Site. The closest existing
transmission lines are over 2, 000 feet from the homes which
will be developed. The issue of power line impacts was raised
in a letter to County Staff , submitted after the expiration of
the comment period on the EIR, suggesting that any potential
hazard to health of future Rancho Paraiso residents from power
line fields to the east of the site be explored. This letter
included a study entitled "Biological Effects of Power Line
Fields , " dated July 1 , 1987 .
(b) The only aerial cable which currently
traverses the Rancho Paraiso Site is a cable television cable,
not a power transmission line . All power lines serving the
Rancho Paraiso and individual homes will be underground.
(c) The July 1987 report contains
`. preliminary conclusions regarding the impact of electric and
'magnetic fields generated by overhead electric transmission
lines . The report states that research studies report no known
significant effects and no effects on human reproduction,
growth or development . The study concludes that no assessment
of cancer risks can be made and recommends more research on
this point . The report recommends only future research, and
does not state that the location of power lines within a given
distance from a residential development has a significant
impact. on .the residents of that development .
(d) The .electric and magnetic fields which
are generated by power lines weaken rapidly with distance from
the power lines . Buried power lines produce almost no electric
or magnetic fields .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the entire record before this Board, this
Board finds that :
95
(a) The existing electric transmission
lines located to the east of the future Rancho Paraiso homes ,
will not pose a. threat to the future residents of those homes ,
and will not have a significant adverse impact on those
: residents .
(b) The existence of these power lines does
, not constitute a subsequent change in the Project requiring
important revisions of the Final EIR, because the power lines
are not themselves a change in the Project, and because the
power lines are not a new significant environmental impact .
(c) The existence of these electrical
` transmission lines does not constitute a substantial change
with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken_ requiring important revisions in the Final EIR.
There has been no change in circumstances , and no revision to
the Final EIR is necessary because the impact of the
transmission lines is insignificant .
(d) The existence of these electric
transmission lines does not constitute new information of
substantial importance to the Project which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was
certified as complete. The . information is not important
..� because the impact of these lines on this residential
development, located some distance from the lines , is
insignificant . The existence of these electric transmission
lines does not show that the Project will have any significant
effects not previously discussed in the Final EIR, because the
' impact of these lines on this residential development is
,;,. insignificant . The existence of these electric power lines
does not show that significant effects previously analyzed in
{ the Final EIR will be substantially more severe than shown in
the Final EIR. The existence of these electric transmission
lines does not show that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would be feasible. The
existence of .these electric transmission lines does not show
that -mitigation -measures ;or alternatives not previously
considered in the Final EIR would substantially lessen one or
more significant effects of the Project on the environment .
B. Modifications to the Project .
1 . Facts .
(a) The design of the Rancho Paraiso
Development was modified to remove the units which were
previously proposed for the south knoll , shifting those units
to other areas of the Rancho Paraiso Site where they will
present less of a visual impact . This was accomplished by
96
including several cul-de-sacs within the Project and by
providing a r:onnector street between the two lower portions of
the loop road on the site . This connector street will pass
behind the Cox and Devito properties with homes to be developed
on the inward side of the road, away from the Cox and Devito
properties . The number of units proposed has been reduced from
219 to 205, pursuant to Conditions of Approval adopted by this
Board. One lot was eliminated to provide better linkage
between Arbolado Park and open space areas . Detention basins
which were originally proposed by the Applicant were deleted at
the request of County Public Works staff . Those detention
basins were not a mitigation measure proposed by the Final EIR.
(b) The development of homes on the central
knoll has been restricted by the imposition of a Condition of
• Approval requiring that no homes on the central knoll be built
to the west of the 440-foot contour -�line .
(c) The modifications to the Project will
reduce the land use and open space impacts of the Project, by
'. preserving the southern knoll and increasing the amount of open
<< space that is available . The Project will also preserve open
space in a less-fragmented fashion when compared to the
original proposal , and will reduce the perceived extension of
-' residential development into hillsides approaching Lime Ridge
through the preservation of the south knoll . The permanent
alteration of land forms on the site will be reduced. The
elimination of home sites on the south knoll and the reduction
in the number of home sites does not create any additional
;, significant impacts , or increase the severity of any impact
previously analyzed in the Final EIR.
(d) The modified project will not change
: any impacts of the Project upon agriculture or result in any
additional agricultural impacts . Because the Project contains
a reduced number of homes, no significant impact on population
in housing is created as & result of the modification.
(e) The modified project will reduce the
number of average daily trips, thus reducing the transportation
impact , and not creating .any1.additional transportation impact .
(f) The modified project includes fewer
homes than were analyzed in the Final EIR, so the impact on
municipal services will be reduced, and no significant impact
relating to municipal services will be created as a result of
the project modifications .
(g) The modified project contains less
grading overall than the initial project, and includes the
preservation of the south knoll . Overall , less area will be
97
.. graded, and the volume of earth to be moved will be less .
These modifications in project will reduce the impacts relating
to grading and geology, and will not' . increase any impact or
create any new significant new impacts .
(h) The modified project includes fewer
homes, so the impacts on drainage and water quality will be
proportionately reduced. The modified project will also
provide substantial protection to the Devito ponds, because the
Applicant will be required to collect and convey drainage
,. water, and the lateral road across the DeVito boundary will
prevent runoff from entering into the DeVito ponds . Thus , the
' modified project further mitigates drainage from water quality
impacts, and does not create any new or increased significant
impact .
( i) The project ..modifications will not
increase -,the impact upon vegetation and wildlife, and will
:. reduce those impacts by maintaining the south knoll as a
pristine open space area .
(j ) The project modifications will reduce
the visual impact of the Project, and will not create
additional or increased significant impacts . Removing homes
t from the south knoll reduces the visual impact, and restricting
�. the development of homes in the central knoll also reduces the
visual impact of the Project .
(k) The Project includes a reduced number
of homes, resulting in reduced traffic and air quality
impacts .`` The modified Project will. not generate additional
noise, and the long-term noise impact will be reduced in
;... proportion to the reduced number of homes on the site. The
impact to the Project upon archeology will be identical or
: slightly reduced, as a substantial portion of the .Site will be
developed, but' the south knoll will be preserved.
( 1 ) The impact of this Project on the
Ginocchio will be substantially reduced by the project
`; modifications': Preservation of� the south knoll will provide a
substantial buffer and a natural land barrier between the
,:. Rancho Paraiso development and the Ginocchio Ranch, reducing
the possibility of nuisances to agricultural operations . The
project modifications will not create any additional or
increased significant impacts on ,the Ginocchio Ranch.
2 . Findings .
Based on the entire record before this Board, this
Board finds that :
98
(a) The Project modifications do not result
in any significant environmental impacts which were not
considered in the Finel EIR, and do not increase the severity
of any environmental impacts considered in the Final EIR. The
Project modifications will substantially reduce the adverse
environmental impacts of the Project . Therefore, the Project
modifications do not constitute changes which require major or
important revisions to the Final EIR.
(b) The project modifications do not
constitute substantial changes in the circumstances under which
the Project is undertaken requiring major or important
revisions to the Final EIR.
(c) The project modifications do not
constitute new information relating to the Project which shows
any additional significant effects , or more severe significant
effects, when compared to the impacts analyzed in the Final
EIR. Nor do the project modifications constitute new
information creating a need for further consideration of
mitigation measures .
(d) Based on its review of the standards
set forth in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162-15164 , this Board finds that there is
no basis in the record before it to support requiring the
applicant to prepare an addendum to the Final EIR, a
Supplemental EIR or a Subsequent EIR to address the project
modifications .
C. No Precedent For Further Development . This
Board finds that certain properties contiguous to the Project
Site are designated in the County General Plan and in the
County Zoning Ordinance for agricultural use . This Board' s
'• action in approving this Project and residential development of
the Project Site in no way commits this Board to allow any
further urbanization on adjacent properties . It is this
Board' s intent that these Approvals shall not be .considered by
this Board as establishing any precedent for Board approval of
any development applications in the area surrounding the
Project Site.
VIII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings . This Board adopts the following program in
fulfillment of this requirement :
99
The Applicant shall file a written report
with the County Community Development
Department approximately once every six
months, beginning six months following
approval of this Project by the Board of
Supervisors . The written report shall
briefly state the status in implementing
each mitigation measure which is adopted as
a Condition of Approval or which is
incorporated into this Project . Community
Development staff shall review the written
report and determine whether there is any
unusual and substantial delay of over one
year in, or obstacle to, implementing the
adopted or incorporated mitigation measures
which requires action by Department staff .
If the Applicant requests it , the result of
this review will be provided to the
Applicant in writing. If the staff
determine that action is required, the staff
and the Applicant shall consult and, if
- possible, agree upon additional actions to
be taken to implement the mitigation
measure(s) which is subject to the delay or
obstacle. . If and only if the staff and the
Applicant are unable to agree upon the
additional actions to be taken, then either
staff or the Applicant may bring the matter
before the Zoning Administrator for a
decision whether any action should be taken`
and what that action should be. Staff and
the Zoning Administrator shall be limited .to
imposing reasonable actions as permitted' by
;: law which will implement the existing
mitigation measures . In reviewing the
timeliness of the implementation measures,
staff shall consider the project timetable
as presented to the Planning Commission.
This timetable envisions build-out of the
Rancho Paraiso Site at the rate of
approximately 50 units per year, subject to
reasonable but unanticipated delays due to
weather and the like.
IX. GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this Project, including approval of the General Plan Amendment ,
approval of the Rezoning, approval of the Final Development
Plan, and approval of the Subdivision, and the Rancho Paraiso
Development and further intends that the following findings and
100
r
• a
" determinations shall be generally applicable to all findings
and determinations as a whole contained herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies , oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, the EIR,
resolutions, conditions of approval , and the information
submitted by the Applicant , all relating to the Project and the
Approvals .
B. This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations; that any finding and/or determination required
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject matter of the project or any of the
Approvals shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of
these findings and determinations . All of the foregoing
constitute findings and determinations by this Board whether or
not any particular sentence or clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire
administrative record relating to the Project and the
Approvals, including, without limitation, that evidence
presented in hearings on the project before the Planning
Commission. The findings and determinations constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by the
competent and substantial evidence in the administrative record
as a whole.
101
r
PART II : FINDINGS RELATIVE TO ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, .THE REZONING, THE . FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
AND THE TENTATIVE MAP.
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 26-2 . 1806
A. This Board finds that the re-proposed zoning will
comply with the Contra Costa County General Plan (as set forth
in the 1978. South Ygnacio Valley General Plan Amendment and the
: County-wide General Plan) . A General Plan Amendment for the
Rancho Paraiso Project Site has been adopted to redesignate the
Project Site from Agricultural Preserve to Single Family Medium
Density, General Open Space, and Parks & Recreation. This
Rezoning is consistent with the General Plan Amendment . The
Rezoning will also correct a current inconsistency, as the
existing Agricultural Preserve designation is intended only for
. lands under Williamson Act contracts with the County. In 1980 ,
the Board of Supervisors cancelled the Williamson Act contract
for the Project. Site. In addition, the Staff Report for the
Rezoning states that the Project , including the Rezoning, is
consistent with the entire County General Plan, and Part I ,
above (the CEQA findings) , specifically discusses consistency
'. of the Project, including the Rezoning, with the Open Space and
Safety Elements of the County General Plan.
B. This Board finds that the uses proposed in the
P-1 District are compatible both within the P-1 District and
with uses in adjacent districts . The Project Site is proximate
and adjacent to existing residential developments , as well as
to open space, recreation and agricultural lands . The Project
is designed to serve as a transition between the open space and
residential uses .< Numerous mitigation measures and conditions
of approval: have. been incorporated into the Project which will
ensure that the Project is compatible with all adjacent uses .
The Project includes openj�;space -areas, including a substantial
open space buffer along the southern and southeastern edges of
" the property, provisions for protection and rehabilitation of
ace
o en s ;:and wildland areas, an
p p equestrian trail head, a
�� permanent hiking and riding.. trail along or near the western
.. property line of the Project Site, design provisions to
mitigate trail impacts on abutting lots, and measures to
mitigate impacts on adjacent agricultural operations . The
Project design also incorporates large lot sizes to ensure that
the residential units on the Project Site itself are compatible
with each other .
C. This Board finds that community need has been
, demonstrated for the proposed use . The Project homebuyers will
be primarily local area residents desiring a larger home. The
102
availability of housing sold by these "move-up" buyers will
r>` cause more affordable housing to become available to the
community and the region. In addition, there is currently very
little housing of the type proposed for this Project which is
available to accommodate white-collar workers employed in the
Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill/Concord area . Many such workers now
commute from such areas as San Ramon and Danville because
sufficient comparable housing is not available in Walnut Creek
and the surrounding area .
t: II . FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PURSUANT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 84-66 . 1406
A. This Board finds that the applicant intends to
commence construction within two and one-half years from the
effective date of the approvals .
B. This Board finds that the proposed planned unit
development Project is consistent with the Contra Costa County
General Plan as 'amended by the General Plan Amendment, as more
fully set forth in Part II , Section I .A, above.
C. This Board finds that the Project will constitute
a residential environment of sustained desirability and
stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and community, as more fully set forth
in Part II , Section I .B, above. In addition, this Board finds
that the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval imposed on the Project and Project ' s design features
. will further ensure that the Project will be stable, desirable
and compatible with the surrounding community.
D. This Board finds that the development of a
harmonious and integrated plan justifies exceptions from the
normal application of the County Code. The Project as
currently designed includes open space, residential sites , and
.trail facilities justifying the application of the flexibility
available under a P-1 District .
:; III . FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTATIVE MAP PURSUANT TO
THE 'SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (GOVT. CODE SECTION 66411
ET SEQ. ) AND THE -COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
(CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE, TITLE 9)
A. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473, that the proposed subdivision meets and performs
all of the requirements and conditions imposed by the
Subdivision Map Act and Contra Costa County Subdivision
Ordinance, as more fully set forth in the findings incorporated
herein and as mandated by the Condition of Approval requiring
103
the Subdivision to conform to the provisions of the County
Subdivision Ordinance .
B. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code
' Section 66473 . 5, that the Subdivision, together with its
provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with the
Contra Costa County General Plan as amended by the General Plan
. Amendment , as discussed in Part II , Section I .A, above. This
Board further finds that there are no specific plans applicable
to the Project Site.
C. This Board finds , pursuant to Government Code
' Section 664.12 . 3 , that the effect of the Approvals on the
housing needs of the region has been considered. In 'doing so,
this Board has attempted to balance the regional housing needs
against the public service needs of area residents, as well as
against the available fiscal and environmental resources . This
Board finds that it would be difficult to develop the Project
,. Site for high-density residential uses, the Project has
substantial benefits, there is a need for comparable high
equality housing in the Project area, and the Project appeals to
"homebuyers desiring a "move-up" home, creating more affordable
; housing. This Board finds that the existing infrastructure may
not be able to serve a higher-density development , that a
higher-density development would create substantial visual
traffic and other adverse impacts , and that the Project Site is
. not suitable for high-density development, so that the Project
as proposed properly balances the region ' s competing needs .
D. This Board finds , pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473 . 1, that the design of the proposed subdivision,
' provides, to the extent feasible given the configuration,
orientation and topography of the Project Site, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities within the
subdivision. Among other facts, many of the homesites may be
able to take advantage of a southern exposure as shown on
Figure 6 of the DEIR.
E. This Board finds that no substantial evidence has
been presented before this Board which requires a finding
pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 mandating denial of
the proposed subdivision, as fully discussed in Part I , above .
IV. GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this Project, approval of General Plan Amendment, approval of
the Rezoning, approval of the Final Development Plan, and
approval of the Subdivision, and further intends that the
following findings and determinations shall be generally
104
' applicable to all findings and determinations as a whole
contained herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies, oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, the EIR,
resolutions, conditions of approval, and the information
submitted by the Developer, all relating to the Project and the
Approvals.
B. This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations, that any finding and/or determination required
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject matter of the project or any of the
Approvals shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of
these findings and determinations . All of the foregoing
constitute findings and determinations by this Board whether or
not any particular sentence or clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire
administrative record relating to the Project and the
Approvals, including, without limitation, that evidence
presented in hearings on the project before the Planning
Commission. The findings and determinations constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by the
competent and substantial evidence in the administrative record
as a whole.
105
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2795-RZ FINAL DEVELOP-
MENT PLAN 3011-88 AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7110
1. This approval is based upon the Preliminary/Final Development Plan, Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map and supporting plans and other documents submit-
ted with the application dated received March 25, 1989 and subsequently
revised by plans dated received March 31, 1989, provided that a maximum of
205 residential units shall be developed on the Rancho Paraiso site. In
addition, no lots or units will be developed on the central knoll west of
the existing 440-foot contour line as such line is shown on the aforemen-
tioned plans.
2. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) , Articles of Incorporation
and By-laws for a mandatory homeowners association shall be submitted prior
to filing the Final Subdivision Map. The documents shall provide for
among other things, the ownership and maintenance of the common open space,,
landscape areas, pathway system, storm drainage facilities, graded slopes,
terraces, and subdrains, mitigation areas A, B and C and other common
facilities, excepting any facilities or areas dedicated to a public entity,
and provided that open space areas, landscape areas, drainage facilities
and other common facilities may be constructed and maintained by an
improvement district. The CC&Rs shall prohibit long term parking of
recreational vehicles, and shall specify that residential homes within the
project may be used as a family day care home.
3. Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits described above,
the guide for development shall be the Single Family Residential (R-15)
district, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the
time of issuance of building permits. Any request made subsequent to the
approval of this project for modification of the standards applicable to
this project shall be made by recommendation of the homeowners association
to the Zoning Administrator, prior to issuance of building permits.
Buildings shall be limited to a building height of 27 feet on the central
knoll area.
4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a final landscape plan for common
areas, including the details of any irrigation and fencing to be installed
by the developer, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Common area landscaping (if any) to be provided by the
applicant for each project phase shall be installed in conjunction with
development of that project phase.
A. Landscaping and irrigation provided by the developer shall include
drought tolerant plants and drip irrigation. The developer shall
provide to homeowners a pamphlet summarizing the advantages of using
drought tolerant plants and the feasibility and advantages of
installing drip irrigation.
B. The applicant shall plan for and create replacement burrows for the
owls in the project's permanent open space away from development.
� M�u�7 o
2
C. The final landscape plan shall include controls or design measures to
limit weeds for additional fire protection. These measures may
include disked fire breaks, greenbelt planting, or other measures.
D. The Fish & Game mitigation areas shall be planted with trees and
shrubs as appropriate. Native trees and plants shall be used when
appropriate in project landscaping, including landscaping in mitiga-
tion areas.
E. Selected areas of the site shall be seeded with native wildflower
seeds, and grazing shall be reduced or eliminated to encourage grass
and wildflower growth. Wildflower seeds may be added to grassland
open space areas after erosion control planting has been established.
F. The plan shall include design provisions for fencing or other appro-
priate buffers or separation along the back of individual lots, and
provisions for seeding at the edges of the site's developed area to
diversify the grasslands (such as hydroseeding the open space and
slopes) , as indicated on the Final Development Plan. Open wire fenc-
ing at the rear of the lots shall be installed either by individual
home builders, or by the developer, in accordance with the design
provisions for fencing.
G. The applicant shall prepare an educational. brochure explaining open
space values for distribution to home purchasers. This brochure shall
be designed to encourage residents to plant appropriate buffers of
trees or shrubs to soften the transition from residential use to open
space.
-H. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting or seeding to
help mitigate the project's visual impact. This shall include land-
scape screening around the water tanks to mitigate views of those
tanks from higher elevations.
5. All homes shall have house numbers that are easily seen from the street
which may require illumination. All homes shall have roofs with fire
retardant materials such as treated shingles, or other materials. Founda-
tions of homes shall extend below the zone of seasonal moisture changes.
6. All construction and transportation equipment shall be muffled in accord-
ance with State and Federal requirements.
7. Street names shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community
Development Department.
8. The applicant shall develop, in conjunction with the County Building
Inspection Department, a program to minimize erosion and dust resulting
from the grading operations. The grading permit shall limit grading opera-
tion to the hours from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on week days only. No grad-
ing will be permitted on weekends except for emergency situations when
� ��,
`
. - . ,
^
/ .
3
approved by the Building Inspection Department. Transporting of heavy
equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of
9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Construction in creeks shall be limited to April
15 through October I.
9, Comply with the recommendations of the geologic report submitted with the
application. Grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval by
the County Geologist prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A. At least 45 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of Building
Inspection Department permits or installation of improvements, submit
a preliminary geotechnical report meeting the requirements of Subdi-
vision Ordinance Section 94-4'420, for review and approval of the
Planning Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall
carry out the recommendations of the approved report'
Q. Concurrently with recordation of the map, record a statement to run
with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report by title,
author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommenda-
tions, and noting that the report is on file for public review in the
Community Development Department of Contra Costa County'
C. Final Map shall show a triangular zone restricted from construction of
structures for human habitation in the southwest site corner as shown
by Engeo, Inc' /s A]quist-Priolo Seismic Hazard Study (Enggo File
N7-2447-E2, dated December 21, 1987, Figures l and 4) , from the origin
of trench 2 to the west property boundary. The bearing of the east
boundary of the restricted zone shall be N23W'
.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of each phase of this
subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the geotechnical engineer
with a map showing final plan and grades for subsurface drainage,
Subdrain cleanouts and disposal or pickup points, and any buttress
fill with its key way location, and other soil improvements installed
during grading, all as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer'
F. All grading on the project shall be accomplished in accordance with
the County Grading Ordinance requirements, Ordinance 716, while main-
taining slope of 3:1 or better, except that slopes of 2:1 up to a
height of 4 feet shall be allowed between residential lots'
F. The grading plan shall provide for removal , grading, and replacement
of landslide debris with graded slopes of 3:1 or better, except that
slopes of 2:1 up to a height of 4 feet shall be allowed between resi-
dential l0ts. Deep fill Shall be designed to minimize settlement, and
conservative grading and construction practices shall be incorporated
in the plan. The County Geologist shall evaluate the grading plan
when submitted, including the seismic stability of the finished slope,
and the County Zoning Administrator may require amendments to the plan
if the evaluation indicates a ne ed for such amendment.
8�YYOOO���
|
. .
'
4
G. Cut or graded slopes shall be periodically inspected during grading of
those slopes by an engineering geologist or soils engineer with peri-
odic progress reports and a completion report.
H. Lined drainage ditches or berms at the crest of graded slopes shall be
included to control runoff, drainage ditches at appropriate vertical
intervals shall be included when the steepness of the slope requires
them, and key ways shall be excavated into bedrock as appropriate.
The plan shall include appropriate subdrains, and drainage rock shall
be wrapped in a suitable geotextile.
I . The project design shall comply with the terms of the setback zone as
determined by Engeo, and the applicant shall encourage prospective
homebuyers or purchasers of lots to obtain appropriate earthquake
insurance.
J. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated as soon as possible after
grading when season conditions are favorable to seed germination and
plant growth.
K. Soils of higher nutritional value shall be stockpiled during grading
for later spreading on the rocky cut slopes under the direction of
landscape architects or architectural soil scientists, along with the
plant ecologists already proposed to participate in the revegetation
development program.
10. An archaeological resource investigation shall be made of the site and a
report shall be submitted for review by the Zoning Administrator. Recom-
mendations of the report may be made requirements for development. If
during the construction, grading or excavation, any items of potential
historic or scientific interest are or discovered, the Community Develop-
ment Department shall be notified and the Director shall have the authority
to stop work in the area of any.find, pending verification of the discovery
and establishment of development methods for protection and treatment of
areas of significant interest.
11. Development rights for all common area that is to be maintained by the
homeowners association and for all permanent open space areas, shall be
deeded to the County.
12. The applicant shall assure that the approval of the annexation of the
developed portions of the site to the Contra Costa Water District and
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District shall be obtained prior to issuance
of building permits.
A. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Water District shall
approve of pressure Zone 3 and extended elevation Zone 4 on the site
or take comparable action to approve water service to the development.
CJu�� D.
5
B. The water storage and distribution system shall be designed to meet
Water District and Fire District flow standards and water demands.
C. The final design of the new water reservoir facilities shall be
subject to review by the Zoning Administrator.
13. The open space parcels contiguous to the City of Walnut Creek shall be
offered by the applicant to the City for dedication to the public in accor-
dance with the following procedure:
A. On or prior to final map approval , the applicant shall by letter
request the City to state whether or not the City will accept an
unconditional offer to dedication of these lands in fee simple title.
This letter shall request a response by the City in the form of a
Council resolution to be provided within 60 days of the applicant's
letter.
B. If the City does not respond to this letter request within 60 days, if
the City rejects the proposed dedication of property, or if the City
places conditions upon such a dedication which are not acceptable to
the applicant, then the applicant shall not be required to offer or
dedicate any lands to the City. Then, the open space lands on the
site may be offered to any public agency by the homeowners association
or the applicant, as the case may be, at the sole discretion of the
association or applicant. Alternatively, the open space areas shall
be maintained by the homeowners association.
C. If the City states by Council resolution that it will accept such an
offer of dedication of open space lands, then the applicant shall be
required to offer to dedicate the lands to the City at the time that
the subdivision improvements have been approved or accepted as
complete by the appropriate public agency.
14. The applicant shall use its best efforts to negotiate a precise alignment
for the access easement in favor of the City of Walnut Creek between
Arbolado Park and the Lime Ridge Open Space, with such access to be located
within the open space area adjacent to Arbolado Park.
15. The phasing schedule is approved as shown on the tentative subdivision map,
any modification is subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
16. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertain-
ing to Water Conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordi-
nance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other
interior and exterior water conservation techniques.
17. The provision of the county child care ordinance shall be complied with
prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map.
6
18. Emergency access shall be provided to open space from streets at locations
where access to open space is provided for in project plans. Easements or
public rights for emergency access shall be provided as set forth in
project plans, and emergency access shall tie into existing fire trails.
Any access gates shall be at least 16 feet wide.
19. Riding and hiking trails as shown on the tentative map shall be provided,
including the following:
A. A riding and hiking trail shall be constructed within a trail easement
extending from Northgate Road through the Open Space Area to the east-
erly boundary of the site as shown on the Final Development Plan.
Trail plan details shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator with the filing of the final map.
B. Provision shall be made for a riding and hiking trail easement from
the northwest corner of the site which, when similar easements are
eventually obtained from the owners of the Cox and DeVito properties,
would provide for a trail extending along the westerly boundaries of
the Rancho Paraiso, Cox, and DeVito properties to south of the Cox
property. Accordingly, as indicated on the Final Development Plan,
and subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator with
the filing of the Final Subdivision Map, riding and hiking trail ease-
ments shall be provided along the western boundary of the Rancho
Paraiso site between the northwest corner and the DeVito property,
along the western boundary of the Rancho Paraiso site between the
DeVito property and the Cox property, and along the western boundary
of the Rancho Paraiso site to the south of the Cox property.
C. Proposed improvements in the trail connections that lead to or affect
Lime Ridge and Arbolado Park shall be coordinated with the City of
Walnut Creek to avoid conflicts between the plans.
D. The purchasers of lots in the vicinity of the park riding and hiking
trails shall be advised of the potential nuisances which may be asso-
ciated with these facilities. Purchasers of lots shall be advised
that the development is adjacent to the Walnut Creek Police Firing
Range and some residents may experience noise.
E. The final map application shall include provisions for either screen-
ing, open wire fencing, buffer areas, or a separation between the
hiking and riding trails located on the Rancho Paraiso site and any
residential yards which may abut these trails.
20. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom are specifically listed
in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordi-
nance Code includes the following requirements:
1) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
2) Installing street lights on the on-site streets and applying for
annexation to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the
street lights. The final number and location of the lights will
be determined by the County Traffic Engineer.
3) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed
and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility. In
addition, compliance with all applicable standards of the Flood
Control District is a condition of final map approval . Compli-
ance with Flood Control District standards may include the
installation of detention basins 'if the District, in its sole
discretion, determines that such basins are necessary, and may
include the expansion of downstream storm drainage pipes if the
District, in its sole discretion, determines that such expansion
is necessary.
4) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
5) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for
all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions
of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any
necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the
County Zoning Administrator.
6) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of
the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
B. All interior subdivision streets shall be 'dedicated to the County and
constructed to County public road standards, as indicted on the Vest-
ing Tentative Map. A sidewalk shall be included on the loop road
within the project, but sidewalks shall not be required on the
cul-de-sac streets or on the street which runs laterally between the
looproad.
C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available from North-
gate Road.
�� - � D �� D
8
D. Mitigate the storm run-off impact of this development on Pine Creek by
contributing a drainage fee of $60,000 to the County Drainage Defi-
ciency Fee Trust (Fund No. 812100-0800) designated for improvements to
Pine Creek Channel improvements.
E. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways.
F. Extend the southerly portion of Road A from the site to Northgate Road
as a 36 foot paved road, constructed to County public road standards,
within a 56 foot right of way. Construction of sidewalk, as shown on
the Vesting Tentative Map, shall be continued through this extension.
G. Improve Northgate Road, between the project access road and Sutton
Drive as a 36 foot paved road, constructed to County public road
standards, within a 56 foot right of way. These improvements shall
include appropriate repair of Northgate Road, an all-weather shoulder
on the south side of Northgate Road, and striping for a 5 foot wide
bicycle lane on either side. Construct a 4 foot sidewalk along the
north-easterly side of the roadway. In conjunction with this improve-
ment, construct a left turn lane for southbound traffic accessing the
project access road subject to the review and approval of the County
Public Works Department. Submit a sketch plan of these improvements,
to the Road Engineering Division of the County Public Works Department
prior to submission of Improvement Plans.
H. Remove shrubbery and trees, as necessary, to improve sight distance at
the intersection of Road A and Northgate Road.
I . Improve the northerly side of Arbolado Drive between the site and the
Contra Costa County Canal as a 40 foot paved road, constructed to
County public road standards, and construct a 4 foot sidewalk along
the edge of the road.
J. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or
permanent, road and drainage improvements.
K. Mitigate off-site impacts of construction equipment by:
1) Requiring all construction equipment used in grading and in the
construction of the on-site road system to access the site off of
Northgate Road via the southerly portion of Road A.
2) Maintaining and restoring Northgate Road between Road A and
Castle Rock Road under the direction and approval of the County
Public Works Department.
r
•
• 9
21. Consideration shall be given to the open space areas and adjacent agricul-
ture lands, as follows:
A. There shall be recordation of notice to run with the land that the
property is adjacent to agricultural uses which may cause nuisances to
residential neighbors such as odor, noise, etc.
B. The open space area between the developed homes and the adjacent
Ginochio property as indicated on the tentative map, shall be main-
tained as permanent open-space buffer. Where the project homes or
open space abut areas to be grazed, adequate fencing shall be
provided.
C. Future home buyers shall be notified of the possibility of grazing
occurring on adjacent lands. They shall be presented with educational
notice to encourage respect for the animals to discourage vandalism
and shall be notified that a strict leash law shall be enforced within
the development.
D. As a condition of final map approval , a sign program for the control
of dogs shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The homeowners association rules, when prepared, shall
require that dogs be leashed when they are taken on trails or on open
space areas within the project.
E. As a condition of final map approval , a program of appropriately sized
signs at entryways onto trails should be submitted for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator, to help ensure that dirt bikes
do not gain access to the Ginochio Ranch through project open space
lands.
F. The applicant shall confer with Ginochio Ranch representatives regard-
ing provision of adequate fencing between homesites and the Ginochio
Ranch. Confirmation of compliance with this condition shall be
provided by the applicant.
22. The applicant shall take the following actions to protect the quality and
the availability of water for the Devito pond:
A. The applicant shall arrange an agreement acceptable to the applicant,
the Contra Costa Water District, Cox and DeVito and subject to review
and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to final map approval
regarding continued maintenance of the current water pumping arrange-
ment to the storage pond on the DeVito property. Alternatively,
if an agreement cannot be reached, physical provisions should be made
to make treated Contra Costa Water District water available to the
DeVito site.
��L'Uli'iJ� LJ D
10
B. The applicant shall demonstrate how the project storm drainage system
will adequately protect the Devito pond against any adverse water
quality impacts. Protection measures shall be incorporated into the
storage pond water source agreement subject to the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
23. The project shall comply with Sanitary District Standards. Compliance will
include a gravity flow system which is responsive to unstable geologic
conditions as required by the District' s design standards, and completion
of a study to determine the capacity of the local collection system between
the project and the 10-inch mains along Oak Grove Road.
A. If the District determines that the capacity is adequate, no expansion
of the system will be required. If the District determines that the
capacity is inadequate, then the capacity will be expanded by the
applicant as a condition of final map approval .
24. The applicant shall contribute to the County homeless fund a sum equal to
the profit on the site of two (2) developed lots or homes, or not less than
the sum of $100,000. The contributed funds shall be placed in trust with
provisions for the deposit, retention, and payment of funds to be approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
Advisory Notes
1. This development will be subject to the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Currently, the site is located within
the Marsh Creek Region of the Countywide Area of Benefit. However, traffic
from the site will flow directly into the Central Region. Prior to the
filing of the Final Map and/or issuance of building permits, the County
staff will take action which will transfer the site into the Central Region
and will subject the development to the Central Region fee. The monies
collected will be placed in a County trust fund to be used for Measure "C"
projects in the Central Region.
2. The Park Dedication Fee which is required to be paid pursuant to County
Ordinance shall be paid at the time the first building permits are issued
for construction of homes on the site. At the request of the City of
Walnut Creek, the County will make these fees available to the City for the
purpose of developing the proposed Arbolado Park.
3. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish
and Game. The applicant should notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.
0. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction
within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources,
per the Fish and Game Code.
EKNDlDfly
s 11
This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of
Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the
Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required and if it can be
obtained.
4. The project will be required to pay a one-time per-unit fee for fire
services pursuant to county ordinance, and to comply with the county ordi-
nance regarding park fees or dedications.
The following statements are NOT Conditions of Approval ; however, the applicant
should be aware of these requirements prior to attempting to secure building
permits.
A. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. See attached.
B. The Central Costa Sanitary District. See attached.
C. Health Services Department. See attached.
BT/aa
4/10/89
4/11/89
RZ/13/2795-RZ.BT
EK M LD)��
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on April 11, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, McPeak, Schroder, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sunervi sor Torl akson
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 89/240
SUBJECT: In the matter of the Rancho )
Paraiso General Plan Amendment)
County File No. 3-87-CO )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE:
That there is filed with this Board and its Clerk, a copy of
Resolution No. 5-1989 adopted by the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission proposing an amendment to the County General
Plan in the Walnut Creek area. The Commission approval for the
amendment calls for a change from Agricultural Preserve and
Single Family Residential Very Low Density to Single Family
Residential Medium Density, Open space, and Parks and
Recreation. It also modified the Circulation and Recreation
Elements of the County General Plan.
On March 28, 1989 , the Board held a hearing on said amendment.
Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner as required
by law. The Board, at the hearing, called for testimony of all
persons interested in this matter and numerous persons spoke
either in favor or opposition to the amendment. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Board continued the item until
April 4 , 1989 for further testimony. The hearings covered both
the proposed General Plan and development applications on the
site.
At the hearing of March 28, 1989, the applicant presented a
minor modification to the areas shown for development and the
Community Development Department prepared a revised plan
amendment plan text and map which reflected this change; it was
submitted to the Board at its April 4, 1989 hearing. On April
4, 1989, the Board indicated its intent to adopt the General
Plan 3-87-CO and instructed staff to prepare the appropriate
findings for adoption on April 11, 1989.
The Board members, having fully considered this revised'
amendment proposal, hereby adopts the County General Plan
Amendment No. 3-87-CO for the Rancho Paraiso Amendment area to
Single Family Residential Medium Density, Parks and Recreation
and General Open Space and to modify Circulation and Recreation
Elements. A copy of the Plan, text and map reflecting the
amendment, on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board,
shall be endorsed and approved by the Clerk as provided herein.
RESOLUTION NO. 89/240
I
The Board further finds that the proposed amendment will have a
significant impact on the environment and that an Environmental
, Impact Report was prepared and processed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the County' s
Environmental Impact Guidelines. A copy of the County' s
findings are attached as Exhibit A.
s
cc: Community Development Department
County Counsel I twereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
County Administration an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
County Public Works Board of Supe cors orkthe date shown.
City of Walnut Creek ATTESTED:
j we 3/j b/rpai r a.reS PHIL BA HELOR, lerlc of the Board
gP of Sups so and County Administrator
Smith Perma Bilt-Barratt Irvine
a
By n --,) ,Deputy
RESOLUTION NO. 89/240
RANCHO PARAISO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
I . INTRODUCTION
This amendment pertains to the Land Use, Circulation, and Recreation
Elements of the County General Plan. The amendment area consists of
approximately 223 acres of land located immediately south of the City of
Walnut Creek's Lime Ridge Open Space Recreation Area. It comprises
policies dealing with the Rancho Paraiso, Cox and DeVito land holdings.
II . LAND USE ELEMENT
This amendment changes the land use designation and location of land from
Agricultural Preserve, and Single Family Residential Very Low Density to
Single Family Residential Medium Density, General Open Space, and Parks and
Recreation. The land use designations in this plan amendment are described
as follows and shows on Map A. The boundary lines are schematic in nature
and will be finalized upon review of development applications.
Single Family Residential Medium Density
The allowable range in the category is 3 to 5 units per net acre. However,
due to specific site and environmental considerations, Rancho Paraiso is
limited to a maximum of 210 units, the Cox property to 7 , and the DeVito
property to 22 units. The final number shall be determined upon review of
development applications on this site. Homesites on the central ana south
knolls shall be limited to low profiles.
Parks and Recreation
These lands shall be offered for dedication to the City of Walnut Creek
upon completion of the project for addition to the Lime Ridge Open Space
Recreation Area. Should the city not wish to accept them they viill be
maintained as project open space and be deed restricted.
Open Space
These areas shall be deed restricted open space lands maintained by a
homeowners association or other appropriate entity.
III . CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Arbolado Drive and a new access connecting from Rancho Paraiso back to
North Gate Road shall be designatedas collectors as shown on '-lip B.
IV. RECREATION ELEMENT
In addition to the land offered for addition to the Lime Ridge Open Space
Recreation Area, a hiking and equestrian trails shall be added to the
County Recreation Element which will connect Lime Ridge with ?forth Gate
Road. The generalized location is shown on Map A.
JWC:cg
cd17/rchoprso.gpa
'
( '
~
,
`
^ `
o Trails
`
The city General Plan proposes a Lime Ridge - Shell Ridge Trail extending
southerly from Ygnacio Valley Road along the eastern edge of the Boundary
Oaks Golf Course/Lime Ridge Open Space. It abuts the northern and western
edge of the Rancho Paraisn site and from there southerly to Horth Gate
Road. This mould connect the trail to the North Gate Community Park site.
An equestrian and hiking trail should be added to the County Recreation
Element to insure completion of the trail system in the area. The exact
location needs to be determined with the development applications on the
site.
XII. RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Rancho ParaisV General Plan Amendment to the Land Use,
Recreation and Circulation Elements according to the attacheU plan maps and
text'
JWC:cg ~
cdI7/rchoprso'rpt
-
-lO-
-
of
et ff f f
yf
f 1 .4 1 to 4 s s
4.f
ff4f
...........
f 4F.f
f 4f
J.
P
hN
f
f
Jr, 0
A;Vi� IF
-Iz
0
A Af it ff d
A"X)1. 1 Z
..4;0 -I,J-N)r
f4
VC
0 oft �, -jl fi ti LIJ Z
f'r
Lu
gZ
4, 0
> q_ AC W Jz
a
"At
M
IZ
dc
LL qr 0.
41.
uj
_j LU 4j
Z-)
3c Q
�j
1 44!
1.
.2! W
CO
CD ZJ k'
0
44
to.
_N1 4
4.r;-*---717 %
cc
C) IT 0
41 s
41
.,f, 4r
ci
41 N
0
%
h-
w
Az Q
UJ
0.....
.00
M,�
.E.
A,
r 2 9 J...I
..........
I 4T, z
s.
VA
S'Z.
N—4.
hereb
cot7s . Y certif
7der
ed y that th .
On A by the
pri7 Oa
7s plan Inap
rd Of SuPervi, J'a s AIAP
Ors her'eb -A
the c Y cert -
4 do Ontpa Co 7fyPthat thi,
-.c-,-j I y e
8r An Pted I b thsta CoInty IMe
to Board of SeneraIndme
Of don 1989 P7 rit to
Mmu UPerviso, an ;Yas .
SpuhPielr-v8a t c h e I on
Deve7oprnent sors Or' Cler
d coun
'un of t
le,
in Boa
str rd Of
ato r
Oep,ty
t ,
f o
Z � = c
2z co i
Ui
LSC
2 w 1 It ( !
02
U' Z Z • u
Z '�
Z o. w
Z Ui
CL cc Z
w O
}-
OO _3 J •
00
C.) cn CCj,
in
Z -
F— ,.
O ------------
cc
Q �r.j .. ��• R..• 3 1
— 17•—L V y S ; ) I I '
LUt ZA
Q S .a � .+ s i -I a • Y
Ui
.N7
I a tib t r 'i s ` t iii- r »+ 3•,1 _ y -• a i
Q at • • , I F• �+.
a r+ ` • j r_ qi
Off. •3• U. ,v '' .11 I t .1- 1 ".�A N , " > -r
MAP B
I hereby certify that this plan map was I hereby certify that this amendment to
considered by the Board of Supervisors the Contra Costa County General Plan was
on April 4, 1989. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
�! April 11, 1989
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervi rs anCounty Administrator
By: IIAAOZ�
H¢r ey E. 1VLTagdVn Depu y
-ector of Co unity Development
r
`-w
EXHIBIT "A"
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE RANCHO PARAISO DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-87-CO,
APPROVAL OF REZONING 2795-RZ,
APPROVAL OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3011-88 ,
AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 7110 UPON APPLICATION OF
SMITH-PERMA BILT DEVELOPMENT
PART I : FINDINGS RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) .
I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Approvals And Applications .
Smith-Perma Bilt Development ( "Applicant" ) , on its own
behalf and on behalf of Barratt Irvine ( "Owner" ) has proposed
and made application to Contra Costa County ( "County" ) for
approval of a residential subdivision development (the "Rancho
Paraiso Development" ) originally consisting of 219 residential
lots on a site of approximately 210 acres located in the
unincorporated portion of the County at the easterly extension
of Arbolado Drive, approximately 4 , 000 feet east of Oak Grove
Road and easterly of Northgate Road, from its intersection with
Sutton Drive, in the east Walnut Creek area, which site is
commonly known as Rancho Paraiso (the "Rancho Paraiso Site" ) .
The applications consist of requests for four actions : a
general plan amendment (County File No . 3-87-CO) , a rezoning
(County File No. 2795-RZ) , a final development plan (County
File No . 3011-88) , and a tentative map (Subdivision File
No . 7110) (collectively the "Applications" ) .
After the Applications were submitted, the applicant
made a series of changes in the Rancho Paraiso Development in
response to perceived environmental impacts, and to help
mitigate those impacts . In addition, changes and reductions in
the scope of the Rancho Paraiso Development were made both by
the Planning Commission and by this Board. These changes and
reductions in the scope of the Project are as follows :
( 1) One lot was eliminated at the end of the
cul-de-sac at the northwestern corner of the Rancho Paraiso
Site, to increase the area available for the open space and
trail linkage between Arbolado Park, the open space areas on
1
the Project site, and the Lime Ridge Open Space Area . With the
elimination of this lot, the Rancho Paraiso Development will-
provide a. corridor which is a minimum of 150 feet wide for
access and for related open space areas . Pursuant to this
change, the design of the Rancho Paraiso Development presented
to the Planning Commission included 2.18 units .
(2) Prior to consideration of the Applications
by the Planning Commission, the Applicant modified the Rancho
`Paraiso Development so that the cul-de-sac and accompanying
home sites on the south knoll were pulled back 300 feet from
the existing crest of the knoll to a point on the knoll behind
its crest . This modification was to preserve the existing
=crest of the knoll as a natural landscape feature on the Rancho
Paraiso Site, minimize grading on the crest of the south knoll,
and reduce the visual impact of the home sites on the south
knoll .
(3) In recommending that this Board approve the
Applications, the Planning Commission made a further reduction
in the number of units on the Rancho Paraiso Site to a total of
210 units .
(4) Prior to this Board' s consideration of the
Applications , the Applicant met with representatives of the
City of Walnut Creek, environmental groups, and this Board. As
a result of these negotiations, the Applicant modified the
Project by eliminating the development of home sites on the
south knoll of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and placing those home
sites on other, lower areas of the Rancho Paraiso Site,
preserving an overall development proposal of 210 units .
(5) In approving the Applications , this Board
imposed Conditions of Approval limiting the overall number of
units to 205, and specifying that- no units will be developed on
the central knoll to the west of the 440-foot contour line.
(6) At the request of the County Public Works
Department, the Applicant modified the Project to eliminate the
.previously proposed detention basins . The Public Works
Department advised the Applicant that these detention basins
were undesirable, and recommended certain Conditions of
Approval to ensure that any impacts of the Rancho Paraiso,
Development upon. storm drainage remain insignificant .
As a result of these changes in the Rancho Paraiso
Development, that development has been reduced from the
219 residential units originally proposed and analyzed in the
Draft EIR, to a total of 205 units, with no home sites on the
south knoll and restrictions on the location of home sites on
the central knoll .
2
r
t
In addition to the Rancho Paraiso Site, two additional
,.properties which abut the Rancho Paraiso site were included by
County staff for consideration as part of the General Plan
Amendment application. These properties are the ten-acre
DeVito Ranch and the three-acre Cox property. As discussed on
the DEIR pages 2-3 , both parcels are surrounded on three sides
by the Rancho Paraiso property, and both parcels abut the
existing Pheasant Run subdivision. The Final EIR assumes that
these two sites will be developed at densities allowed by the
proposed General Plan Amendment . Thus , while the Rancho
Paraiso Site consists of 210 acres, the general plan amendment
area consists of 223 acres . The Rancho Paraiso Site, the Cox
property, and the DeVito property, which together constitute
the general plan amendment area, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "Project Site. "
Based upon the application for these four actions and
the subsequent modifications , this Board of Supervisors1has
approved the following items (collectively, the "Approvals" ) :
( 1) An amendment to the County General Plan
(County File No. 3-87-CO) (the "General Plan" ) , specifically
amending the land use, circulation and recreation elements of
that General Plan. The land use amendment changes the
designation of the Project Site from "agricultural preserve" to
"Single Family Residential Medium-Density, " "General Open
Space, " and "Parks and Recreation. " The land use designations
in this General Plan Amendment are described on Map A attached
to the Staff Report evaluating the General Plan Amendment . The
Circulation Element is amended to designate Arbolado Drive and
a new access road connecting from the Rancho Paraiso property
back to Northgate Road as collectors, as shown on Map B
attached to the Staff Report on the General Plan Amendment .
The Recreation Element is amended to add a hiking and
equestrian trail which will connect Lime Ridge with Northgate
Road, and the generalized location of this trail is shown on
Map A in the Staff Report evaluating the General Plan Amendment;
(2) A rezoning of the Rancho Paraiso Site from
"Agricultural Preserve District (A-4) " to "Planned Unit
District (P-1) " (the "Rezoning" ) ;
(3) Approval of Final Development Plan
No. 3011-88 for the Rancho Paraiso Development (the "Final
Development Plan" ) ;
(4) Approval of the tentative map for the Rancho
Paraiso Development (Subdivision File No . 7110) (the
"Subdivision" ) .
3
The Rezoning, the Final Development Plan, and the
Subdivision were approved subject to certain conditions of
approval (collectively the "Conditions of Approval" ) . These
Conditions of Approval include the reduction to 205 homes .
These Conditions of Approval also include a prohibition against
developing any home sites in the area of the central knoll to
the west of the 440-foot contour line . For the purpose of
these findings, the Approvals , the Conditions of Approval , and
the Rancho Paraiso Development as modified by the Approvals are
collectively referred to herein as the "Project . "
B. The Environmental Impact Report .
( 1) The County prepared an initial study of
environmental significance dated April 6, 1988 (the "Initial
Study" ) . Pursuant to the recommendation of the initial study,
the County determined that an environmental impact report was
necessary pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA'' ) . A notice of preparation of
an EIR (the "Notice of Preparation" ) was prepared. The Notice
. of Preparation was duly circulated to appropriate responsible
agencies , and comments were received from those agencies . This
Board finds and determines that the Notice of Preparation
satisfied the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
applicable County regulations in that the Notice of Preparation
described the Project , the Project ' s location, and the
environmental effects of the project .
(2) Pursuant to the Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation, the County prepared a draft environmental impact
report on the Project dated July 1988 (the "DEIR" or "Draft
EIR" ) . Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a notice of completion
of the DEIR (the "Notice of Completion" ) was filed with the
State Office of Planning and Research ( "OPR" ) . This Board
finds and determines that the Notice of Completion satisfied
the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable
County regulations in that the Notice of Completion contained a
brief description of the Project, the proposed location of the
Project, an address where copies of the draft EIR are
available, and the period during which comments would be
received on the DEIR.
(3) After receiving comments on the DEIR, the
County prepared a response to comments document dated
October 1988 (the "Response Document" ) . The Initial Study,
Notice of Preparation, DEIR, Notice of Completion, and Response
Document together comprise the final environmental impact
report on the Project pursuant to CEQA (collectively the "Final
EIR" ) .
4
M
(4) The Final EIR analyzes the impacts of the
General Plan Amendment, tle Rezoning, the Final Development
Plan, and the Subdivision. The General Plan Amendment applies
to the entire Project Site, while the other Approvals apply
only to the Rancho Paraiso Site, which includes 210 acres of
the overall Project Site ' s 223 acres . Also, the General Plan
Amendment envisions a total of 237 single family houses (after
accounting for the reduction in Rancho Paraiso homes from 219
to 205) , including 205 homes on the Rancho Paraiso Site .
( 5) Because the Final EIR analyzes the General
Plan Amendment in addition to the other Approvals , and because
the General Plan Amendment includes more acreage and homesites
than does the Rancho Paraiso 'Development alone., the projected
impacts analyzed in the Final EIR, although largely
attributable to the Rancho Paraiso Development , may not be
entirely attributable to the Rancho Paraiso Development .
C. Certification Of The EIR.
On August 23 , 1988 , the Planning Commission held a
'duly noticed public hearing on the DEIR to receive comments and
testimony in addition to the written comments which were
submitted during the comment period. Following this hearing,
the expiration of the comment period and the preparation of the
Response Document, the Commission held a duly noticed meeting
on October 25, 1988, to consider the adequacy of the Final
EIR. At that meeting the Commission certified that the Final
EIR was adequate and satisfied the requirements of CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and applicable County regulations .
In adopting Resolution No . 5-1989 on February 14 ,
1989 , the Planning Commission again found that the EIR was
completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
applicable County regulations . The Commission also found that
the Final EIR was presented to the Commission and that the
Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Final EIR prior to approving the Project and the Approvals .
This Board, in approving the Project and the
Approvals, finds that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable
County regulations . This Board further finds and determines
that the Final EIR was presented to this Board, and this Board
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIR prior to approving the Project and the Approvals .
5
D. Description Of The Record.
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings made herein,
the record before this Board relating to this action includes
without limitation, the following:
Approvals; (1) The Applicant ' s application for the
(2) The Staff Report on the General Plan
Amendment;
(3) The Staff Report on the Rezoning, the Final
Development Plan, and the Subdivision;
(4) All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by the Planning Commission during the public
hearings on the Approvals, the Draft EIR, and the Project;
(5) All documentary and oral evidence received
. and reviewed by this Board during the public hearings on the
Approvals and the Project;
(6) The Final EIR; and
(7) All matters of common knowledge to this
Board, such as
(a) The County General Plan,
(b) The County Zoning Code, and
(c) Other County policies and regulations .
The discussions which follow under the various
captions "Facts" for each category recite some of the
background information, suggested mitigation measures, and
modifications to the Project as reflected in the Approvals . In
some instances, the facts relating to this Board' s
consideration of mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval
are set forth separately under the caption "Mitigation
Measures . " The discussions which follow under the various
captions "Findings" for each category contain findings made by
this Board, based on the entire record before this Board,
including without limitation the information which is recited
under the discussion of "Facts . "
This Board intends that any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
made if it appears in any portion of this document, and that
all of the language included in this document constitutes
6
•findings and determinations by this Board, whether or not any
,. ,particular sentence or clause incli.des a statement to that
. effect .
In the discussions under the headings "Facts" below,
the summarized facts may be primarily or entirely based on the
Final EIR. This Board intends that each finding herein is
based on the entire record, including written and spoken
testimony to the Commission, and the omission of any relevant
fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by
this Board that a particular finding is not based in part on
the omitted fact . This Board ' s findings as set forth herein
are based on all of the facts in the record before this Board.
II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT .
This Board adopts and makes the following findings
regarding those certain potential environmental impacts of the
.Project evaluated in the Initial Study which were determined in
the Initial Study not to be potentially significant adverse
environment impacts of the Project .
A. Facts .
The Initial Study indicated that the Project would
result in a negligible additional consumption of energy, would
not affect the extraction of natural resources (other than the
agricultural and biotic impacts which are discussed in the
Final EIR) , and would not increase the risk of explosion or any
release of hazardous substances or other danger to public
health and safety. The Final EIR states at page 89 of the
Response Document that these conclusions were arrived at by the
County Community Development Department because the Project is
not energy intensive when compared to other types of housing,
because there are no known natural resources underlying the
.Project Site whose use, extraction or conservation would be
affected by this Project (excepting the agricultural and biotic
impacts described in the Final EIR) and because there are no
substantial hazards or hazardous substances on the Project Site
or which would be brought with the Project Site such that the
Project may present a danger to the public health and safety.
B. Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and upon the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) The impact of the Project on
energy consumption is not significant, because the Project is
not energy intensive compared to other types of housing.
7
( ii) The Project will not affect the.
extraction of natural resources other than the agricultural and
biotic impacts which are analyzed in the Final EIR because,
other than these agricultural and biotic impacts analyzed in
the Final EIR, there are no known natural resources underlying
the Project Site which would be affected by the Project .
( iii) The Project does not increase the
risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or other
danger to public health and safety, because there are no
substantial hazards or hazardous substances present on this
Project Site or which would be brought to this Project Site
1such that the Project might present a danger to the public
health and safety.
( iv) Because these impacts were
determined to be insignificant in the Initial Study _for the
reasons set forth above, no mitigation measures or conditions
of approval are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA
relating to the foregoing insignificant impacts .
(v) To the extent that any of the
above impacts on energy consumption, natural resources
extraction, and public health and safety are significant,
despite the conclusions of the Initial Study as stated above,
the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh
any such significant impact, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV, below) .
III . FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO
BE INSIGNIFICANT, AVOIDED, . OR MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE
The Final EIR states on page 90 of the Response
Document that each potentially significant environmental impact
of the Project which is not listed as "unavoidable" in the
Final EIR can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
imposition of the recommended mitigation- measures . The
findings of this Board regarding unavoidable impacts are set
forth in Section IV, below, (findings regarding unavoidable
impacts) and in Section V,. below (the Statement of Overriding
Considerations) . The findings of this Board regarding
environmental impacts which are determined in the Final EIR to
be insignificant, avoided, or mitigated to a level of
insignificance are set forth in this Section III .
8
A. Land Use And Open Space.
X 1 . Facts .
The following subsections (a) through (g) discuss the
various land use and open space impacts of the Project,
including a summary of recommended mitigation measures .
(a) Project Site impacts .
(i) The Final EIR Response Document
states on page 91 that, although Walnut Creek General Plan
designations are analyzed in the Draft EIR, the County in
acting upon this Project is not required to conform to the
provisions of the City of Walnut Creek General Plan. Also on
. page 91 , the Response Document states that the State General
Plan Guidelines do not require that county land use decisions
comply with the general plans or the ordinances of nearby
cities .
( ii) The Project would extend the east
Walnut Creek urbanized area into the Project Site, ultimately
eliminating approximately 215 acres from the county' s
170, 000-acre range land inventory (DEIR, pages 38-39) .
Development of the . Rancho Paraiso Development on the. Project
Site would require demolition of the existing Paraiso Ranch
complex. The Applicant ' s grading plan is designed to provide
contoured hillsides, level building areas to reduce visual
impacts, and landslide repair . The original grading plan
covered approximately 75% of the Rancho Paraiso Site and would
have resulted in the removal of 66 of the 80 existing trees on
the site, although the Applicant would replant and revegetate
various areas on the Rancho Paraiso Site pursuant to the
agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and
the other Conditions of Approval , as discussed later in these
findings . The modifications to the. Project reduced the grading
impacts by eliminating most grading on the south knoll and
reducing the overall amount of grading on the Rancho Paraiso
Site. Pursuant to the General Plan Amendment, eventual
subdivision and development of the Cox and Devito properties
could involve similar demolition of the ranch complex on the
Devito site and the single-family home on the Cox property.
( iii) . The DEIR does not propose any
mitigation measures relating to Project Site impacts within the
mitigation measures for land use and open space impacts as
listed on page 51 through 55 of the DEIR. The DEIR concludes
on page 192 that several Project Site impacts are unavoidable
and irreversible• adverse impacts of the Project, as set forth
in Section IV.A, below, of these findings .
9
( iv) The Project has been modified to
eliminate one lot near the border of the Rancho Paraiso Site
and Arbolado Park, to provide for additional linkage between
.. Arbolado Park and open space areas . The Project has also been
modified by eliminating the development of home sites on the
south knoll , and limiting the development of home sites on the
central knoll by requiring that no home sites be developed
westward of the 440-foot contour line on the central knoll .
These modifications will preserve the south knoll as a natural
landscape and visual feature of the Rancho Paraiso Site, reduce
the impact of the Project on the central knoll , and reduce the
overall impact of the Project on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
.. These modifications to the Project are discussed in further
detail in Section I .A, above.
(b) Open space impacts.
( i) The Project retains 112 acres of
the Project Site as permanent open space, and ownership and
maintenance aspects of open space areas have not yet been
finalized (DEIR, pages 38-39) . The Final EIR states on
page 109 of the Response Document that the 112 acres of
permanent open space would be located around the perimeter of
site, on the lower portion of the central knoll , and the north
facing side of the southern knoll . All of these open space
areas are on the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso Site, which is a part
of the 223-acre Project Site. A majority of the open space
areas would be comprised of steeper portions of the site with
slopes of 25% or greater .
(ii) The Final EIR proposes two
mitigation measures relating to open space impacts of the
Project . Ownership, maintenance and use aspects of the
permanent open space should be finalized prior to submittal of
the final map application for the Project (DEIR, page 51) . The
County should prohibit future development on the open space
areas within the Project site as a condition of final map
approval (Response Document, page 87) .
(iii) The Project was modified to
provide additional open space and access near Arbolado Park by
eliminating one home site . The 'Project was also modified to
provide additional open space and preserve the knolls on the
site by eliminating the development of home sites on the south
knoll and restricting the development of home sites on the
central knoll . These modifications provide more usable and
less fragmented open space on the Rancho Paraiso Site, and
provide a better linkage to the Lime Ridge Open Space Area .
The product modifications are discussed in Section I .A, above.
10
(c) Surrounding land use impacts .
( i) Although testimony before this
Board indicates that this Project is similar to other projects
approved by the County, the DEIR states on page 39 that the
Project would represent the first large scale hillside
subdivision in the East Walnut Creek area, and the easternmost
extension of residential development in the Walnut Creek urban
area . The Project represents the first significant extension
of residential development into hillsides approaching Lime
Ridge, and Project elevations would range from 266 to 486 feet ,
about 220 feet higher than existing urbanization in the East
Walnut Creek area . As shown by figure ( 1) on page 100 of the
Response Document , the uppermost elevation of homesites within
the Rancho Paraiso project is approximately 486 feet , while the
elevation of Lime Ridge itself is approximately 1 , 000 feet .
( ii) The Project ' s impacts on the Lime
Ridge open space recreation area would be primarily visual , as
the development would be clearly visible from hiking trails in
.:: the area (DEIR, pages 39-40) . The Final EIR states on page 109
of the Response Document that the visual impacts- on Lime Ridge
are significant . The visual impact of the project on Lime
Ridge and the possibility of mitigating the Project ' s visual
impacts are discussed on pages 163-164 of the DEIR.
( iii) The DEIR discusses the Project ' s
relationship to nearby residential development on pages 40-41
and testimony before this Board also discussed this
relationship. This Project is in-fill development because it
does not include substantial expansion of existing services and
service lines . This Project is likely to increase property
values in the Pheasant Run subdivision. The Project would be
contiguous with the existing Pheasant Run subdivision,
replacing Pheasant Run as the eastern edge of the Walnut Creek
urban area. The Project would be different in character from
. Pheasant Run and other nearby subdivisions , as Pheasant Run and
nearby subdivisions have a substantially higher density of
development . Lot sizes within the Project would be larger than
those in Pheasant Run. The Project would include significantly
larger homes than exist in neighboring residential areas . The
Project includes large areas of undeveloped hillside open space
covered with natural grasses rather than smaller, well groomed
common areas . The Final EIR concludes on page 110 of the
Response Document that , although Project open space losses
could be expected to have a moderate adverse impact on the
quality of the Pheasant Run neighborhood, density and other
design differences between the Project and the Pheasant Run
.neighborhood are not a significant impact of the Project . In
addition, this Project will act as a transition between the
nearby residential areas and the public open space areas .
11
.J
(Response Document, page 110) . The Project Site was previously
considered for acquisition and addition to the public open
space, however, the City decided not to proceed after a survey
,: disclosed that the nearby property owners would not support an
assessment district to fund the acquisition.
( iv) The Project ' s relationship to the
Walnut Creek firing range is discussed on page 41 of the DEIR.
The Project would increase the number of children in the area,
the potential for vandalism at the firing range and the
potential for injury to trespassers.
(v) The land use-related visual
impacts of the Project as set forth in paragraphs ( i) and ( ii ) ,
above, are discussed under the heading "Visual Factors , "
Section III .M, below.
(vi) The DEIR does not propose
mitigation measures relating to Project impacts on surrounding
land uses, except for mitigation measures relating to visual
impacts (discussed in Section III .M, below of these Findings)
and the mitigation measures relating to agricultural impacts
(discussed immediately below) .
(vii) The Project modifications,
particularly the elimination of development on the south knoll ,
together with the topographical features of the Rancho Paraiso
Site, will result in the creation of a "land dam" or natural
barrier between the Rancho Paraiso homes and surrounding
agricultural properties, especially the Ginochio Ranch. This
barrier will reduce the impact of the Project upon surrounding
land uses .
(d) Agriculture impacts .
(i) The agricultural impacts of the
Project are discussed on DEIR pages 42-44 and in the Response
Document . The Project would eliminate approximately 180 acres
of grazing area, contributing to significant cumulative
declines in the county rangeland inventory, although the DEIR
states on page 137 that overgrazing on the Project Site has
significantly affected its vegetation. Non-native species have
replaced native species of plants , vegetation density and vigor
has been reduced, the number of woody plants has declined, and
these changes have probably caused a decline in use of the
Project Site by wildlife. The existing cattle grazing
operation and equestrian operation on the Rancho Paraiso Site
would be required to find a comparable location elsewhere or
cease operation.
12
The Devito property would be
,. .,subject to construction phase impacts, potential incompatible
land uses resulting from the introduction of new residential
development, and increased potential for future development of
the Devito property itself as residential lots . The Rancho
Paraiso homes to be located adjacent to the Devito Ranch could
be subject to possible nuisance aspects of current equestrian
activities , including odors , dust, flies and noise. These
impacts could cause residents to complain about the existing
ranch activity, thereby discouraging this use of the Devito
property. Future development of the Devito property pursuant
to the General Plan Amendment could eliminate the existing
commercial equestrian facility there and provide for the
,construction of additional home sites there.
( iii) The Project would change the
character of the existing rural setting around the Rancho Adobe
riding facility, increasing the potential for trespassing and
vandalism on the Rancho Adobe property. After construction,
the Rancho Paraiso Development would not be expected to affect
the well-being of the Rancho Adobe horses , although Rancho
Paraiso homes near the Rancho Adobe facility would be subject
to potential nuisance impacts . The owners of the property
underlying the Rancho Adobe riding facility have already agreed
to sell the property to real estate developers who plan a
residential subdivision for the property.
( iv) Pursuant to the original proposals
for the Rancho Paraiso Site, the .Ginochio Ranch Property would
have been separated by a permanent open space buffer of 150 to
200 feet along the southern and southeastern edges of the
Rancho Paraiso Site. With the modification of the Rancho
Paraiso Development to eliminate the construction of home sites
on the southern knoll , the Ginochio Ranch Property will be
separated by a substantially larger permanent open space buffer .
(v) . Although the physical separation
between agricultural uses and residential uses would reduce the
potential for complaints, the introduction of resident
homeowners would present the potential for injury to livestock
,.. by domestic pets, grass fires, trespassing, and vandalism. The
new access roads could increase opportunities for dirt bike
access to the Ginochio property, although the Project
modifications to eliminate;idevelopment on the south knoll and
thus create more of a "land dam" or natural barrier between the
Rancho Paraiso Development and the Ginochio Property may reduce
or eliminate the opportunities for dirt bike access to the
Ginochio Property. Also, the Rancho Paraiso Development would
set a precedent for subdivision of hillside grazing land,
although the Final EIR notes on page 37 of the Response
Document that conversion of any portion of the Ginochio ranch
13
_property to a nonagricultural use would require cancellation of
the current Williamson Act Contract, subject to specific
findings which must be made by the Board of Supervisors . The
..-Final EIR also states on page 110 of the Response Document that
.:the Ginochio ranch may be subject to less development pressure
because it is a large economically viable operation under a
Williamson Act Contract . It may be difficult for the Board of
Supervisors to make the findings which would be required for
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on the Ginochio
Ranch, and if the Board of Supervisors cannot make such
- findings, the Ginochio Ranch property would be - subject to the
Williamson Act contract for at least ten years .
(vi) In approving the Approvals , the
Board stated its intent that these Approvals shall not be
considered as a precedent for Board consideration of any
development applications in the surrounding area.
(vii) The Final EIR recommends six
mitigation measures relating to the Project ' s impact on
., agriculture and surrounding agricultural land uses . These
.- measures include recorded notice to prospective purchasers,
leash laws and signs to control dogs , measures to prohibit dirt
bike access to Ginochio Ranch, possible reduced knoll
development, the open space buffer abutting Ginochio Ranch, and
consultation between the Applicant and Ginochio Ranch regarding
fencing and other measures .
(e) Trail and park impacts .
(i) The Project ' s impacts upon nearby
trails and the Northgate Community Park (Arbolado Park) site
are discussed on DEIR page 40 . Six of the originally proposed'
Rancho Paraiso lots abut the park boundary, although the number
of such abutting lots has been 'reduced by one. These homes
would be subject to noise and other nuisance impacts associated
with park activity. Equestrian activity along the proposed
trail near the west property line of the Rancho Paraiso Site
could be intrusive for the homes sites abutting the trail , and
no formal easement has been established for this trail at this
time.
(ii) The Final EIR proposes two
mitigation measures relating to adjacent park and recreation
areas . The DEIR on pages 51-52 recommends that final Project
plans be coordinated with City of Walnut Creek planners to
ensure a Project design compatible with City plans for the Lime
Ridge Open Space Area, Arbolado Park, and hiking and equestrian
trails. The DEIR also recommends that project compatibility
with the Arbolado Park be improved by introducing a physical
14
lipkage between the park and the open' space areas of the Rancho
Paraiso Development .
( iii ) The Final EIR proposes mitigation
measures regarding trail linkages on pages 53 of the DEIR and
73 of the Response Document , including a trail link for the
Arbolado Park equestrian trail head, a permanent hiking and
riding trail near the western property line, and coordination
of trail alignment plans . The DEIR recommends that the final
map application include design provisions to mitigate trail
impacts on abutting lots, and notices to prospective purchasers .
( iv) The Final EIR states on pages 47
and 48 of the Response Document that an easement for access
purposes between Arbolado Drive and the Lime Ridge open space
recreation area currently exists on the Rancho Paraiso
property. The Final EIR recommends as a mitigation measure
that the Applicant negotiate with the City of Walnut Creek to
establish a precise alignment for this easement .
(f) Relationship to local land use and open
pace policy.
( i) The DEIR pages 44-51 discusses the
consistency of this Project with local land use and open space
policies . In addition, the Staff Report on the Rezoning, Final
Development Plan and Subdivision concludes that the Project is
consistent with the current County General Plan review and is
also consistent with existing County General Plan elements,
including the safety element .
( ii) The DEIR states on pages 45-48
that the General Plan definitions of single-family residential
medium density and general open space are consistent with the
type of residential development and permanent open space
preservation proposed by this Project . The DEIR also raises
the question of whether the Project is consistent with the
general open space provision designed to preserve "scenic
ridges which are highly visible from urban areas . " As stated
on pages 99 and 100 of the Response Document , this question
requires, first, a determination of whether the land in
question is a ridge, second, whether the land is scenic, and
third, whether the land is highly visible from urban areas .
The DEIR repeatedly refers to "knolls" on the Project Site, and
page 100 of the Response Document clarifies that the County
General Plan does not define "scenic ridges . " Generally, a
ridge is an elongated crest at the top of the opposite slopes
of a hill range. Figure 1 on page 100 of the Response
Document, shows that the maximum height of the Rancho Paraiso
homesites will be 486 feet, that the central knoll attains a
15
maximum height of 524 feet , and that Lime Ridge is
;approximately 1 , 00 ) feet in elevation.
( iii) The consistency of this Project
.with the Contra Costa County Safety element , which is
referenced on page 40 on DEIR page 48 , is discussed in
Section III .J, below.
(g) Unavoidable impacts of the Project .
( i) The DEIR on page 192 lists several
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impacts of the project ,
including the permanent alteration of natural land forms ,
.substantial reduction in the rural character of the project
vicinity, loss of agricultural use lands, and loss of open
space: The Final EIR states on page 90 of the Response
Document that each impact which is identified in the EIR and
which is not listed as "unavoidable" in the Final EIR can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by imposition of the
recommended mitigation measures .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) Adoption of mitigation measures
recommended in the Final EIR.
The Conditions of Approval require finalization of
open space area ownership, prohibit future development of open
space areas on the Project site, and require coordination of
development plans and consultation with..Walnut Creek open space
planners to insure compatibility, consistent with these Project
Approvals, with the Lime Ridge and Arbolado Park areas . The
Conditions of Approval also require notices to purchasers of
lots regarding nuisances which may arise from hiking and
equestrian trails or abutting agricultural operations, leash
laws, and other measures to control dogs .
In addition, the Conditions of Approval require design
provisions to mitigate trail impacts on abutting lots , signs
and other measures to prohibit dirt bikes from using road and
open space areas as access to the Ginochio Ranch, and
consultation with Ginochio Ranch representatives regarding
fencing and other measures to protect the Ginochio Ranch. The
Conditions of Approval also require a precise alignment for the
City' s .access to the Lime Ridge Open Space Area.
(b) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project .
The Project includes a physical linkage between the
open space areas of the Project Site and Arbolado Park, because
16
of -the modification of the Rancho Paraiso Development to
eliminate one home site and provide for an access corridor of
at least 150 feet in width. This open space component next to
Arbolado Park may include an equestrian trail head. The
Project also includes a substantial open space buffer between
residential development on the Project Site and the Ginochio
Ranch. This open space buffer includes the south knoll on the
Rancho Paraiso Site, as no homes will be developed on the south
knoll pursuant to the modifications in the Rancho Paraiso
Development . In addition, the Project now includes limitations
upon the development of home sites on the central knoll .
In adopting mitigation measures , this Board is subject
to State CEQA Guideline 15092(c) , which states that , for a
project including housing development, this Board "shall not
reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation
measure if it determines that there is a another feasible
specific mitigation measure available that will provide a
comparable level of mitigation. "
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The land use impacts of this Project ,
excepting those impacts which are listed in the Final EIR' s
unavoidable, are mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final
EIR, and by the changes which have been made to reduce the
scope of the Rancho Paraiso Development and to eliminate or
restrict development on the knolls on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
The mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, except as
specifically set forth below, have been incorporated into the
Conditions of Approval for the Project or have been
incorporated into the Project itself .
(b) Although this Project may have
unavoidable adverse impacts in permanently altering natural
eland forms, reducing the rural character of the Project
vicinity and the loss of agricultural use and open space lands,
the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project are
either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(c) The recommendation that the Project be
modified to eliminate development on the south knoll has been
incorporated into the Project . The Project now consists of a
development plan which avoids home sites atop the south knoll .
17
(d) The Project also consists of a
developmez:.t plan which avoids home sites atop the central
. knoll , because of the limitation upon developing sites on that
knoll to the west of the 440-foot contour line. Accordingly,
" the Project now incorporates the proposed mitigation measure of
reducing hilltop building pads .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
the modification of the Project to eliminate development on the
south knoll and restrict development on the central knoll may
not be considered equivalent to the aforementioned proposed
mitigation measure, this Board finds that this proposed
mitigation measure, by requiring a reduction in the size of the
Project, is substantially similar to, and is rejected for the
same reasons as , the No-Project and the Open Space Acquisition
Alternatives, as set forth in Section VI , below. In addition,
this Board finds that the adopted restriction upon development
on the central knoll and the elimination of the development on
the south knoll are feasible specific mitigation measures which
reduce the impacts of the Project, and accordingly the Board
. may not adopt this proposed mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA
Guideline 15092(c) .
(f) The Project is consistent with the
County General Plan, and particularly with the open space
provisions of that General Plan. Although the Project Site is
located in an area which may be described as scenic, this
Project is best characterized as located on knolls or on hill
sides, and not on scenic ridges . Accordingly, this Project is
consistent with general plan provisions calling for the
preservation of scenic ridges which are highly visible from
urbanized areas, and other similar provisions of the General
Plan and other County policies . This Project is also
consistent with similar development which has been allowed
elsewhere in the County on hillside lands .
(g) Specifically, the Project is consistent
with General Plan policies to limit development on hillsides to
maintain natural vegetation because many hillsides on the
Project Site will not be developed and natural vegetation will
be increased by eliminating grazing and the Fish and Game
mitigation agreement . The Project as modified includes high
quality engineering, does not include conventional cut-and-fill
pads, includes restoration of natural hillside contours, and is
designed to minimize damage to visual landmarks, and is
consistent with General Plan policies governing these items .
The Project, as revised to limit development on knolls, avoids
extreme modification of the topography, includes safe and
suitable sites for homes and roads, and locates homesites in a
manner which is sensitive to available resources and
constraints .
18
(h) In addition, the Project is consistent
. x
with General Plan policies because natural features were
considered for preservation, and substantial changes were made
to preserve natural features such as the south knoll . The
Project was modified to reduce grading and avoids excessive
grading. The Conditions of Approval and project modifications
are designed, impart , to protect visual qualities of the ridge
which is above and behind the project site . The Project
includes stable slopes , landslide repairs, and decreasing
residential density when compared to existing adjacent
residential develiopment .
( i) This ,project is not required to be
.consistent with the Walnut Creek General Plan or Walnut Creek
policies or ordinances and accordingly this Board makes no
finding regarding the consistency of....this Project with those
documents .
(j ) The findings of this Board relating to
the Safety Element or the County General Plan are set forth in
Section III .J, below, relating to geology and grading.
B. Population And Housing.
1 . . Facts .
(a) The DEIR indicates on pages 58-60 that
the Project, together with other potential development in the
related General Plan Amendment area, including the Cox and
Devito parcels, is projected to contain up to a maximum of 251
residential units by 1995, with an added area population of
approximately 880 people. As the Rancho Paraiso Development
has been reduced :from the originally proposed 219 units to
205 units, the projection for the entire General Plan amendment
area is now 242 units instead of 251 units .
(b) This housing and population total
represents around 1% of the projected 1995 figure for the
Walnut Creek area, and approximately 30% of the total projected
increase in Walnut Creek area housing and population totals
from 1985 to 1995. In discussing the relationship of the
Project to localhousing policies, the DEIR sets forth as
interpretive matters whether or not the Project is consistent
. with policies within the housing elements of the Contra Costa
County General Plan and the City of Walnut Creek General Plan.
The relevant portion of the Contra Costa County Housing Element
provides that itis the policy of the County to provide housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the population
throughout the community by encouraging the development of
mixed income familly housing developments, and the DEIR notes
that this policyencourages a balance between high-end housing
19
opportunities and mixed income developments within individual
.projects, although such a balance is not required within every,
project (page 60) . The Response Document further states on
_page 94 that the Project, together with the remainder of the
,General Plan area, would account for less than 1% of the total
-Central County projected growth and roughly 9% of the growth
increment projected for Walnut Creek, pursuant to the housing
-projections developed by the Association of Bay Area
Governments . The Response Document on page 95 states than the
Rancho Paraiso Development is designed to appeal to a local
"move up" market , which creates available housing in the less
expensive homes which are sold by the purchasers of Rancho
Paraiso homes .
(c) On page 60, the DEIR states that the
impacts of this Project relating to population and housing
growth "are not in and of themselves significantly adverse, and
thus do not warrant mitigation. "
(d) The Final EIR Response Document states
. on page 91 that, although Walnut Creek General Plan
..designations are analyzed in the Draft EIR, the County in
. acting upon this Project is not required to conform to the
.provisions of the City of Walnut Creek General Plan. Also on
page 91 , the Response Document states that the State General
Plan Guidelines do not require that county land use decisions
comply with the general plan or the ordinances of nearby cities .
(e) The Conditions of Approval require the
Applicant to make a contribution to the County Homeless Fund
equal to the profit on the sale of two developed lots, or
$100,000 , whichever is less .
2 .* Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and upon the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The impact of theProjecton housing
and population is not a significant adverse impact on the
environment because the additional housing and population which
will be provided by the Project is well within the applicable
local and regional guidelines, and based upon the DEIR' s
conclusion that these impacts are not "significantly adverse. "
(b) Because these impacts were determined
in the DEIR not to be potentially significant adverse impacts
on the environment for thereasonsset forth above, no
mitigation measures or Conditions of Approval are required to
be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to the impact of the
project on housing and population.
20
(c) Because this Project will appeal . to a
, ._; local "move-up" market making available more affordable resale
housing within the local area, based upon the statement in the
DEIR that a balance between higher-end residential development
and mixed income developments is not required in every project,
and because of the funding for the homeless which is a
condition of approval for this Project, the Project is
consistent with the housing element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan.
(d) The Project is not required to conform
to or be consistent with the housing element. of the City of
Walnut Creek General Plan. Nevertheless by providing
additional housing, this Project will help to attain the goals
. of the Walnut Creek General Plan.
(e) The contribution by the Applicant to
the County Homeless Fund is a benefit of this Project .
(f) To the extent that any of the above
impacts on housing and population are not insignificant ,
despite the conclusions contained in the Final EIR, the
economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh any
such significantimpact, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
C. Transportation.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project relating to
transportation are discussed at pages 61-86 of the DEIR and in
various portions ; of the Response Document . Although the
Project includesia number of traffic mitigation measures , the
Project would, when built out, generate 2 , 526 trips on an
average weekday, iincluding 190 morning peak-hour trips and 250
afternoon peak-hour trips (DEIR, Table 7) . This projection
assumes eventualidevelopment of the Cox and DeVito properties
in addition to the Rancho Paraiso Site. Table 7 states that
the Rancho Paraiso Development, based on its original proposal
for 219 units , would generate 2,204 daily trips . Tables 9A and
9B on pages 57 and 58 of the Response Document show that, using
either the Circular 212 level of service computation method or
the computation method recommended by the City of Walnut Creek,
the level of service at most intersections will remain the same
with the development of this Project . Only two intersections
will experience a change in level of service. The signalized
intersection at Ygnacio Valley Road and La Casa Via would
change from level of service "B" to "C" during the morning peak
hour . The intersection of Oak Grove and Walnut would change
from level of service "C" to "D" during the morning peak hour .
21
The level of service applicable to other intersections will not
change as a result of this Project .
(b) The midlink roadway volumes resulting
'from Project-generated traffic are set forth on Table 10 on
page 59 of the Response Document . The DEIR states that ,
despite increases in traffic volume, all of these midlink roads
would be expected to operate well within the design capacity of
the roadway with the Project-generated increases .
(c) The most notable project impacts in
local neighborhood streets would be along Arbolado Drive
between Oak Grove and Sutton, and along Northgate Road, east of
Sutton. Traffic flows on Sutton Drive would not be expected to
change noticeably as a result of the project . As stated on
page 79 , the cumulative increase in traffic on Arbolado Drive
would be highly noticeable.
(d) The Final EIR states on page 77 of the
Response Document that temporary traffic congestion generated
by special occurrences such as snowfall on Mt . Diablo, or
..generated by weekend Mt . Diablo State Park traffic, would not
be significantly affected by the traffic improvements
associated with the Project , nor would the increase in
congestion associated with the Project be expected to
'significantly worsen emergency access constraints during these
unusual events .
(e) The cumulative. traffic impacts of the
Project are discussed on pages 80-84 of the DEIR. The DEIR
states on page 192 that the Project would contribute to
significant cumulative local , subregional, and regional traffic
impacts by generating 2, 526 daily vehicle trips . This impact
of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact (See Section IV, below) . The listing of
unavoidable impacts does not include any Project-specific
traffic impacts .
(f) The DEIR proposes a number of
transportation mitigation measures . These include widening and
repairing Northgate Road, -aecuring a right of way from the
Project Site to Northgate Road, a three-way stop sign at
Northgate Road, warning signs on Northgate Road, and an
in-bound left turn lane on Northgate Road. The DEIR also
recommends access gates and fire roads for open space access,
payment of traffic impact fees, an interjurisdictional
agreement to fund road improvements , and widening Arbolado Road
to 45-foot-wide city collector standards . Also, the Response
Document suggests that this Board consider modifying project
design to reduce vehicle traffic on Arbolado Road by one half ,
and suggests making the Project loop road discontinuous or
22
reducing the numbers of units on the northern portion of the
:•Rancho Paraiso Site as possible design changes which would
reduce traffic impacts on Arbolado Road. The DEIR also
suggests interim 'contributions to traffic improvements funds to
mitigate cumulative impacts, and limits on construction-period
traffic .
(g) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
reduced in scope from the initial proposal for 219 units which
was analyzed in the Final EIR, to the current limitation to
205 units . These reductions in the scope of the Project will
reduce the traffic impacts of the Project .
(h) The ability of this Board to mitigate
traffic impacts by reducing the number of units is limited by
CEQA Guideline 15092(c) .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) Adoption of mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
The Conditions of Approval for this Project require
the widening and repair of Northgate Road, a sidewalk on the
north side of the road and an all-weather shoulder on the south
side, striping for a bicycle lane, securing the right-of-way to
connect the project site to Northgate Road, and a left-turn
lane on Northgate Road. The Conditions of Approval also
provide for access gates and fire roads for emergency access to
open space areas ; the widening of Arbolado Road, and time
limits on construction-period traffic .
(b) Mitigation measures required by county
ordinance.
The various traffic impact fees relating to
Project-specific and cumulative traffic impacts are required to
be paid pursuant1to county ordinances relating to traffic
fees . The requirement that traffic impact fees be paid by the
. Applicant, and the allocation of these fees, is set forth in
the advisory notes to the Conditions of Approval . Accordingly,
the mitigation measures relating to this are incorporated into
the Project .
(c) Additional mitigation measures .
In addition to the mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR, the Conditions of -Approval further mitigate
construction impacts by requiring construction equipment to use
certain routes in accessing the site and providing that the
23
-Applicant shall maintain and restore Northgate Road to the
*extent necessary.
(d) Northgate Road mitigation measures .
In addition to the mitigation measures set forth
above, the Final EIR as presented to this Board recommends that
the T-intersection of the Project access road and Northgate
Road should be controlled by a three-way stop. The Final EIR
does not state that this stop sign is necessary to mitigate an
otherwise significant impact . The County Public Works
.Department does not recommend three-way stop signs at this
.intersection at this time, as traffic volumes will be
relatively low and sufficient gaps will available for turning
movements . This Board has the authority, pursuant to
Section 21082 . 2 of the Public Resources Code and California
court decisions , to make technical changes in environmental
impact reports generally.
Accordingly, this Board hereby makes a technical
amendment to the EIR deleting the recommendation that a stop
sign be included at the. intersection of the Project access road
and Northgate Road, and substituting the following statement :
With the mitigation measures which are
imposed upon this Project or incorporated
into this Project, the impact of the Project
upon traffic at the intersection of
Northgate Road and the Project access road
will be insignificant . Traffic volumes will
remain relatively low and sufficient gaps
will be available for turning movements ,
particularly in light of the construction of
the left-hand turn lane.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific impact of the
Project upon traffic and transportation is not significant,
because of the size of the Project, the many mitigation
measures incorporated into the project , and the conclusions
stated in the Final EIR.
(b) The apparent recommendation in the
Response Document of the mitigation measure requiring a
redesign of the Project to reduce Arbolado Road impact has been
incorporated into the Project , by the reduction in the size of
the Project to 205 units .
24
(c) In the alternative, the apparent
mitigaticn measure recommended Project redesign to reduce
Arbolado Road impacts is substantially similar to the Project
Alternatives discussed in Section VI , below. The possible
reduction in the number of units is similar to Alternative B,
the modified residential plan providing for a maximum of
140-150 units on the Rancho Paraiso Site. The elimination of
the loop road is similar to Alternative C, the mixed-housing
development, which includes two long dead-end cul-de-sacs
running up each of the draws on the Rancho Paraiso Site. This
Board rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible and
undesirable; for the same reasons (and based upon the same
findings) that this Board rejects Alternatives B and C, as set
, forth in detail in Section VI , below. In addition, this Board
. rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible and undesirable,
. because the elimination of a loop road would reduce the safety
and emergency access on the Project Site in case there is ever
an obstacle on one or the two Project access roads and because
redesigning the Project to reduce Arbolado Road impacts will
result in increased impacts on other roads which would be used
as access to the Project .
(d) The impact of the Project upon the
intersection of Northgate. Road and the Project access road will
be insignificant .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
the impact of the Project upon this intersection is not
insignificant, the recommendation of the three-way stop sign is
rejected as infeasible and undesirable because sufficient gaps
will be available for turning movements, the installation of a
stop sign will interfere with the smooth flow of traffic, and
other mitigation measures which are imposed as Conditions of
Approval , including the removal or trimming of -shrubbery around
this intersection, will mitigate any impact of the Project to a
level of insignificance, thus eliminating the need for this
mitigation measure.
(f) Although the cumulative impacts of the
Project will be mitigated by the imposition of mitigation
measures recommended by the EIR and its relative impact is
small, this Project will have an unavoidable adverse impact in
contributing to cumulative traffic problems (See Section IV,
below) .
(g) To the extent that any of the impacts
of the Project relating to traffic and transportation are not
insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits to the
project override any such significant impacts , as more fully
25
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
D. Municipal Services - Water Supply.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts and benefits of the Project
relating to water supply, and the water supply requirements of
the Project, are discussed at pages 87-92 of the DEIR, as
revised at pages 82, 92, and 112 of the Response Document . The
impacts of the Project include the likely expansion of the
Contra Costa Water District ' s (the "Water District" ) sphere of
influence and district boundary after approval of this Project
to include that portion of the Project Site designated for
residential development, approval by .the Water District of a
service district zone 4 to serve upper elevation residences,
additional requirements for water to serve the homes within the
proposed Northgate service area, and storage of water to meet
the Water District ' s standards as specified on page 91 of the
, DEIR and page 112 of the Response Document . Through the
possible subsequent expansion of Water District boundaries , the
Project also may present to some nearby property owners who do
not now receive treated water the opportunity to obtain such
.treated water .
(b) The Project ' s impacts on the existing
water supply for the Cox and Devito properties is discussed on
page 92 of the DEIR, as modified at page 82 of the Response
Document . The Project could provide these properties with the
opportunity to receive treated potable water, but the DeVito
pond. would be shut off from runoff from the northern draw on
the Rancho Paraiso site, and this runoff is described by
representatives of the DeVito ranch as the pond' s primary water
source. The Applicant contends that DeVito has no right to a
continued flow of this surface water . The DeVito pond is part
of an easement in favor of Rancho Paraiso . This pond would
continue to receive water from the District Canal unless the
existing agreement between the District and Rancho Paraiso was
terminated, or the agreement between Rancho Paraiso and DeVito
was terminated.
(c) The Project has been modified to
include a road which parallels the eastern boundary of the
DeVito Property. Pursuant to the Rancho Paraiso Development
plans and the Conditions of Approval , this road will include
storm drains and the Applicant will be required to collect and
convey waters which would otherwise flow across this road.
These changes to the Project will prevent runoff from the
Rancho Paraiso Site which may contain contaminants from
reaching the DeVito Property and the DeVito Pond.
26
(d) The cumulative impacts of the Project
are described on page 92 of the Response Document . The Water
District has indicated that it is able to serve the water needs
of the Project Site subject to mitigation measures recommended
in the Final EIR, and that the District has substantial excess
capacity at the current time. Together with the Project , other
ongoing development within the Water District service area will
cumulatively impact both the capacity of the existing water
delivery system and overall demand for water supply, although
the Final EIR states on page 92 of the Response Document that
the cumulative impacts of this Project on water supply are
insignificant .
(e) The DEIR recommends on page 92 four
mitigation measures to insure adequate water supply to the
Project Site . One of these mitigation measures was modified on
page 82-83 ' of the Response Document . These mitigation measures
include the Water District annexation of developed portions of
the Project Site, approval of pressure zones 3 and 4 ,
construction of a water storage and distribution system, and a
new agreement between the Applicant, the Water District, Cox,
and Devito.
(f) On page 92 of the Response Document,
the Final EIR recommends measures to reduce the cumulative
impact of the Project upon water supply. These measures are
not required to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance, based upon the Final EIR' s prior conclusion
that the cumulative impacts of this Project upon water supply
are insignificant . The three recommended mitigation measures,
which were proposed by the Applicant but which were not
originally a part of the Project , are compliance with all Water
District standards , conservation in landscaping and irrigation,
and other conservation techniques .
(g) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
need for additional public services, including water supply,
will be increased as a result of the Project . No other impacts
relating to water supply are listed as unavoidable.
(h) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
reduced to a total of 205 units, and this reduction will reduce
the demand for water to service the Rancho Paraiso homes .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) The Conditions of Approval for this
project require irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by
the zoning administrator, conservation practices in landscaping
and irrigation, and an educational pamphlet to homeowners
regarding conservation practices . In addition, the Conditions
27
of Approval require the applicant to comply with the provisions
of the Contra Costa County ordinance relating to water
:conservation, and require review of the plans for the water
reservoir facility by the Zoning Administrator . The Conditions
of Approval also require the Applicant, subject to Zoning
, Administrator review and approval , to arrange a new legal
agreement regarding pumped water for the Devito pond. If an
agreement between the Applicant, the Water District, Cox, and
Devito is not reached, that physical provisions shall be made
to make treated water available to the Devito property. In
addition, the Conditions of Approval require the Applicant to
demonstrate that the Project ' s storm drainage system will
adequately protect the Devito pond against adverse water
_.quality impacts .
(b) The approval by the Water District and
LAFCO of the annexation of developed portions of the Project
Site to the Water District, the expansion of the Water
District ' s sphere of influence, the approval by the Water
District of pressure zones 3 and 4 , and the compliance of
project designs with Water District and Fire District flow
standards are. included as Conditions of Approval .
(c) In the alternative, the mitigation
measures referenced in paragraph (b) above are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, the
Water District and LAFCO, and not this Board. Specifically,
the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission and
the Water District must issue these approvals , the Water
District must determine compliance of the water storage and
distribution system with its standards, and the Contra Costa
Consolidated Fire District must determine the compliance of the
water storage and distribution system with its standards . The
negotiation and execution of a new agreement including the
Water District is subject to the Water District ' s approval .
Normally, the various Water District approvals would be
obtained after approval by this Board of this Project . These
mitigation measures can and should be adopted by these other
agencies .
3 . - Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The cumulative impact of the Project
upon water supply is not significant, because the Contra Costa
Water District has the capacity to serve the Project and the
District currently has substantial excess capacity.
(b) The Project-specific impacts of the
Project upon water supply are mitigated to a level of
28
.. insignificance .by the imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended by the EIR, which mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Project or
can be adopted by the Water District, based upon the Final
EIR ' s conclusion that these mitigation measures are required to
provide adequate water service to the Project .
(c) This Board has imposed a Condition of
Approval requiring the Applicant to obtain a new legal
agreement acceptable to the Applicant , the Water District, Cox,
and Devito regarding continued maintenance of the current water
pumping arrangement , subject to Zoning Administrator review and
approval . If no agreement can be reached, then physical
:provision should be made to make treated water available . This
Condition of Approval is substantially similar to mitigation
measure number (4 ) proposed on page 92 of the Draft EIR.
(d) In the alternative, if the Condition of
Approval mentioned above is not substantially similar to
mitigation measure (4 ) , then proposed mitigation measure (4) is
wholly or partly infeasible and undesirable. Although this
Board can impose appropriate conditions of approval on the
Applicant, this Board cannot compel the Water District or any
. private party to enter into such an agreement . The recommended
mitigation measure may be impossible to achieve, depending as
it does on the conduct of parties not subject to this Board' s
Condition of Approval . The recommended mitigation measure is
rejected as infeasible and undesirable, although this- Board has
adopted a Condition of Approval which implements this
recommended mitigation measure to the maximum extent possible.
(e) The additional Condition of Approval
adopted by this Board relating to compliance with the water
conservation ordinance and design of the reservoirs is not
required as a mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA, although
this Condition of Approval will further mitigate the water
supply impacts of this Project .
(f) The various approvals and actions of
the Water District, LAFCO, and the Fire District, and
compliance with the standards of the Water District and the
Fire District, are incorporated into this Project as Conditions
of Approval .
(g) In the alternative, the various
approvals and actions of the Water District, LAFCO, and the
Fire District as summarized above are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not this Board.
The mitigation measures and changes in the Project which are
summarized above can and should be adopted by these other
agencies .
29
(h) The impacts of the Project upon water
; supply are further mitigated by the reduction in the Rancho '
Paraiso Development to 205 .units .
(i) Although this project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in creating a need for public
services, including water supply, the Project-specific and
cumulative impacts of this Project are either insignificant or
, have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the adopted mitigation measures, other conditions
of approval , and project modifications .
(j ) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the water supply impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or reduced to a level or insignificance by the
imposition of mitigation measures, despite the conclusions of
the Final EIR, the environmental , economic, social , and other
benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such
significant-impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
E. Municipal Services - Sewer . .
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project upon sewer
services are discussed at pages 92-95 of the DEIR, and at
pages 88 and 93 of the Response Document , The Project would
require expansion of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary
District ( "Sanitary District" ) boundary and sphere of influence
to include developed portions of the Project Site, and together
with other developments, would require additional collection
and treatment capacity and additional energy for treatment .
The Sanitary District has indicated that a number of design
requirements, set forth on page 94 of the DEIR, would apply to
the Project .
(b) On page 93 of the Response Document,
the Final EIR states that nearby lines currently have
sufficient capacity to service the Project Site, although
certain offsite improvements may be necessary. On that basis
the Final EIR concludes that Project impacts on sewage
collection facilities are considered insignificant, both on an
individual , or Project-specific, basis and on a cumulative
basis .
(c) The Final EIR recommends four
mitigation measures to insure adequate sewer supply for the
Project Site, as set forth on page 95 of the DEIR and on
page 88 of the Response Document . These mitigation measures
include annexation of developed portions of the Project Site, a
30
' study to determine capacity of the local collection system
"between the Project Site and the 10- inch sewer mains located
along Oak Grove Road, design and construction of the gravity
flow system, and compliance with the Sanitary District design
standard as a Condition of Approval to the final map.
(d) On page 64 of the Response Document , in
response to a comment from the City of Walnut Creek, the Final
EIR states that the capacity study referenced in paragraph ( ii)
would be required to be completed by the Sanitary District
prior to final map submittal for County approval .
(e) The pEIR states on page 192 that the
need for additional public services , including sewer treatment ,
will be increased as a result of the Project . This impact of
the project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project . (See Section V, below) . No
other impacts relating to sewer service are listed as
unavoidable.
(f) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
reduced to a total of 205 units .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) Annexation of developed portions of the
Project Site to the Sanitary District is required as an
Condition of Approval prior to recordation of the Final
Subdivision Map.
(b) The capacity study, the design and
construction of the gravity-flow systems to be responsive to
geologic conditions and potential slide and erosion hazards on
the project site, and compliance with Sanitary District design
standards have been included as Conditions of Approval . The
Sanitary District has the authority to require any changes or
mitigation measures which may be required as a result of the
capacity study, and this is included as a Condition of Approval .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) Impacts of this Project relating to the
provision of adequate sewer service to the Project are
insignificant . To the extent any such impacts are significant,
they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final
EIR, which mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Conditions of Approval for the Project or should be adopted by
31
the Sanitary District, based upon the Final EIR conclusions
that these mitigation measures are required to provide adequate
sewer service to the Project Site.
(b) The impacts of this Project relating to
sewer service are further mitigated by the reduction in the
number of units to be developed.
(c) The annexation of developed portions of
the Project Site, the capacity study, the design and
construction of the gravity flow system, and compliance with
Sanitary District standards are included as Conditions of
Approval to this Project .
(d) In the alternative, the annexation of
developed portions of the Project Site, the capacity study, the
design and construction of the gravity-flow system, and
compliance with Sanitary District standards are changes or
alterations which are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency, namely the Sanitary
District , and not this Board. The recommended changes and
mitigation measures can and should be adopted by the Sanitary
District . To the extent that any changes may be required as a
result of the recommended capacity study which will be required
by the Sanitary District , the District has the authority to
require those changes prior to annexation of any part of the
Project Site. This annexation is a condition to final map
approval ; so the Project will not be developed unless. any
mitigation recommended by the capacity study is completed.
(e) The remaining Project-specific and
cumulative. impacts of the project upon sewer services are not
significant, because sufficient collection capacity to service
the Project Site exists in nearby lines .
(f) Although this Project will have an
unavoidable adverse impact .in creating a need for public
services , including sewer services, the Project-specific and
cumulative impacts of this Project are either insignificant or
have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the adopted mitigation measures, other conditions
of approval , and project modifications .
(g) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the sewer related impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
Project override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
32
F. Municipal Services - Fire.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of Project on fire services
are discussed on pages 95-97 of the DEIR, and on pages 64 , 111
and 117 of the Response Document . The Project includes several
fire service benefits , including new facilities and hydrants
and better emergency access to open space areas . The Project
would require the construction of water storage facilities to
serve fire flow requirements, could increase the likelihood of
grass fires resulting from the introduction of housing units
and related increases in human activity in the grassland hill
sides , and would remove all or most grazing activity from the
.project site, thus eliminating related fuel management benefits
and increasing the potential for hillside fires .
(b) The DEIR states that the overall level
of fire protection service within the district could be
expected to decline based on additional demand for fire
.-services . Page 111 of the Response Document states that the
=overall quality of fire protection service may actually improve
as a result of the Project because better roads and access for
fire vehicles will be developed, improved access into the open
space areas will be provided, new water facilities and fire
hydrants are planned, fire hydrants and increased water
pressure will be provided in existing homes where facilities
are currently inadequate, and the introduction of fire
management to the Project Site through landscaping irrigation
and architectural means will reduce the potential for
uncontrolled spread of fire in existing grasslands and
vegetation, thereby protecting the neighborhood from wild fires
(see comment 29 . 9) .
(c) The Final EIR proposes mitigation
measures to mitigate the identified impacts relating to fire
service. These include a prorated fee, access gates and fire
roads to open space areas , plans for weed, grass and brush
control , completion of the fire station at 3155 Walnut,
compliance with Fire District standards, and fire retardant
roof materials .
(d) The Response Document notes on page 64
in response to Comment 17 .36 that cattle grazing around the
periphery of the open space areas could be required by the
county as a Condition of Approval , although this would
necessitate a change in the management plans of the open space
management plans of the Applicant, and may also be inconsistent
with vegetation and wildlife mitigation measures currently
being negotiated between the applicant and the Department of
Fish and Game.
33
(e) The Draft EIR states that the Project .
..will result in a need for additional public services , including
fire fighting services . This impact of the Project is listed
as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
'Project . No other fire-related impact is listed as unavoidable.
(f) The DEIR states on page 96 that the
listed mitigation measures "would mitigate" the identified
impacts of the Project related to fire service.
2 . Mitigation.
(a) The Conditions of Approval provide for
;emergency access to the open space areas of the Project Site .
The Conditions of Approval specify that perpetual easements for
emergency access shall be granted, emergency access shall tie
into existing fire trails, and access gates shall be at least
16 feet wide. The Conditions of Approval also include measures
to control and abate hazardous weeds, including disked fire
breaks or greenbelt planting, and the use of fire retardant
roof materials .
(b) The fee for additional fire service
resources is required to be paid pursuant to County ordinance.
The advisory notes to the Conditions of Approval specify that
`.the fee for additional fire service must be paid.
(c) The completion of the fire station is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa Consolidated
Fire District, and that fire station is currently being
constructed.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) With the imposition of the recommended
mitigation measures, the Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of the Project upon fire services are not significant ,
based in part upon the DEIR' s conclusion that the recommended
mitigation measures would mitigate the identified fire service
impact potentials .
(b) With respect to Comment 17 . 36 on
page 64 of the Response Document, it is not necessary to modify
the Applicant ' s open space management plans to include cattle
grazing for fire abatement . The mitigation measure recommended
on page 96 of the DEIR calls for weed and brush control and
abatement plans, and states that "such plans may include disked
fire brakes, cattle grazing and/or greenbelt planting. " The
34
recommended mitigation measure lists cattle grazing as one of
several alternative provisions which may be included iz this
plan, and the use of cattle grazing as part of the plan is not
required in order to comply with this mitigation measure.
(c) The completion of the fire station at
3155. Walnut is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
the Fire District and not this Board. The Fire District is
proceeding with that construction, and this Board finds that
the construction of that fire station as a mitigation measure
has been adopted by the Fire District .
(d) Although the Project will have an
�� unavoidable adverse impact in creating a need for additional
public services , including fire fighting services, the . other
Project-specific and cumulative impacts are either
insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(e) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the fire service impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
project outweigh and override any such significant impacts, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section v, below) .
G. Municipal Services - Schools .
1 . Facts .
(a) As discussed on pages 97-98 of the
DEIR, as revised. at page 112 of the Response Document, the
Project would result in added enrollment in the Mt . Diablo
School District . This impact may be short-lived due to an
overall decline in public school enrollment in the area
combined with the fact that little developable land remains
near the impacted school .
(b) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
Project will result in a need for additional public services,
including schools . This impact of the Project is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible significant adverse impact of the
Project . No other impact relating to schools is listed as
unavoidable.
(c) The DEIR recommends three mitigation
measures for the projected impacts relating to schools . These
measures include erecting a temporary or portable classroom at
35
the Walnut Acres Elementary School site, or alternatively
reopening the Castle Rock Elementary School . In addition, the
recommended mitigation measures include payment of the school
district impact fee pursuant to state law.
(d) A number of speakers at the public
hearings on the Project stated that the addition of new
students in an area of declining enrollment is a benefit of the
Project .
(e) The DEIR states on page 192 that this
Project will increase demand for public services, including
schools . This impact is listed as an unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project . No other impact
relating to schools is listed as unavoidable.
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) The payment of the school impact fee is
required pursuant to the policies of the County and the
Mt . Diablo School District, and is not listed as a Condition of
Approval on that basis .
(b) The erection of temporary or portable
classrooms at the Walnut Acres Elementary school site, or the
alternative re-opening of the Castlerock Elementary School , is
within the jurisdiction of the Mt . Diablo School District, and
is not within the jurisdiction of this Board. The school
impact fees referenced above will help fund either of these
measures .
(c) Sections 65995 and 65996 of the
California Government Code limit this Board' s ability to impose
mitigation measures relating to schools .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) By operation of County and School
District ordinances and policies, the payment of school impact
fees is incorporated into this Project , and the Applicant will
pay the required school impact fee as and when required by
these ordinances and policies .
(b) Pursuant to state law, this Board may
not impose school mitigation measures beyond requiring payment
of appropriate impact fees . The construction of temporary
classrooms or the re-opening of a school are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Mt . Diablo School
36
District, and one of those alternative measures can and should
,. ..�:be implemented by the District . The impact fees to be paid as
part of this Project may, depending on School District
decisions, facilitate either of these two alternative measures .
(c) Although this Project will have an
unavoidable impact in creating a need for public services,
including schools, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts
of this Project relating to schools are either insignificant or
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
. imposition of the adopted mitigation measures, other conditions
of approval , and project modifications .
(d) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the school related impacts of the Project are not
insignificant or reduced or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the economic, social , and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts , as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(e) The addition of new school students in
an area which has been subject to declining enrollment is a
benefit of the Project .
H. Municipal Services - Police Services .
1 . Facts .
(a) As discussed on pages 98-99 of the
DEIR, the addition of more population to the area pursuant to
development of this Project may result in approximately
764 additional police calls annually. This represents an
increase of approximately 15-17% in the number of calls in the
Beat 11 , which serves the Project Site. This increase may
require additional manpower to maintain adequate service, and
the Project alone may warrant the addition of another officer .
This increase may be offset by the shrinking of the Beat 11
area due to annexations . This impact of the Project may also
be reduced by the limitation that . no more than 205 units shall
be built .
(b) As a mitigation measure, the DEIR
states on page 99 that this Project would generate higher taxes
per dwelling unit than most homes in this vicinity due to their
expected higher than average taxable value. These property
taxes support the County' s general fund, which in turn funds
the services provided by the Sheriff ' s Department .
(c) The DEIR on page 192 states that the
Project will result in a need for additional public services ,
37
. including police services . This impact is listed as an
unavoidable. and irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(d) The Response Document states on
page 117 that police response time to the Project site could be
longer than County averages . This impact of the Project is
listed as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project . Other than the two foregoing impacts , no police
service impact is listed as unavoidable.
2 . Mitigation.
(a) The mitigation set forth in the DEIR,
. the generation of higher property taxes per dwelling unit in
the Project, ' is an inherent aspect of the Project, and is not.
required to be adopted as an Condition of Approval by this
Board.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in creating additional demand for
public services, including police. services, and in that police
response times to the Project sites could be longer than the
.County averages , the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of
this Project relating to police services are either
insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the police service impacts of this Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of the
Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
I . Municipal Services - Parks .
1 . Facts .
(a) As discussed on page 99-101 of the
DEIR, the project would theoretically generate the need for
approximately 1 .31 acres of community park and 2 . 19 acres of
neighborhood park. Also, the County park dedication ordinance
would require that the project dedicate 2 . 1 acres of land for
38
parks or contribute in lieu fees for the purchase of land or
-other facility improvements .
(b) The DEIR sets forth mitigation measures
relating to parks, including dedication of open space, payment
of in-lieu fees , a possible agreement between the County and
Walnut Creek to the transfer of some portion of those in-lieu
fees, and possible park facilities onsite.
(c) The DEIR states on page 192 the Project
will result in a need for additional public services , including
park and recreation facilities . This impact is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project . No
other impacts relating to parks are listed as unavoidable .
(d) The General Plan Amendment includes the
designation of a trail in the Recreation Element . This trail
will connect Lime Ridge with Northgate Road. As shown in the
General Plan staff report, this trail follows the western
boundary of the Project Site.
(e) CEQA Guideline 15092(c) limits the
ability to this Board to reduce the number of housing units as
a mitigation measure .
2 . Mitigation.
(a) The following mitigation measures
recommended or discussed in the DEIR are either incorporated
into the Project plans submitted by the Applicant , or will be
required as a matter of course pursuant to existing County
ordinances which apply to the Project :
( i) The Applicant will be required to
offer open space areas contiguous to the City of Walnut Creek
for dedication to the City. If the City does not accept this
offer, the future development rights for these areas must be
deeded to the County.
( ii) The payment of in-lieu fees
consistent with the County parkland dedication ordinance.
(b) The agreement between the County and
the City of Walnut Creek regarding in lieu fees has been
incorporated into this Project . In approving the Approvals,
this Board stated that in lieu fees to be paid to the County
will be reserved for use in developing Arbolado Park, as
requested by the City of Walnut Creek.
(c) Although the development plan does not
include public park facilities onsite, the development plan for
39
the Project does include substantial open space, and the
Project design near Arbolado Park has been modified to provide
:.for trail linkages between Arbolado Park, the Project Site ' s
peripheral open space area, and the Lime Ridge Recreation
Area. This Project now provides for an access corridor at
least 150 feet wide.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
.this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The designation of a trail connecting
: Lime Ridge and Northgate Road and the preservation of at least
112 acres of open space without cost to the County or to the
City of Walnut Creek are benefits of this Project .
(b) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in creating a need for additional
public services , including park and recreation facilities, the
Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project are
.. either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
,any of the park and recreation impacts of this Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social , and other benefits of this
Project override any such significant impacts , as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(d) The equestrian and hiking trail
facilities to be located on the Rancho Paraiso Site, and the
preservation of the entire south knoll as permanent open space,
are substantially equivalent to the proposed development of
park facilities on that Site, and that proposed mitigation
measure is thus incorporated into the Project . In the
alternative, to the extent- that this mitigation measure is not
equivalent to the facilities incorporated into the Project,
this' Board rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible and
undesirable. The specific economic, social and other
considerations which make this measure infeasible are: ( i ) the
planned development of Arbolado Park immediately adjacent, such
that there would be a duplication of park facilities;
(ii) Arbolado Park' is publicly owned and can be. developed as a
park at substantially less cost; ( iii) park facilities on the
Rancho Paraiso Site would reduce either the space available for
open space or the space available for homes; ( iv) a reduction
40
in the number of homes would reduce the benefits of the Project
as listed in Section V, below; (v) this Board cannot reduce the
number of homes to provide for park facilities if other
feasible mitigation measures will provide a comparable level of
mitigation; and (vi) the preservation of the south knoll as
open space, the development of equestrian and hiking trails on
the Rancho Paraiso Site, the provision of other open space
areas on the Rancho Paraiso Site, and the other Conditions of
Approval relating to open space and trails are specific,
feasible mitigation measures which provide a comparable level
of mitigation to the location of park facilities on the site.
J. Geology And Grading.
1 . Facts .
(a) The geology and grading impacts of the
Project are described on pages 103-127 of the DEIR, and in
various points within the Response Document .
(b) Approximately 150 acres of the 210-acre
Rancho Paraiso Site are to be graded. The purpose of the
grading program is to provide maximum graded slopes of 3 . 1 ,
allowing contouring of the hillsides to a gentle, natural form,
stockpiling and replacing topsoil , seeding natural grasses and
wildflowers that are no longer present as a result of
overgrazing on the Project Site, and reclamation of open space
to its natural , ecological progression, as stated on::page 107
of the Response Document . As stated on page 121 of the DEIR,
the proposed grading concept conforms with the grading concept
recommended for the Project Site by the County' s Senior
Planning Geologist . The County' s Planning Geologist has stated
that the grading concept represents a fair balance between the
need for site stabilization as opposed to the need to minimize
the visual , hydrological , and land use impacts of the Project .
(c) As stated on page 104 of the Response
Document, the grading concept may conform with the intent of
the Safety Element of the County General Plan, and this Board
must decide an interpretive issue regarding consistency with a
specific safety element policy which states that slopes over
26% are not suitable for types of development which require
extensive grading or other land disturbances . Portions of the
Project Site exceed 26% and substantial portions of these areas
will be graded. As stated on pages 101 and 102 of the Response
Document, this policy was included in the County Safety Element
to address ordinary hillside residential development utilizing
a cut-and-fill pad grading approach, where increasing
cut-and-fill slopes in proximity to the structure increase
potential for slope instability. This Project does not utilize
the cut-and-fill pad grading approach which is the subject of
41
this element of the Safety Element . As stated on page 102 of ,
the Response Document, the Project can be determined to be
consistent with the purpose and goals of the Safety Element and
the Geologic Hazard Element of the County General Plan. In
- addition, many of the areas with slopes over 26% which will be
graded are being graded to repair slides, not specifically to
build homesites on those areas .
(d) The City of Walnut Creek Preservation
Ordinance sets forth the City' s intent to encourage alternative
approaches to conventional flatland practices of development in
hill areas and to minimize grading and cutting fill
:`operations . The use of less grading and more adaptive
-,individual building designs would result in increased adverse
visual impacts , as opposed to the placement of level units on
the flat knoll and draw areas . As stated on page 91 of the
Response Document, this Project is not required to comply with
the General Plan or the ordinances or policies of the City of
Walnut Creek. This Project is not located in the City of
Walnut Creek .
(e) The impacts of the Project relating to
.the slope stability, settlement, expansive soils, soil
nutritional values , surface fault rupture, earthquake shaking,
and ground failure are discussed on pages 121-123 of the DEIR.
Many of these impacts are common to local urbanization or
similar developments in the San Francisco Bay Area.
(f) The DEIR states on page 124 that this
Board must determine whether or not current GeneralPlan
policies encouraging open space preservation of major scenic
ridges and overly steep areas apply to the Rancho Paraiso Site,
and whether or not the County geologist ' s conclusions that the
Project grading concept represents a fair balance between site
stability needs versus Project impacts outweighs General Plan
and safety element policies .
(g) The DEIR recommends a number of
mitigation measures relating to grading and geology, including
an alternative single-family development concept which would
incorporate home types which might be considered more adaptive
to the steep topography, which is similar to the one of the
Project alternatives analyzed in Section VI , below. Additional
mitigation measures recommended are conventional engineering
techniques to mitigate slope stability hazards, removal of
slide debris and replacement with engineered slopes, evaluating
the seismic stability of existing and proposed slopes prior to
issuing a grading permit, geotechnical supervision of grading,
inspection and approval of fill slopes, minimized irrigation of
lots and graded slopes , and an erosion control plan. The DEIR
also recommends minimizing soil expansion by proper foundation
42
. and subgrade treatment , and engineered fill to perform
.:satisfactorily under earthquake or ground failure conditions .
(h) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would include extensive
grading, which would permanently alter natural landforms .
These impacts of the Project are listed as unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impacts . No other impacts of this Project
relating to geology and grading are listed as unavoidable in
the Final EIR.
(i) The Final EIR confirms on page 90 of
the Response Document that each impact which is identified in
the EIR as potentially significant and which is not listed as
' "unavoidable" in the Final EIR can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures .
(j ) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
modified to eliminate development of home sites on the southern
_ knoll , resulting in a significant reduction in the area of the
site to be graded, and the grading upon the south knoll , the
primary visual and natural landscape feature on the Rancho
Paraiso Site. In addition, the modifications to the Project
and the Conditions of Approval will result in a reduced amount
of grading overall on the Rancho Paraiso Site .
2 . Mitigation Measures .
The Conditions of Approval for the Project include
minimizing irrigation through the use of drought-tolerant
plants, a program to minimize erosion, compliance with
recommendations of the geologic reports submitted with the
application, and revegetation of graded slopes . The Conditions
of Approval also include evaluation and monitoring of the
seismic stability of the slopes to be graded, removal of slide
debris , supervision of grading, proper foundation systems, the
surface fault setback zone, engineered fill , conservative
grading practices, subdrains and other mitigation measures
recommended in the Final EIR.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) Although this Project may have an
unavoidable adverse impact in altering natural landforms on the
site and presenting a risk of earthquake shaking, the other
Project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project are
either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
43
s
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation '
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
.modifications .
(b) To the extent that any of the grading-
and geology-related impacts of this Project are not
insignificant or mitigated to insignificance, the
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of this
Project override any such significant impacts , as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(c) This Project is consistent with the
,'Safety Element of the County General Plan, based upon the
stated purposes of the Safety Element . The grading of
potentially unstable portions of the site, including areas over
26% in slope for purposes of site stabilization, as opposed to
the utilization of cut-and-fill pads on such areas, conforms to
the Safety Element . This grading approach is designed to
contour hillsides to a gentle, natural form and accordingly
provides benefits which are not available from the typical
cut-and-fill grading which the Safety Element seeks to avoid.
(d) In response to the DEIR' s recommended
determinations as stated in Paragraph (f) , above, this Board
finds that the General Plan policies apply to the Rancho
Paraiso Site. This Project is consistent with General Plan
policies and provisions encouraging preservation of scenic
ridges and overly steep acres because this Project will be
developed on knolls, not on scenic ridges, and because the area
to be developed is not overly steep; as stated above in this
Board' s finding regarding the safety element . The County
Geologist ' s conclusion that the Project grading concept is a
fair balance between site stability needs and Project impacts
does not "outweigh" any policies of the General Plan. The
Geologist ' s conclusion is part of the evidence on which this
Board bases its findings than the grading concept is
appropriate and is consistent with the County General Plan.
K. Drainage And Water Quality.
1 . Facts .
(a) The Project impacts relating to
drainage and water quality are discussed on pages 129-135 of
the DEIR: Site runoff and nearby creek water quality are
currently adversely affected by grazing activities and related
wastes from the Project Site. On-site runoff as a result of
development of the Project is not expected to exceed current
rates . Although the DeVito Pond is located on an easement for
water supply in favor of Rancho Paraiso, the source of water
44
supply for the DeVito Pond would change, as runoff from the
northern draw would not be available to serve this pond.
Absent mitigation, exposed graded slopes could be susceptible
to erosion, and water quality could be affected by runoff
carrying debris and wastes from paved surfaces . Development of
the Project Site could temporarily increase sedimentation rates
during the construction period and alter existing drainage
patterns .
(b) The Final EIR recommends mitigation
measures, including compliance with Contra Costa County Flood
Control District .(the "Flood Control District" ) criteria as a
Final Map Condition of Approval., determination of the timing of
'controlled release flows from detention basins, construction of
detention systems to withstand 100-year storms, and
demonstration that the Project storm drainage system will
adequately protect the Devito Pond against water quality
impacts . The Final EIR also recommends a fair share
contribution towards drainage improvements , an erosion control
plan, and maintenance of on-site detention facilities by either
-the County or a Project homeowners ' association.
(c) The Final EIR states on page 90 of the
Response Document that each impact which is identified in the
Final EIR as potentially significant and which is not listed as
unavoidable in the Final EIR has been determined to be capable
of mitigation to a point of insignificance by imposition of the
recommended mitigation measures . No impact of the Project
relating to water quality or drainage is listed in the Final
EIR as unavoidable.
(d) The modifications to the Project
include a road which parallels the eastern boundary of the
DeVito Ranch. At the request of the Public Works Department,
the Project was also modified to eliminate the detention basins
previously proposed by the Applicant . In place of this aspect
of the Project as originally proposed by the Applicant , the
Conditions of Approval require the Applicant to collect and
convey drainage waters on the site, require compliance with
Flood Control District Standards, and specify that the District
may include other detention basins or expansion of downstream
pipes if the District determines that these items are
necessary. In addition, the Rancho Paraiso Development has
been reduced to 205 units .
2. Mitigation Measures .
(a) The Conditions of Approval for this
Project include maintenance of by the homeowners ' association
pursuant to CC&Rs , an erosion control program, revegetation of
graded slopes, conveyance of all storm waters entering the
45
subject ' s property, mitigating storm runoff impact by
contributing a $60 , 000 drainage fee, preventing storm drainage
from draining across the sidewalks and driveways, and
furnishing proof the Public Works Department of the acquisition
of any necessary rights for drainage improvements .
(b) The Conditions of Approval require the
Applicant to demonstrate how the Project storm drainage system
will adequately protect the DeVito Pond against adverse water
quality impacts, with protection measures to be incorporated
into the agreement regarding the source of water for this pond,
subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval . The
: Conditions of Approval also require the Applicant to use its
best efforts to negotiate a new agreement for water pumping
between the- Water District, Cox and DeVito, with the provision
of treated water as an alternative if an agreement cannot be
reached. These mitigation measures are designed to protect the
quality and the availability of water to the DeVito Pond.
(c) The Conditions of Approval also include
construction of drainage improvements to meet Flood Control
District criteria.
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to water quality and drainage
are either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(b) Without limiting the foregoing finding,
the requirement that the current pumping arrangement for the
DeVito Pond be negotiated or treated water be made available,
the requirement that the Applicant demonstrate how the Project
storm drainage system will protect this pond, the provision of
a road across the eastern boundary of the DeVito property, and
the requirement that the Applicant collect and convey storm
waters will mitigate any Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to the DeVito Pond to a level
of insignficance. Since the Project has been modified to
eliminate detention basins as a part of the Project, the
mitigation measures specifically relating to construction and
operation of detention basins are rejected as infeasible on the
basis that the basins are not part of the Project .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the water quality- and drainage-related impacts of this
46
Prbject may not be insignificant or mitigated to
• insignificance, the environmental , economic, social , and other
benefits of this Project override any such significant impacts ,
°*0as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
L. Vegetation And Wildlife.
1 . Facts .
(a) The impacts of the Project relating to
vegetation and wildlife are discussed on pages 137-146 of the
Draft EIR and at various points in the Response Document .
(b) The Project-specific impacts on overall
vegetative values in the Project area are expected to be
relatively minor . No pristine habitats or undisturbed natural
communities would be adversely affected, although one
potentially significant impact may be the loss of willows and
oaks .
(c) Although no highly significant riparian
vegetation or habitat would be destroyed, the Project grading
plan would result in a loss of physical riparian conditions .
(d) No sensitive or unusual plants would be
affected by the proposed development, and through enhancement
and management of the open space areas, including the
re-introduction of native grasses proposed by the Applicant,
there may be some increase in the suitability of the open space
areas for supporting some of the region' s sensitive plants .
(e) Although the Project may affect
wildlife on the Project Site, including the need to relocate a
colony of burrowing owls, beneficial impacts upon wildlife are
likely with the proposed addition of riparian trees and
semi-permanent water sources in the upper reaches of the
northern draw. The planting of shrubs and trees may help
diversify the restored grassland community, and the reduction
of grazing may also contribute to wildlife improvements .
(f) A -preliminary agreement has been
reached between the Applicant and the California Department of
Fish & Game to mitigate the loss of certain habitat by
preserving and enhancing several sites near the top of the two
draws on the Rancho Paraiso Site. The Applicant has
incorporated this agreement, and compliance with the final form
of this agreement, into the Project .
(g) The Final EIR recommends several
mitigation measures relating to wildlife and vegetation,
including compliance with the Department of Fish and Game
Agreement, utilization of native plants and landscaping,
47
planting native trees or shrubs in grassland areas , seeding
with•wildflowers species, reducing or eliminating grazing on
open space areas, and fencing along the backs of residential
lots . The Final EIR also recommends an educational brochure
explaining open space values, a detailed landscape plan,
vegetation at the edges of Project development areas to
diversify the grassland community, and replacement burrows for
the burrowing owls , with this relocation program incorporated
into the Department of Fish and Game Agreement and in
consultation with a burrowing owls expert .
(h) On page 192 , the Draft EIR states that
the Project would contribute to significant cumulative regional
glosses in natural vegetative values relating to oaks, buckeyes,
and the like. In addition, the Draft EIR states the Project
would permanently alter the natural landforms and reduce the
rural character of the Project Site. These impacts of the
Project are listed as unavoidable and irreversible adverse
impacts . No other impacts of the Project relating to
vegetation and wildlife are listed as unavoidable.
( i) The Final EIR confirms on page 90 of
. the Response Document that each impact which is identified in
.the EIR as potentially significant and which is not listed as
"unavoidable" in the ' Final EIR can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures .
(j ) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
modified to reduce the number of home sites, to eliminate
development on the south knoll , and to restrict development on
the central knoll .
.2 . Mitigation Measures .
(a) The agreement between the Applicant . and
California Department of Fish and Game has been incorporated .
into this Project, pursuant to the Applicant ' s negotiations
with the Department of Fish and Game.
(b) The Conditions of Approval for this
Project include a final landscape plan prior to issuance of
building permits . This final landscape plan shall include
details of any irrigation and fencing, the use of
drought-tolerant plants , a pamphlet summarizing the advantages
of using drought-tolerant plants and drip irrigation, the
replacement burrows for owls, controls to limit weeds, planting
of the mitigation areas , the use of native trees and plants ,
seeding of selected areas with native wildflower seeds,
reduction or elimination of grading, a pamphlet explaining open
space values, appropriate seeding or planting to mitigate
48
i
visual impacts, and landscape screening around the proposed
water tank!; .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of this Project relating to wildlife and vegetation are
either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures, other conditions of approval , and project
modifications .
(b) Specifically, this Project will not
unavoidably affect vegetative values (except for oaks , willows ,
and buckeyes) , and the impact on burrowing owls will be
mitigated by the required relocation of their burrows . The
required landscape plan and fulfillment of the Applicant ' s
:agreement with the Department of Fish and Game will also
mitigate the Project ' s impact on wildlife and vegetation and
'will provide a benefit to the Project Site. The elimination of
grazing on the site will also provide a benefit to the Project
Site.
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
any of the impacts of this Project may not be insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental ,
economic, social , and other benefits of this Project override
any such significant impacts, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) Specifically, the aforementioned
benefits of the Project override the cumulative reduction in
vegetative values such as oaks , buckeyes, and willows .
M. Visual Factors .
1 . Facts .
(a) Although the Project uses large lots
and setbacks to help reduce visual impacts , the Project would
have a noticeable impact on the visual character of the site
vicinity (DEIR, page 155) . ' As structures would be introduced
to elevations of up 486 feet, the Project would change the
visual character of the area, introducing an urban land use
into a visually pristine, relatively barren hillside area which
can be seen from many locations , although the elevations of the
Project are significantly below Lime Ridge. The development
plans includes two water tanks which would be constructed below
grade.
49
s ,
(b) As discussed on pages 155-164 of the
DEIR and as shown by the visual simulations in the DEIR, the
impact of the Project on the view from various vantage points
,surrounding the Project depends on the distance and
conditions . The view from Sutton Drive would be significantly
affected by the Project, the view from the Pheasant Run
Greenway would be affected very little, and the view from
Indian Hill Drive would be significantly affected by the
Project . The panoramic view from Oak Grove at Castle Rock
would be impacted by portions of the Project located on the
central .knoll and in the southern draw (and would have been
impacted by the portions of the Project located on the southern
!knoll) and the view from Northgate Road near the proposed entry
could be significantly affected. The view from Northgate Road
near the park entrance would have been noticeably affected by
.the original development proposal , as a portion of the
development proposed for the southern knoll would have been
clearly visible. The view from Arbolado Drive would be changed
from one of rural grassland in the northern draw to one of
intensive residential development . The view from Walnut Avenue
would not be significantly affected by the proposed
development . The view from Castle Rock would be significantly
affected, as homes at all locations on the site would be
visible and development from this angle would appear to occupy
relatively large area. Views from the Lime Ridge Open Space
Area would be significantly affected as homes located on all
,Project development areas would be clearly visible, especially
those on the central knoll and in the southern draw. The
Project would be visible from Dinosaur Park, although would
appear minuscule in relation to the larger ridges and mountains
arising above it, and the development would not be visible from
the Diablo Hills Country Club.
(c) The relationship to the Contra Costa
County General Plan is discussed on page 163 of the .DEIR and on
pages 99-100 of the Response Document, in addition to other
comments in the Response Document . The DEIR states that the
County General Plan open space designation was created to
preserve "scenic ridges which are highly visible from urban
areas" and that the open space portion of the Project plan is
not used to achieve this objective because it does not include
the north and south knoll in the Project open space area. The
Project area is designated by the County Open Space
Conservation Plan as being partially an "Urban .Growth Area" and
partially a "Major Open Space Area. " The General Plan notes
that the Urban Growth Area should include open space configured
to "preserve major ridges for visual quality. "
(d) On page 100 of the Response Document,
in response to the Applicant ' s comment that the Project is
consistent With these General Plan provisions, the Final EIR
50
states that whether the development of the Project on the
,northern, central and southern knolls of the Project site is
consistent with these General Plan provisions is an
interpretive question. The Final EIR states that the General
Plan does not define "scenic ridges , " and states that generally
a ridge can be defined as an elongated crest at the top of the
opposite slopes of a hill range. The Final EIR states that the
question requiring a discretionary determination by this Board
is how high in elevation residential development should be
allowed on the hill sites, and the Final EIR states that
Figure 1 provided by the Applicant (showing the relation of
Rancho Paraiso development up to 486 feet with Lime Ridge at an
elevation of 1 , 000 feet) should be considered by this Board in
making its determination. '
(e) The Draft EIR states that the degree of
visual impact could be substantially reduced through the
adoption of three mitigation measures . The first mitigation
measure is a reduced development plan which locates home sites
in the lower flatter portions of the site and along the sides
of the two major draws . This mitigation measure is described
'as Alternative A in the description of Project Alternatives in
the Draft EIR. The second mitigation measure is the
requirement of substantial landscaping as a part of the
development plan, preferably with native tree species . The
third mitigation measure is landscape screening around the
proposed water tanks to screen those below-grade tanks from the
views from higher elevations on Lime Ridge.
(f) The DEIR states on page 164 that many
of the Project ' s visual impacts cannot be mitigated.
(g) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
Project would have a significant visual impact, and that
development would extend into the hillside backdrop of East
Walnut Creek. These impacts are listed as irreversible and
unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the Project .
(h) The Rancho Paraiso development has been
modified by limiting the number of homesites to 205, by
restricting development on .the central knoll to areas eastward
of the 440-foot contour line, and by eliminating the
development of homesites on the southern knoll entirely.
( i) This Board' s ability to reduce the
number of units to mitigate visual impacts is limited by CEQA
Guideline 15092(c) when other specific feasible mitigation
measures are available.
51
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) The first proposed mitigation measure
.is listed on DEIR page 164 as identical to Project
Alternative A, although the proper reference may be to
Alternative B, the modified single-family schedule with reduced
grading and reduced development . This mitigation measure is
not adopted as a Condition of Approval to this Project . The
facts and findings concerning the Project Alternatives are set
forth in Section VI , below, of these findings .
(b) Notwitstanding the foregoing, the
:project has been modified to reduce the amount of grading,
'eliminate the development of homesites on the southern knoll ,
and reduce the number of homesites on the central knoll . These
modifications to the Rancho Paraiso development will eliminate
adverse visual impacts. relating to the south knoll , and will
mitigate visual impacts relating to the project as a whole and
development of the central knoll .
(c) The two other proposed mitigation
measures requiring substantial landscaping and requiring
landscape screening around the water tanks are adopted by this
Board as Conditions of Approval to this Project . These
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Condition
of Approval requiring approval of landscape plans by the County
Zoning Administrator .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The imposition of the adopted
mitigation measures discussed above will mitigate the visual
impacts of this Project , but will not mitigate those impacts to
a level of insignificance. The Project will have a significant
visual impact.
(b) This Board finds that the elimination
of development on the southern knoll , restriction of
development on the central knoll , and the reduction in overall
grading pursuant to the modifications in the Rancho Paraiso
development, together with the reduction in the number of units
to 205, will mitigate the visual impact of this project to the
same extent as the first proposed mitigation measure. These
modifications to the Project are specific feasible mitigation
measures which provide a comparable measure of mitigation, and
accordingly the Board may not adopt this proposed mitigation
measure pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15092(c) . In addition, the
substantial mitigation which is provided by these Project
52
mod.ifications eliminates the need to adopt this recommended
mitigation measure.
(c) In the alternative, this Commission
rejects the first proposed mitigation measure and finds that
this mitigation measure is substantially identical to Project
Alternative B, the modified single-family development with
reduced grading and reduced development on the knolls on the
Project Site. This mitigation measure is rejected as
infeasible and less desirable than the Project , for the same
reasons , and based upon the same facts and findings , as the
Project Alternatives are rejected, as set forth in Section VI ,
below, of these findings .
(d) This Commission finds that this Project
is consistent with General Plan provisions for preservation of
scenic ridges , based upon the same facts and findings relating
to General Plan consistency as are set forth in Section III .A. ,
above. In particular , this Board finds that this Project is
located on knolls and hillside at the base of a scenic ridge,
but not on the scenic ridge itself .
(e) To the extent that the visual impacts
of this Project may not be insignificant or mitigated to a
level of insignificance, the environmental , economic, social
and other benefits of this Project override any such
significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
N. Air Quality.
1 . Facts .
(a) The air quality impacts of the Project
are discussed on pages 171-174 of the DEIR. Air quality
impacts of the Project would result primarily from increases in
local traffic volumes . The carbon monoxide concentration for
peak-hour and eight-hour concentrations would be well below
accepted standards . Although the Project would contribute to
cumulative regional air pollution emissions by increasing the
number of motor vehicles in the air basin, no air quality
standard would be exceeded as a result of Project development
nor would any standard be approached by emission levels . The
Final EIR states on page 94 of the Response Document that no
standard in the Bay Area Air Quality Plan is expected to be
exceeded as a result of the Project, so the Project is
considered to be consistent with this Plan.
(b) The DEIR states that residential uses
are generally not considered to a significant direct stationary
source of pollutant emissions . Such emissions from the Project
53
. are not expected to produce significant adverse local or
regional affects .
(c) The construction of the Project would
result in dust emissions which would be noticeable at the
Pheasant Run subdivision and other adjacent land uses ,
particularly during working hours and windy periods . Emissions
from gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment would
increase local pollutant concentrations slightly, but would not
be expected to result in any measurable increase in the
frequency of ambient air quality standard violations .
(d) The DEIR recommends mitigation measures
to reduce the impact of the Project upon air quality. First,
the DEIR states that mitigation measures recommended in the
transportation section are expected to reduce vehicular
emissions . These mitigation measures are discussed in
Section III .C, above, of these findings . The DEIR also
suggests that the Applicant should implement particulate
control measures during the construction period of the Project ,
such as sprinkling exposed portions of the site twice daily,
scheduling major dust-generating activities for the early
morning and other hours when wind velocities are low, and
covering storage piles .
(e) The Final EIR states on page 90 of the
Response Document that each impact which is identified in the
Final EIR as potentially significant but which is not listed as
"unavoidable" in the Final EIR has been determined to be
capable of mitigation to a point of insignificance by
imposition of the recommended mitigation measures . The listing
of unavoidable impacts on page 192 of the DEIR, as modified by
the listing of certain unavoidable impacts in the Response
Document, does not contain a listing of any air quality impact .
(f) The Rancho Paraiso Development has been
modified by reducing the number of units to 205 .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) As a Condition of Approval , the
Applicant will be required to develop, in conjunction with the
County Building Inspection Department , a program to minimize
erosion and dust resulting from the grading operations .
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
54
(a) The Project-s.pecific and cumulative
impacts of the Project relating to ai : quality are not
significant or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures, and
will be further mitigated by the modifications in the Project .
In particular, the reduced amount of grading and the reduction
in the number of homesites will reduce the air quality impacts
of this Project .
(b) To the extent that any impact of the
Project might be significant despite the imposition of
mitigation measures , the economic, social and other benefits of
the Project override any such significant impacts, as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
0. Noise.
1 . Facts .
(a) The noise-related impacts of the
.Project are discussed on pages 175-178 of the DEIR. These
potential impacts include the compatibility of the proposed
residential uses on the Project Site with the anticipated noise
environment, the potential for Project-generated traffic noise
and the potential noise impacts on neighbors during
construction of the Project .
(b) The only potential future noise
compatibility problem will be the impact of intermittent
gunshot noise from the firing range on future residents of the
Rancho Paraiso Project . The potential for adverse response to
this noise could be minimized by notifying the prospective
buyers of the location of the firing range and the frequency of
its use.
(c) The analysis of noise resulting from
increases in traffic along streets serving the Project Site
indicates that noise levels would increase by one decibel or
less along all streets serving the Project Site except for
Arbolado Road and Northgate Road. On Arbolado Road, the
Community Noise Equivalent Level ( "CNEL" ) is calculated to
increase by two decibels as a result of the added traffic . An
increase in CNEL of less than two decibels is generally not
deductible and would not be expected to generate adverse
community response. The CNEL along Northgate Road would
increase by about four decibels, but would remain below a CNEL
of 55 decibels . An increase of four decibels is noticeable,
but because the CNEL would remain below 55 decibels in outdoor
use areas, no significant adverse community impact is
anticipated.
55
i
(d) Noise during Project construction would
be generated by trucks travelling down Arbolado Road or `
Northgate Road to and from the Project Site. This intermittent
. noise from trucks would be noticeable and could interfere with
.. sleep if trucks passed during sleeping hours . Noise levels
generated by construction equipment on the Project Site would
be between 60 and 65 decibels, and such levels would not be
. expected to interfere with normal outdoor or indoor activities .
(e) The DEIR proposes two mitigation
measures relating to noise. First , future residents of the
nearest Project home should be notified of the location of the
• Walnut Creek firing range and the possibility that noise
generated by the use of the firing range could be audible on
the Project Site. Second, to minimize the impact of
construction truck traffic on the adjacent neighborhood,
construction truck movements should be limited to 8 a .m. to
5 p.m. on weekdays . The DEIR states that no mitigation
measures for traffic-generated noise impacts are required.
(f) The Final EIR states at page 90 of the
.Response Document that each impact which is identified in the
DEIR as potentially significant which is not listed as
"unavoidable" in the Final EIR has been determined to be
capable of mitigation to a point of insignificance by
imposition of the recommended mitigation measures . The list of
"unavoidable" impacts on page 192 of the DEIR, as modified by
the Response Document, does not contain a listing of �any
unavoidable impact relating to noise .
(g) The Project has been modified by
limiting the number of homesites on the Rancho Paraiso
development to 205 .
2 . Mitigation measures .
(a) In approving this Project, the
Commission has adopted as Conditions of Approval both of the
. mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR to reduce the
impacts of the. Project relating to noise. One of the
Conditions of Approval requires recorded notice to purchasers
of homes or lots that the site is adjacent to the Walnut Creek
police firing range and that some residents may experience
noise. Another Condition of Approval requires that the
transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to
weekdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. , a restriction
which goes beyond the recommended mitigation measure in the EIR.
56
3 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of the Project relating to traffic-generated noise are
not significant, based upon the conclusions in the Final EIR
and the statement that no mitigation measures for
traffic-generated impacts are required.
(b) The reduction in the number of units
for the Rancho Paraiso development to 205 will further reduce
the noise impacts of this Project .
(c) The Project-specific and cumulative
impacts of the Project relating to compatibility with the
existing noise environment and construction noise impacts will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of
the adopted mitigation measures, other conditions of approval ,
and project modifications , as described above.
(d) To the extent that any of the impacts
of the Project relating to noise may be significant
notwithstanding the imposition of mitigation measures and the
conclusions of the Final EIR as set forth above, the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of.- the
Project override any such significant impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
P. Archaeology.
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR indicates on page 179 that a
recent cultural resource study of the Project Site, including a
document search, determined that no recorded prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites listed with the California
Archaeological Inventory are located on the Project Site. An
archaeological survey specifically covering this site has not
been performed, the site is adjacent to or contains three
intermittent streams which might contain archaeological
deposits, and there may be -archaeological deposits associated
with the existing Rancho Paraiso ranch house on the Project
Site and its accessory structures . The DEIR concludes that ,
absent any mitigation measures, the grading required by the
Project , particularly the covering of the drainage channels ,
could potentially disrupt or destroy one or more archaeological
sites on the Project Site, if any such archaeological sites
exist.
57
(b) On page 179, the DEIR recommends the
following two mitigation measures relating to the potential
impact of the Project on archaeological sites :
( i ) An archival and field study of the
area by a qualified archaeologist to identify possible cultural
resources which should not be adversely impacted. If such
sites are identified, the Applicant should contract with the
archaeologist to conduct a more detailed examination of the
site.
( ii ) If archaeological deposits are
encountered during Project grading or construction, work in the
immediate vicinity of the find will halt, and a qualified
archaeologist should be contracted to evaluate the finds .
Mitigating measures as they may or will be prescribed by the
archaeologist and may or will be required by the County
following such evaluation should be undertaken prior to
resumption of construction activities .
(c) The Final EIR Response Document
. confirms on page 90 that each potentially significant adverse
impact which is not listed as "unavoidable" in the Final EIR
has been determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of
insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures . The impacts of this Project upon archaeological
resources are not listed as "unavoidable" in the Final EIR.
(d) The Rancho Paraiso development has been
modified to reduce the amount of grading, and to restrict
development on the central knoll , and to eliminate the
development of homesites on the south knoll .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and upon the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The foregoing two mitigation measures
have been adopted and expanded by this Board as part of the
Conditions of Approval referenced in Section I of these
findings . In particular , this Board has adopted a single
Condition of Approval which incorporates both of these
mitigation measures and expands upon these mitigation measures
by stating that any recommendations resulting from the
archaeological resource investigation may be made requirements
for development following review by the County Zoning
Administrator . With this addition, the County retains the full
authority to impose development requirements and future
mitigation measures to protect any archaeological resources
which may be revealed either by the archaeological resource
58
investigation of the Project Site, or by the discovery of any
—,resources during construction, grading or excavation, ar.d the
director of Community Development retains the authority to stop
work in the area of any find, as stated in the aforesaid
Condition of Approval . Accordingly, the mitigation measures
suggested in the Final EIR, as adopted and expanded by this
Board as part of the Conditions of Approval , will completely
and fully mitigate any potentially significant Project impacts
relating to archaeological resources which may be discovered as
a result of the archaeological resource investigation or during
construction, grading or excavation.
(b) Considering the foregoing facts and the
adoption of the above-described mitigation measures as
Conditions of Approval , and other measures incorporated into
the Project, the impact of the Project upon archaeological
resources is insignificant or has been avoided, and therefore
does not constitute a significant adverse impact upon the
environment .
(c) The modifications to the Project ,
. including the elimination of homesites on the south knoll , the
restriction of homesites on the central knoll , and the
` reduction in grading, will reduce the potential impact of the
Project upon archeological resources by reducing the area to be
graded and thus the area which may be affected by the Project .
(d) To the extent that any adverse impact
upon archaeological resources could be potentially significant,
the above-described mitigation measures which have been adopted
as Conditions of Approval , and other measures incorporated into
the Project, have mitigated or will mitigate any adverse impact
of the Project upon archaeological resources to a level of
insignificance.
(d) To the extent that any of the above
impacts upon archaeologica-1 resources are not mitigated to a
level of insignificance, despite the foregoing measures, the
economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh any
such impact, as more fully. stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations -(Section IV, below) .
Q. Growth Inducement .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR discusses the growth-inducing
effects of the Project on page 191 . Development of the
•proposed Project would add 205 residential units to the Walnut
Creek planning area. In addition, the Project would require
annexation to the Contra Costa Water District and the Central
59
Contra Costa Sanitary District . The DEIR characterizes the
annexation to the Water District as having a "minor" potential
growth-inducing impact for two reasons : (a) the annexation
could result in the creation of a Northgate Assessment District
which could have the capacity to serve up to 100 residential .
development units in addition to the Project; and (b) the
expansion of service zone 4 could result in a reservoir on the
Rancho Paraiso property which could have unintentional excess
capacity based on conservative estimates of fire flow and
emergency demand, which excess capacity could be used to serve
.potential future residential development on the Ginochio
property if the Williamson Act contract on all or part of that
,;,property is allowed to expire.
(b) Testimony in the record indicates that
this Project is an "in-fill" development adjacent to existing
developed areas . The Project as revised includes a substantial
natural barrier to additional development, and this Board
publicly stated that approval of this Project shall not be
considered a precedent for extending future development beyond
this Project Site and the existing adjacent developments .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, . this Board finds that :
(a) The growth inducing impact of the
Project is not a significant adverse impact on the environment
because development potential within the Northgate Assessment
District, if formed, will exist whether or not the annexations
occur; and the cumulative additional development capacity does
not exceed 100 residential units . . Future residential
development of the Ginochio property is unlikely because of the
existing agricultural preserve contract, the expressed
intention of the current property owner , this Board ' s stated
intentions that the Ginoch-io land should remain in agricultural
uses, and this Board' s statement that this Project shall not
serve as precedent for further development byeond the area of
this Project and existing development . The Project Site abuts
property currently served by both the Contra Costa Water
District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District , and
therefore the Project would not cause "leap frog" development .
(b) Because these impacts are determined
not to constitute significant adverse impacts on the
environment, no mitigation measures or Conditions of Approval
are required to be adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to the
impact of the Project on growth inducement .
60
(c) To the extent that any of the impacts
-1-bf the Project relating to growth inducement may be
significant , notwithstanding the conclusions of the Final EIR
as set forth above, the environmental , economic, social and
other benefits of the Project override any such significant
impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain
environmental impacts of the ;Project discussed in the Final EIR
which may be determined to be significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts of the Project .
A. Land Use.
The Final EIR confirms on page 90 of the Response
Document that each impact which is identified in the Final EIR
.as potentially significant but which is not listed as
unavoidable has been determined to be capable of mitigation to
a point of insignificance by imposition of the mitigation
measures which are recommended in the Final EIR. Within the
evaluation of Project impacts relating to land use, a number of
potentially significant impacts are evaluated, but are not
listed as unavoidable within Section VI .B, and are thus
determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of
' insignificance by imposition of the recommended mitigation
measures . The findings relating to these impacts are contained
within Section III .A of these findings . In addition, the Final
EIR indicates four unavoidable impacts of the Project relating
to land use, each of which is discussed below.
1 . Reduction in the rural character of the
Project vicinity.
(a) Facts .
The DEIR states on page 192 that the rural character
of the Project vicinity would be substantially reduced as a
result of the Project, and this impact of the Project is listed
as an unavoidable .and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project . The impact of the Project on the area-wide land use
pattern is discussed in more detail on page 39 of the DEIR.
Also, on page 110 of the Response document , the Final EIR
states that project density and other design differences
between this Project and the Pheasant Run neighborhood do not
constitute a significant impact . The Project has been modified
to reduce the number of units and to preserve the south knoll .
61
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) The reduction in the rural
character of the Project vicinity, while unavoidable, is not
significant . The Project is an in fill development which will
primarily utilize existing services, and the differences in
character between this Project and the immediately adjacent
developed area, the Pheasant Run Subdivision, are
insignificant . The changes to the Project will reduce the
;;impact of the Project on the rural character of the Project
vicinity, by preserving additional open space, by preserving
the southern knoll , and by reducing the number of units .
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this impact is otherwise significant , this impact is
mitigated to a level of insignificance by several features
which are a part of, or have been incorporated into, the
Project, including the transition between residential
development and open space which is provided by 'the Project, .
the provision of riding and hiking trails pursuant to the
Conditions of Approval , and the provision of notice to
prospective home buyers regarding the impacts of riding trails ,
hiking trails, and adjacent agricultural lands, so as to help
minimize conflicts which may develop between prospective home
buyers and adjacent agricultural uses .
( iii ) In the alternative, to the extent
that this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite
the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override this potentially significant adverse
impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
( iv) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable and
irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
no-project alternative and .under the open space acquisition
alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
62
2 . Loss of agricultural land.
(a) Facts .
( i) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would result in the loss of
221 acres of land now in agricultural use, and this impact of
the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project .
( ii) This potential loss of 221 acres
is based on the assumption that the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso
Site the 10-acre DeVito property, both of which are currently
in agricultural or open space uses , would be developed. The
remaining 3-acre Cox parcel is already used as a residence . It
appears that the actual potential loss may be 220 acres , the
sum of the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso Site and the 10-acre DeVito
property.
( iii) The impact of the Project on
,agricultural uses on the Project Site is discussed in further
. detail on pages 38 and 39 of the Draft EIR, and also on page 42
of the Draft EIR, where the EIR notes that the Project would
contribute to the cumulative decline in the County rangeland
inventory which has been occurring in recent years . Also, the
equestrian operation on the Rancho Paraiso property, although
more appropriately categorized as a recreational rather than an
agricultural facility, would be required to find the comparable
location elsewhere or cease operation.
( iv) The Rezoning, Final Development
Plan, and Subdivision apply only to the Rancho Paraiso Site .
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) The actual loss of agricultural
. land pursuant to the General Plan Amendment, if both Rancho
Paraiso and the DeVito property are ultimately developed, will
be 220 acres, not 221 acres . As the Rezoning, Final
Development Plan, and Subdivision apply only to the Rancho
. Paraiso Site, the immediate loss of agricultural land pursuant
to this Project will be 210 acres, with a potential additional
loss of 10 acres if the owners of the DeVito Ranch decide to
develop residential units on their property.
(ii) The loss of agricultural land
which may result from this Project , while unavoidable, is not
significant . The Rancho Paraiso site has provided grazing for
63
40 to 50 head of cattle, while there were 29 , 000 of cattle in .
-the County in 1937 . The Rancho Paraiso facility is a marginal
agricultural use, and the design of the Rancho Paraiso
Development and the Conditions of Approval will avoid any
adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties . The
agricultural use has also contributed through overgrazing to
environmental damage to the Project Site, and the Project would
restore some of the damaged vegetative values and habitat .
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
that the loss of agricultural land is a significant impact,
that impact has been avoided by the mitigation measures which
:=have been adopted as Conditions of Approval or incorporated
.. into this Project .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that this impact of the project is not insignificant or
mitigated to a level of insignificance, this impact would be an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the EIR, based in
part on the marginal nature of the Rancho Paraiso site as
;•agricultural land. To the extent that this impact of the
- Project is not insignificant or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of this .Project override this significant impact , as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(v) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, to the extent that the open space
acquisition alternative would allow agricultural uses to
continue, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
(vi) To the extent that this
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project is
not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the
. mitigation measures and conditions of approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
64
3 . Loss of open space.
(a) Facts .
( i) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would result in the loss of
113 acres of open space, and this impact of the Project is
listed as an unavoidable and irreversible significant adverse
impact of the Project . The DEIR states on page 38 that
112 acres of the Project Site would be retained as permanent
open space.
( ii) ;The Response Document on page 109
states that this open space will be located around the
perimeter of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and on portions of the
central and southern knoll . These open space areas are all
within the Rancho Paraiso Site.
( iii) The overall Project Site consists
of 223 acres , and over 112 acres of the Rancho Paraiso Site
-will be preserved as open space. The modifications to the
• Project, including the preservation of the south knoll , will
increase the amount of open space on the Site, and will result
in the preservation of open space as a more complete whole,
which is less fragmented than the open space originally
proposed.
( iv) The Rezoning, Final Development
Plan and Subdivision apply only to the Rancho Paraiso Site.
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) Because the overall Project Site
is 223 acres, and over 112-•acres of open space will be
preserved, the actual potential loss of open space pursuant to
the General Plan Amendment will be, at most, 111 acres . As the
other Approvals apply only to the 210-acre Rancho Paraiso Site,
and 112 acres of that site will remain in open space, the
immediate loss of open space as a result of the Project will
be approximately 98 acres, with a potential additional loss of
13 acres if the owners of the DeVito and Cox properties decide
to develop residential units on their properties .
( ii) The loss of open space as a result
of this Project, while unavoidable, is not significant . Over
50% of the Project Site will remain in open space, the Project
is adjacent to substantial public open space areas, and the
Project is designed as a transition between adjacent
65
residential development and these open space areas . The ,
remaining open space will also be improved as a result of this
Project by elimination of grazing, improved trail access ,
revegetation, and improved emergency access . The Project also
includes the preservation of the south knoll , the most visible
and significant open space area on the Project Site. This
change from the original proposal substantially reduces the
impact of the Project upon open space.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
.that this impact of the Project is potentially significant ,
.,this impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
:.several features which are part of , or which have been
' incorporated into, the Project . These features include the
dedication of 112 acres of the Project .as permanent open space
.without the expenditure of public funds to acquire that portion
of the Project Site; the requirement that covenants , conditions
and restrictions for the homeowners association provide for the
maintenance of common open space areas pursuant to the
Conditions of Approval ; deeding of future development rights
for all common areas to the County pursuant to the Conditions
of Approval ; the offering of open space parcels contiguous to
,.the City of Walnut Creek for dedication for possible addition
to the Lime Ridge Open Space Area pursuant to the Conditions of
Approval , and the provision of riding and hiking trails
pursuant to the Conditions of Approval .
( iv) In the alternative, to the extent
that this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite
the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(v) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
• adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
66
4 . Potential adverse impacts on the Ginochio
Ranch.
(a) Facts .
The Final EIR states on page 35 of the Response
Document that development of the Project, including the
introduction of the Project roads and residences , would present
added potential for adverse impacts on operation of the
Ginochio Ranch, including increased frequency of injury to
livestock by domestic dogs , and increased potential for grass
fires , trespassing, and vandalism. This impact of the Project
is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of
the Project .
The Conditions of Approval provide that purchasers of
homes adjacent to agricultural lands shall be notified of the
possible nuisances which could be caused to agricultural
operations, and be notified that a leashing of pets may be
required as provided for in the covenants , conditions and
restrictions . In addition, the Final EIR on page 87 of the
Response Document includes the provision of a 150- to 200-foot
open space buffer along the southern and southeastern edges of
the Project Site as a mitigation measure. The Conditions of
Approval also require the Applicant to confer with
representatives of Ginochio Ranch regarding the provision of
adequate fencing between the properties .
The modifications to the Project will provide a
substantially greater open space buffer between the developed
homes and the Ginochio Ranch. With the preservation of the
south knoll , a substantial natural barrier between the Project
Site and the Ginochio Ranch will . be permanently preserved as
open space.
(b) Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
( i) The impact of the Project on the
Ginochio Ranch, while unavoidable, is not significant . The
Project includes a substantial buffer between new residential
development and the Ginochio Ranch, and will not threaten the
operation of the Ginochio Ranch. The preservation of the south
knoll substantially reduces the impact of this Project upon the
Ginochio Ranch by including a much greater buffer between the
new residential development and the Ranch, and including within
this buffer a natural land barrier in the form of the southern
knoll, which will be preserved as permanent open space. The
continued operation of the Ginochio Ranch as an agricultural
67
operation. is likely pursuant to the Williamson Act Contract
governing the land and the protection to pre-existing
agricultural operations which is provided by the California
Civil Code.
( ii) In the alternative, to the extent
that this adverse impact is potentially significant, this
impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
several features which are a part of, or which have been
incorporated into, the Project . These features include the
open space buffer along the southern and southeastern edges of
the Project , the preservation of the south knoll as open space,
the required negotiation between the Applicant and
representatives of Ginochio Ranch regarding adequate fencing,
notice to prospective home buyers regarding possible nuisances
which could be caused to agricultural operations, and the
provision of a sign program to restrict access by dirt bikes to
the Ginochio Ranch.
( iii) In the alternative, to the extent
.that this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the
Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite
the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits.
of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
( iv) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
B. Grading And Geology-Permanent Alteration Of
Natural Land Forms On The Site .
1 . Facts . -
. (a) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would include extensive
grading, which would permanently alter natural land forms .
This impact of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Project has been modified to
include the preservation of the south knoll as permanent open
space, and the south knoll is the most visible and significant
68
natural land form on the site. The Project has also been
..:,..modified to reduce the number of units overall , and to restrict
development on the central knoll .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The above-described unavoidable adverse
impact of the Project will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by several features which are a part of, or have
been incorporated into, the Project . These features include
the reduction in the number of individual lots and homes to be
built from 219 to 205 , the redesign of the Project to avoid.
development on the southern knoll entirely, and to restrict
development on the central knoll , the reduction in the amount
of grading on the Project Site overall , the design of the
Project to avoid typical "cut and fill" graded pads and
terraced hillsides, and revegetation of the graded slopes
pursuant to the Conditions of Approval . In particular , the
redesign of the Project substantially reduces the impact of the
Project upon natural land forms on the Rancho Paraiso Site.
.(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this significant, unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact
of the Project is not mitigated to a level of insignificance,
despite the mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval
described herein, the environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override this significant adverse
impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, below) .
(c) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
C. Visual Impact .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states that suburban
development would extend into the hillside backdrop of East
Walnut Creek, above the 260-foot contour, as the Project ' s
.. homesite elevations would range from 260 to 486 feet . This
69
, impact of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and -
irreversible significant adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Final EIR states on page 105 of the
Response Document that an alternative design using less grading
and more adaptive individual building designs and the
clustering of such adaptive units on the Project hillsides ,
rather than the placement of level units on the flat knoll and
draw areas pursuant to this Project, may result in adverse
visual impacts as viewed from below which are worse than the
impacts created by this Project .
(c) By utilizing large lots , setting the
houses back from the edge of the graded slopes , and providing
landscaping, the view of the Project homes from offsite will be
obscured to some extent (Comment 28 . 4 , Response Document ,
page 105, with verbatim text in Section V of the Response
Document; also, Applicant ' s Figures 4 and 5, page 106 of the
Response Document) .
(d) The Project has been modified to
preserve the southern knoll as permanent open space, and the
southern knoll is the most significant visual feature of the
Rancho Paraiso site. In addition, the Project has been
modified to reduce the number of units to be developed to 205 ,
and to 'restrict development on the central knoll .
.. 2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The above-described unavoidable adverse
impact of the Project will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by several features which are a part of , or
which have been incorporated into, the Project including
Project changes made subsequent to the preparation of the
DEIR. These features include the utilization of large lots ,
setting the houses back from the edge of the graded slopes, and
the provision of landscaping pursuant to the Applicant ' s
Project design. These features also include review of a final
landscape plan by the County zoning administrator pursuant to
the Conditions of Approval , and landscape screening around the
. proposed water storage tanks to screen views of these tanks
from higher elevations on Lime Ridge, as adopted by this Board
in making the findings set forth in Section III .M, above,
regarding visual factors .
(b) These factors also include the
modification in the Project ' s design to preserve the southern
knoll as permanent open space and eliminate the development of
70
homesites on the southern knoll , the restriction on developing
, -'homesites on the central knoll , and the overall reduction in
the amount of grading and the number of homesites to be
developed on the Rancho Paraiso site. These modifications to
the Project ' s design substantially reduce the visual impact of
the Project, such that the visual impact of the Project is not
mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the
impact on views from Lime Ridge is insignificant , as those
views already are predominantly of developed residential areas .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project
is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override this significant adverse impact, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
-: adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
one irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, and except for a reduced visual impact
pursuant to the modified single-family reduced grading
alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below.
D. Traffic Impacts .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that the
Project would contribute to cumulative local , subregional , and
regional traffic impacts by generating 2, 526 daily vehicle
trips . This cumulative impact of the Project is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Draft EIR at pages 84 through 86 ,
together with the Final EIR at pages 34-35, 50-52, 63 , and 84
of the Response Document sets forth a number of mitigation
measures relating to Project-specific and cumulative Project
impacts, which mitigation measures and related Conditions of
Approval are set forth in detail in Section III .C, above.
(c) The Project has been modified by
reducing the number of units to be developed upon the Rancho
Paraiso Site to 205 .
71
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project , while
unavoidable, is not significant . The changes in intersection
level of service are minor in themselves and especially in
comparison to the impact of previous and future regional growth
.on the Ygnacio Valley corridor . None of the local streets or
:intersections would exceed their design capacity or experience
a significant change in •level of service. The Project also
.•includes measures which will improve local traffic safety, and
.a contribution to regional traffic improvements addressing the
.pre-existing regional traffic problem.
(b) The Project has been reduced from 219
units to 205 units . This modification in the Project will
.reduce the traffic impacts of the Project . Together with the
conditions of approval and mitigation measures imposed upon
this Project, this modification will reduce the Project ' s
impacts upon traffic to a leval of insignificance. Thus , to
the extent that this impact of the Project is potentially
'significant, this impact is mitigated to a level of
.insignificance by several features which are a part of, or
which have been incorporated into the Project . These features
include the various mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval which are set forth in detail in Section III .C, above .
(c) To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval described herein, the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
this adverse impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
no-project alternative and under the open space acquisition
alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below, and except that the modified
single-family development scheme with reduced grading and
reduced -development on the knolls would have a similar, but
reduced, cumulative traffic impact, and this alternative is
rejected as more fully described in Section VI , below.
72
' E. Municipal Services - Need For Additional Public
Services .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project would increase the need for
additional public services, including water , sewage treatment,
fire fighting, schools, police, and park and recreation
facilities . This impact of the Project is listed as an
unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Final EIR at page 92. of the
Response Document states that the cumulative impacts of this
Project on water service are insignificant, and the DEIR at
page 92 states that adequate water service can be provided to
the Project with the imposition of several specified mitigation
measures . The Final EIR at page 93 of the Response Document
states that Project impacts on sewer facilities are
insignificant, both on an individual (or Project-specific)
basis and on a cumulative basis . The DEIR states on page 96
: that the imposition of specified mitigation measures would
mitigate the identified potential impacts on fire service.
(c) Also, state law limits the ability of
this Board to reject or modify this Project based on school
impacts, and the Project includes a school impact fee which may
be used to fund school improvements . If the Project results in
a need for additional police services, only one additional
officer will be required.
(d) The Conditions of Approval require
annexation of the Project Site to the Contra Costa Water
District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and
compliance with the County ordinance regarding water
conservation. In addition, pursuant to County ordinances
normally applicable to development projects such as this
Project , the Applicant will pay a variety of fees relating to
municipal services, as discussed in greater detail in
Sections IIID through III . I, above.
7.1
(e) As stated at page 38 of the DEIR, the
Project design includes the retention of 112 acres as permanent
open space. The Project is also located near the Mt . Diablo
State Park and immediately adjacent to the proposed Arbolado
Park.
(f) The Project has been modified to reduce
the number of units in the Rancho Paraiso development to 205 .
This will result in reductions in the need for additional
public services . As fewer homes will be built, the Rancho
73
Paraiso Site will have fewer inhabitants, and less residential
landscaping will be installed when compared to the original
proposal .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) The Project ' s impact on demand for
, municipal services , while unavoidable, is insignificant . The
impacts on water supply are insignificant, sewer impacts are
insignificant, a new fire station will be completed at 3155
; Walnut, the impact on fire services is insignificant
considering the substantial residential development already in
the -Project vicinity, at most one additional police officer
will be required, school fees will fund any needed school
improvements, and there are substantial exisitng and proposed
park and open space areas surrounding the Project, including
__open space within the Project Site.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
the Project ' s impact on demand for municipal services is
. potentially significant, this impact of the Project will be
mitigated by several features which are a part of , or which
have been incorporated into, the Project . These features
include the mitigation measures for water and sewer services
described on page 92 and 93 of the Response Document , the other
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described under
the "Facts" above and in Sections III .D through III . I , above,
the retention of over 112 acres of the Project Site in open
space, the provision of hiking and equestrian trails , the
preservation of the south knoll as open space, and the overall
reduction in the number of units to be developed on the Rancho
Paraiso Site.
(c) In the alternative, to the extent. that
this unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact of the Project
is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, despite the
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval described
herein, the environmental , economic, social and other benefits
of the Project override this potentially significant adverse
impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section V, :below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
74
_acquisition alternat-.ve, which alternatives are rejected as
, ,.acquisition
fully described in Section VI , below.
F. Municipal Services - Police Response Time.
1 . Facts .
(a) The Final EIR states at page 117 of the
Response Document that police response times to the Project
Site could be longer than the County averages . This impact of
the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project .
(b) . The DEIR states at page 99 that police
services are provided by the Sheriff.' s Department and funded
through the County' s property tax, and that this Project would
generate higher taxes per dwelling unit than most homes in the
vicinity due to the expected higher-than-average taxable value
of homes within the Project . The DEIR also states that the
Project might require an additional officer on Beat 11 .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . The existing median response
.. time is under two minutes for life-threatening priority calls,
and this response time should not be longer than it is for
other unincorporated areas of the county.
(b) In the alternative, the above-described
unavoidable adverse impact of the Project will mitigated by the
increased property taxes which will be generated by development
of the Project . In particular , the Project homes will
generally have higher taxes per dwelling unit than most homes
in the vicinity, and thus will provide substantial funds to the
. County to fund additional manpower in the Sheriff ' s Department ,
should such increased manpower be needed in the Project
vicinity, due in whole or in part to development of the Project .
(c) In the alternative, to the extent that
this potentially significant, unavoidable and irreversible
adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to a level of
insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and Conditions
of Approval described herein, the environmental , economic,
social and other benefits of the Project override this
potentially significant adverse impact, as more fully stated in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
75
(d) . As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
G. Vegetation.
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR states on page 192 that
development of the Project Site would contribute to significant
cumulative regional losses in natural vegetative values
relating to such vegetation as Oaks and Buckeyes . This impact
of the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
significant adverse impact of the Project .
(b) The Conditions of Approval for this
Project include requiring maintenance of open space pursuant to
covenants, conditions and restrictions, a final landscape plan
including fencing, deeding or dedication either to the County
.or the City of Walnut Creek of certain open space areas ,
revegetation of all cut and fill slopes .
(c) Various mitigation measures relating to
vegetation which are set forth in the DEIR and in the Response
Document have been adopted as Conditions of Approval . These
Conditions of Approval include utilization of native trees,
planting of native trees in grassland open space areas, initial
seeding of selected areas of wildflower species , reducing or
eliminating grazing in open space areas , fencing along the
backs of residential lots, an educational brochure, the
detailed landscape plan itself , and vegetation at the edge of
Project development areas to help diversify the grassland
community.
(d) The Project has been modified to reduce
the number of residential units overall , to eliminate the
development of home sites on the southern knoll , and to
restrict the development of home sites on the central knoll .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . Overall , the Project will
76
improve the vegetative values and habitat on about half of the
Project Site.
(b) In the alternative, to the extent that
this impact is potentially significant, this impact of -the
Project will mitigated by several features which are a part of ,
or which have been incorporated into the Project . These
features include the Conditions of Approval and the mitigation
measures referred to under the "Facts, " above, the retention of
over 212 acres of the Project Site as open space, the
improvement of habitat and vegetative values on that open
space, the reduction in the number of units to be developed,
and the preservation of the south knoll as permanent open space
without any development of home sites on the south knoll .
(c) To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and
.Conditions of Approval described herein, the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
.. this adverse impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section V, below) .
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project , the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible significant impact under any of the
alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except
. under the no-project alternative and under the open space
acquisition alternative, which alternatives are rejected as
more fully described in Section VI , below.
H. Earthquake Shaking.
1 . Facts .
(a) The Final EIR states on pages 117-118
of the Response Document that the Project would be subject to
the potential hazards of earthquake shaking. This impact of
the Project is listed as an unavoidable and irreversible
significant adverse impacV,.of the Project .
(b) The DEIR states on page 127 that the
risk of earthquake damage from ground shaking must be
considered an unavoidable impact in any area of high
seismicity, and the DEIR on page 123 states that the San
Francisco Bay region is seismically active. The DEIR also
states on page 127 that the risks of earthquake damage from
ground shaking for new residential construction can be
minimized by the use of conservative grading, design and
construction practices . The DEIR also recommends that owners
77
of developed lots be encouraged to purchase earthquake
insurance to protect the investment in their homes and avoid
catastrophic dollar losses . These mitigation measures, along
.with other mitigation measures relating to earthquake safety
and grading., have .been imposed upon this Project as Conditions
of Approval .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that :
(a) This impact of the Project, while
unavoidable, is not significant . The risk is not significant
relative to other developed areas because the entire region is
subject to earthquake risks, and routine construction practices
minimize this risk .
(b) In the alternative, this impact of the
Project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
., several features which are a part of , or which have been
incorporated into, the Project . These features include
conservative grading, design and construction practices and
, compliance with provisions of the Uniform Building Code
relating to seismic safety, which compliance is required of all
developments such as this Project . The economic impact of
earthquake shaking may also be mitigated by owners of. developed
lots who purchase earthquake insurance on the new homes as that
insurance will cover most of the cost of any damage. The
Conditions of Approval contain numerous requirements for
grading and construction practices relating to earthquake
safety, and require the Applicant to encourage homeowners to
purchase earthquake insurance.
(d) As discussed in Section VI , below,
regarding alternatives to the Project, the above-described
adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable
and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the
Project identified in the Final EIR, except under the
no-project alternative and under the open space acquisition
alternative, which alternatives are rejected as more fully
described in Section VI , below. In addition, the risk of
ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is a risk of almost
any residential or other development within the seismically
active San Francisco .Bay region.
(c) .. To the extent that this unavoidable and
irreversible adverse impact of the Project is not mitigated to
a ,level of insignificance, despite the mitigation measures and
Conditions. of Approval described herein, the environmental ,
economic, social and other .benefits of the Project override
78
'this adverse impact , as more fully stated in the Statement of
SxOverriding Considerations (Section V, Below) .
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , and to the
extent that any impact of the Project is significant, this
Board adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental impacts
of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated
economic, social and other benefits of the Project .
A. Generally.
This Board finds that, to the extent that any impacts
(including cumulative impacts) attributable to this Project
remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the
environmental , social , economic and other considerations set
forth herein because these Project benefits outweigh any
significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
the Project . This Board also finds that the mitigation
measures which were recommended in the EIR but were not
incorporated into the Project are infeasible with respect to
the Project, because such measures would impose limitations and
restrictions on the development of the Project so as to
prohibit the attainment of specific social , economic and other
benefits of the Project which this Planning Commission finds
outweigh the unmitigated impacts of the Project . This Board
. further finds that the Project alternatives set forth in the
EIR are infeasible because such alternatives would prohibit the
attainment of specific social , economic and other benefits of
the Project which this Board finds outweigh the environmental
benefits of the Project alternatives . Specifically, this Board
finds that the following social , economic and other
considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding
any unavoidable or unmitigated impacts of the Project :
1 . Provision of Needed Housing.
The Project will provide needed executive housing for
Walnut Creek residents and the region, which will indirectly
stimulate economic growth in the area as more local employees
are able to find suitable housing. The primary purchaser at
Rancho Paraiso will be a local resident who is a move-up
homebuyer desiring a larger, more upscale home. Therefore,
construction of the Project will also make existing housing in
different price ranges available to the surrounding community
and the region. In addition, the Project will improve the
jobs/housing balance of Walnut Creek and the surrounding region
and will help the unincorporated Walnut Creek area to meet the
housing needs and goals identified in the Contra Costa County
79
. General Plan. Finally, although this Project is not required ,
to be consistent with the Walnut Creek General Plan, this
..Project will nevertheless help fulfill the housing objectives
.. identified in this general plan as well , as indicated in the
EIR on pages 59-60 .
2 . Public services and facilities .
The Project will also contribute substantial in-lieu
park dedication fees to the County, substantial school fees to
,the Mount Diablo Unified School District , all applicable County
,.traffic mitigation fees, and funding for offsite .drainage
:.improvements, as indicated in the EIR and the conditions of
` approval for the Project .
3 . Additional school .enrollment .
The Project will provide additional students for the
schools operated by the Mt . Diablo Unified School District .
Numerous local residents testified that these schools have
.,.faced declining enrollment in the past , and that these schools
" face the possibility of closure if such declining enrollment
continues . These schools are among the best schools in the
Mt . Diablo ;Unified School.. District . The increase in enrollment
which will result from children residing in Rancho Paraiso
homes who attend these schools is a benefit of the Project .
4 . Funding for the homeless .
As a Condition of Approval , the Applicant is required
to make a substantial contribution for county homeless
programs . This substantial funding would not be available with
respect to this site if . this site is not developed, and this
funding represents a substantial social and economic benefit of
this Project .
5 . Traffic improvements and public services .
The Project includes construction of traffic control
improvements on North Gate .Road which will significantly
increase traffic safety in the area, and provision of potable
water which will correct a serious water quality and health
problem in the region surrounding the Project Site. This
increased water storage capacity and increased availability of
service mains for fire hydrants will substantially increase
fire protection ability for local area residents . In addition,
the Project will provide all-weather fire vehicle access to
open space areas and a hazardous weed abatement program for
improved fire control , and will generate substantially
increased property tax revenues for the County to fund needed
public facilities and services, such as police service.
80
6 . Provision of construction jobs .
Testimony before this Board at the hearing on the
Approvals demonstrated the Applicant will provide construction
jobs over a period of several years, primarily to workers
resident in the County.
7 . Environmental benefits and open space.
The Project includes a number of environmental
benefits . The elimination of grazing on the Project Site will
eliminate the adverse impact of grazing upon the vegetation and
wildlife on the Project Site, and the mitigation measures
pursuant to the Applicant ' s agreement with the Fish and Game
Department will provide better natural vegetation and wildlife
habitat on the Project Site.
The Project will permanently preserve more than 50% of
the Project Site as open space, with no cost to , either the
County or the City of Walnut Creek for acquisition. Project
.. plans and Conditions of Approval call for improving public
access to these preserved open space areas, and also include
plans for the provision of connections between the nearby trail
system and the network of regional trails , and preservation and
enhancement of currently degraded wildlife habitat areas ,
through the planting of native plants, trees and wildflowers , a
reduction or elimination of cattle grazing on open space areas ,
and provision of substantial landscaped buffer zones to
diversify and enrich the native grassland community and
encourage grassland and wildflower growth.
In addition, the Project will permanently preserve the
southern knoll as open space. This southern knoll is the most
significant and most visible natural land form on the Rancho
Paraiso site.
8 . Public Revenues .
The Project will substantially increase the assessed
valuation of the Project Site and beneficially impact property
values in the vicinity, thereby creating additional property
tax revenue for the county on a long-term basis . During
construction of the Project, additional public revenues will
result from sales tax on building materials and payroll tax for
construction workers .
9 . Child Care.
Pursuant to Conditions of Approval No. 17, the
provisions of the Contra Costa County child care ordinance will
be complied with prior to recordation of the final subdivision
81
. . map. Compliance will involve a substantial payment of the
Applicant to fund child care programs . This funding from this
.Application would not be available without approval of this
Project .
The benefits listed in these Subsections A. 1-A. 9 ,
together with all other applicable information in the record,
are the basis for the additional specific findings of
overriding consideration set forth below.
B. Agriculture and Land Use Impacts .
w: With respect to unavoidable impacts of the Project on
-agriculture and land use (reduction in rural character, .
potential conflicts between agricultural and residential land
uses, loss of agricultural land, and loss of open space) , this
Board finds that the aforementioned environmental , social ,
economic and other considerations warrant approval of the
Project notwithstanding the fact that these impacts of the
. Project cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
. measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project .
.,This Board finds that these impacts also cannot be avoided
except by approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open
Space Acquisition Alternative, which Alternatives would
eliminate the Project benefits as set .forth above.
C. Visual Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable visual impacts of the
Project (development on the hillside behind the East Walnut
Creek area, view impacts) this Board finds that the social ,
economic and other considerations set forth above warrant
approval of the Project notwithstanding these impacts which
cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigations measures and
Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project . This Board also
finds that these impacts cannot be completely avoided except by
approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open Space
Acquisition Alternative, which Alternatives eliminate the
Project benefits as set forth above . In addition, this Board
finds that a change in visual character of the Project Site
from agricultural and open space uses to approximately 50%
residential use is a largely subjective one which will be
perceived by some as an insignificant and/or positive change.
In addition, the preservation of the south knoll and the
provision of landscaping are visual benefits of the Project .
D. Geology/Grading Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable impacts of the Project on
..geology and soils (grading of the Project Site, altered natural
landforms, and exposure of people to potential hazards of
82
+ear'thquake shaking) , this Board finds that the aforementioned
,-environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding these impacts
which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project .
this Board also finds that these impacts cannot be avoided
except .by approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open
Space Acquisition Alternative which Alternatives eliminate the
Project ' s benefits as set forth above .
E. Traffic and Circulation Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts
of the Project, this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding these impacts
which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation
measures and conditions of approval imposed on the Project .
This Board also finds that these impacts cannot be entirely
avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative or the
Open Space Acquisition Alternative, which Alternatives
eliminate the benefits of the Project as set forth above .
F. Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts .
With respect to unavoidable cumulative impacts of the
Project on vegetation and wildlife, this Planning Commission
finds that the aforementioned environmental , social , economic
and other considerations warrant approval of the Project
notwithstanding these impacts which cannot be avoided despite
the numerous mitigation measures and conditions of approval
imposed on the Project . This Board also finds that these
impacts cannot be entirely avoided except by approval of the No
Project Alternative or the Open Space Acquisition Alternative,
which Alternatives eliminate the Project benefits as set forth
above.
G. Municipal Services Impacts .
With respect to the Project ' s impact on the need for
additional public servicesl(water , sewage treatment, fire
services, police services, school facilities , park and
recreation facilities , and police response times to the Project
Site) , this Board finds that the aforementioned environmental ,
social, economic and other considerations warrant approval of
the Project notwithstanding these impacts which cannot be
mitigated despite the numerous mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project . This Board also
finds that these impacts cannot be entirely avoided except by
approval of the No Project Alternative or the Open Space
83
Acquisition Alternatives, which alternatives eliminate the
Project benefits as set 'f orth abo,7e.
VI . FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 , this Board
makes the following findings regarding alternatives to the
Project discussed in the Final EIR.
A. No Project Alternative.
1 . Facts .
(a) As described on DEIR pages 181-182, the
17 (a)
Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its
current state and the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Final
Development Plan, and Subdivision would not be approved. The
Project Site would remain under its current General Plan
designation of agricultural preserve, and no development could
occur on the property which is not a commercial agricultural
use or related compatible use .
(b) The No Project Alternative would
encourage continued grazing use of the Project Site preserving
agricultural and open space lands, some of which would be
developed pursuant to the Project . Local traffic and demands
for municipal services would not increase, and this alternative
would not require reconstruction ' of slide areas and grading on
the Project Site. This alternative would, at least
temporarily, preserve the ,Project Site as grasslands ,
maintaining the existing rural environment, and would not
generate additional drainage run-off , require removal of trees ,
result in adverse visual impacts, disturb potential
archaeologic values, or create noise and air quality impacts .
(c) The No Project Alternative would also
allow continued overgrazing of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and
thus allow continued reduction in the natural vegetative and
wildlife habitats of the hillside area. This alternative would
make it more difficult to bring treated water service to the
Northgate area and would Ivssen or eliminate the possibility of
the water district serving this area, which currently receives
substandard water service.
(d) As stated elsewhere in these findings,
many of the environmental impacts of this Project have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance, and this Project would
provide many benefits, including dedication. of open space and
the preservation of the south knoll without public expense
funding for transportation improvements and public services ,
traffic improvements on Northgate Road, improved water service,
84
-wildlife mitigation measures, housing, and temporary
construction jobs .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the No Project Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the
No Project Alternative, for the following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project
Alternative.
(b) The No Project Alternative would
dramatically restrict the Water District ' s ability to provide
adequate treated water service to the Northgate area, by
eliminating a major force behind the movement to bring treated
water service to this area.
(c) The No Project Alternative would
eliminate the traffic improvements to Northgate Road, which in
addition to mitigating local impacts of the Project, would
improve an area which has been a safety problem in the past .
(d) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would result in continued overgrazing of the Rancho Paraiso
Site and subsequent reduction in the natural vegetative and
wildlife habitats , while eliminating the restorative mitigation
measures which have been agreed to by the Applicant and the
Department of Fish and Game;
(e) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would result in the loss of 205 home sites which would be
developed on the Rancho Paraiso Site, the loss of additional
home sites pursuant to the General Plan Amendment, and the loss
of available housing in other price ranges as the "move up"
market for this Project would not be created. Approval of the
No Project Alternative would also result in the loss of
substantial funding for county programs to benefit the homeless .
(f) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would result in the loss of construction jobs which would be
created by development of the Rancho Paraiso site over a period
of several years .
(g) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would eliminate a potential source of funding for regional
85
traffic improvements, along with other fees which would be
collected in connection with the Project .
(h) Approval of the No Project Alternative
would eliminate the possibility of obtaining a substantial
portion of the Pr.oject Site as permanent public open space
without cost to the County or to the City of Walnut Creek .
(i) The preservation of the existing
General Plan designation for the Rancho Paraiso is inconsistent
with the previous cancellation of the Williamson Act contract
regarding that property.
(j ) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso Project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
not be obtained.
B. . Modified Residential Development Plan.
1 . Facts .
(a) As described at DEIR pages 182-183, the
Modified Residential Development Plan Alternative would provide
a comparable single-family housing product with less grading
and with no homesites atop the central and south knolls . This
alternative would reconfigure the development plan to use
individual home designs which are more adaptive to hillside
topography, not including large, flat homesites , so that the
homesite would require less grading and the homes would not be
set back from the hillside slopes . This alternative would
eliminate development on the tops of the knolls, providing for
development of roughly 25% of the site. This alternative would
yield at most 140-150 units on the Rancho Paraiso Site, or
170-180 units total .
(b) The DEIR states that this alternative
would reduce the impacts of grading due to more gradual slopes ,
and could accommodate mass landslide repair (although landslide
repair requires grading) . This alternative would be consistent
with County and Walnut Creek hillside development policies, and
would include a 35-40% reduction in traffic generation and
similar reductions in Project demands for public services .
(c) Substantial grading would still be
required to provide for safe development of the Project Site,
due to landslide deposits . The County Planning Geologist
stated that a subdivision using individually designed
structures and terrain-conforming foundations is impractical
due to the size and number of landslides on the Project Site.
Although this alternative is reduced in size when compared to
86
th6 Project , the alternative would still result in significant
• ''losses of grazing and open space lands , net increases in
traffic generation, and net increases in demand for municipal
services . This alternative would have a more adverse visual
impact as viewed from .below, due to the design of
terrain-conforming homes which are not set back on large lots .
The Project as proposed by the Applicant incorporates large
lots and setback of homes , which will provide a less severe
visual impact than this Alternative.
(d) The Project has been modified to reduce
the amount of grading on the site, to eliminate the development
of home sites on the south knoll , and to restrict the
development of home sites on the central knoll .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the modifications to the
Project, including the elimination of home sites on the south
knoll , the restriction of home sites on the central knoll , and
the reduction in grading and the overall number of home sites,
provide a comparable level of mitigation as could be achieved
by the modified residential development plan, thus obviating
the environmental benefits of adopting this plan.
In the alternative, this Board finds that this
Modified Residential Development Plan Alternative is infeasible
and less desirable than the Project and rejects this
Alternative, for the following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving this Project
Alternative.
(b) The County Geologist has described
terrain-conforming homes on this Project Site as impractical .
(c) Approval of this Alternative would
result in the loss of 60-70 homesites which would be created by
development of the Rancho Paraiso Site pursuant to the Project,
resulting in a corollary loss of available housing in other
price ranges as the "move up" market resulting from this
Project would be created to a lesser extent .
(d) Approval of this Alternative would
result in the loss of construction jobs , which would be created
87
by development of the larger Rancho Paraiso Development over a,
period of several years .
(e) The environmental , social , economic and
other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
be obtained to a lesser degree, due to the smaller size of this
Project and the lower amount of fees which would be generated
by the Project .
(f) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval, including the provision of substantial
funding for county homeless projects , in return for the
::,approval of the proposed Project . Approval of this alternative
instead of the proposed project would eliminate the social ,
economic and other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso
Project pursuant to these Conditions of Approval , as the
Applicant ' s acceptance of these conditions is conditioned upon
the- approval of the Project .
(g) This Project would result in a more
adverse visual impact, due to the use of building designs which
conform to the terrain, but are not shielded visually by the
. use of large. lots and setbacks .
C. Mixed Housing-Type Development .
1 . Facts .
(a) As described on DEIR pages 183 and 186,
the Mixed Housing Development Alternative would reflect the
design approach proposed in 1983 , containing 132 single-family
units and 64 attached units , for a total of 196 units on the
Rancho Paraiso property, and an overall total of 227 units .
This development plan contains two long dead-end cul-de-sacs
running up each of the major draws on the Rancho Paraiso
property, with a connection across the rear of the central
knoll by an access road limited to pedestrian and emergency
traffic . Homesites are concentrated in minor cul-de-sacs in
the lower flatland portion of the site and along the sides of
the major draws . The housing units would be aimed at a variety
of housing market sectors, different from the market which is
. targeted by the Applicant . This Alternative also includes a
road along the entire western property line connecting Arbolado
Road and Northgate Road.
(b) This Alternative would not attain the
marketing objectives of the Applicant, and represents a
significant deviation in character from the housing site and
market sector normally targeted by the Applicant . The market
feasibility of the Applicant ' s approach has been clearly
88
demonstrated by the recent Bryant Ranch and Saunders Ranch
projects . As stated in the DEIR, the market feas' ibility of the
mixed use approach remains questionable.
(c) Large cuts at the eastern end of the
draws would be required, and this grading would be visible from
surrounding neighborhoods . This Alternative would provide only
moderate decreases in per capita-related impacts such as
population and housing, traffic, municipal services, air
quality and noise.
(d) The development of attached units on
the Rancho Paraiso site would ,be less compatible with
surrounding development, and would provide less of a transition
between existing development to the west of the Rancho Paraiso
site and the open space areas to the east . For these reasons ,
it would creat greater negative impacts on the residents of
surrounding developments than would the proposed Project .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Mixed Housing-Type
Development Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than
the Project, and rejects this Alternative, for the following
reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project
Alternative. Among other things, the mitigation measures have
substantially reduced the visual impacts of the Project by
minimizing development on the knolls within the Project Site
and have substantially reduced the amount of grading which will
be necessary.
(b) The Project has already been determined
by this Board to be in compliance with the County General Plan,,
including its provisions relating to ridgelines, thereby
obviating the need to approve this Alternative in order to
obtain compliance with the County General Plan.
(c) This Alternative would reduce the
property taxes to be generated by development of the Project
Site, because of the lower price at which units would be sold,
thereby reducing the ability of these property taxes to fund
improvements in police services . Approval of this Alternative,
which may not include phased construction of homes over a
number of years, would not produce a stable number of
89
construction jobs over a period of years, as the Project would
do .
(d) To the extent that the number of units
is reduced pursuant to this Alternative, and to the extent that
this Alternative reduces the ability of the Applicant to
provide the many mitigation measures associated with the
Project, the environmental , social , economic and other benefits
derived from the Rancho Paraiso project as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations may be obtained to a
lesser degree if this Alternative is approved.
(e) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
:•:Conditions of Approval , including the provision of substantial
funding for county homeless projects, in return for the
approval of the proposed Project . Approval of this alternative
instead of the proposed project would eliminate the social ,
economic and other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso
Project pursuant to these Conditions of Approval, as the
Applicant ' s acceptance of these conditions is conditioned upon
the approval of the Project .
D. Alternative Sites .
1 . Facts .
(a) The DEIR discusses on pages 186-188 the
possibility of locating a similar project on alternate sites .
The DEIR concludes that the Ginochio Ranch is not a feasible
alternative site because of its Williamson Act contract, the
inability to cancel this contract . An assemblage of several
smaller sites in the surrounding Northgate area is infeasible
because all of these properties combined account. for about
approximately 22 acres, substantially less acreage than the
amount necessary to provide a viable alternative for the
Project . The adjacent Lime Ridge open space areas have been
acquired by the City of Walnut Creek for open space purposes,
thus ruling out and making infeasible any residential use of
that property.
(b) Outside of the immediate vicinity, the
DEIR evaluates several alternate sites within the subregion.
The use of the Pine Creek Retention Basin Reserve Land
constituting approximately 40 acres would not meet the basic
objectives of the Project, because of the amount of acreage.
The use of the two vacant parcels owned by the Newhall Land and
Farming Company, and not owned by the Applicant, along Ygnacio
Valley Road is infeasible because the provisions of the City of
Walnut Creek Traffic Control Initiative prohibit single-family
development of these parcels at intensities greater than ten
units per parcel . The Newhall Ranch area adjacent to the City
90
5
of Concord may represent a potential alternative to the Project
Site, although this site is currently proposed to be developed
with 924 single-family detached dwelling units and the
development proposal would need to be intensified to
accommodate an additional 251 units in order to serve as an
alternative to this Project . This would increase Project
density to 2 .3 units per acre, which may be inconsistent with
the Newhall Ranch Area Plan.
(c) The DEIR concludes that the only
feasible alternate site is the central county Newhall Ranch
area adjacent to the City of Concord. A project at this site
would defer or eliminate certain impacts on the Project Site,
including the visual impact on the knolls, traffic impacts at
certain intersections , and impacts on the immediate
neighborhood in the Northgate and Arbolado Road areas . An
alternate project located in this site would, however , result
in more concentrated traffic impacts on critical Ygnacio
Valley, Treat Boulevard, and Clayton Road corridors, plus
related noise and air quality impacts . Local access to this
alternative site would have an adverse impact on residential
neighborhoods abutting the alternate site. This alternate
project would also result in significant adverse visual ,
grading, drainage, open space, and biotic impacts on the
Newhall Ranch fill site lands .
2 . Findings .
This Board adopts the conclusions of the Final EIR
that alternative sites other than the Central County Newhall
Ranch Site are infeasible. This Board finds that the Central
County Newhall Site is infeasible, and less desirable than the
Project, and rejects this Alternative, for the following
reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving this Alternative .
(b) The Alternate Site Alternative would
dramatically restrict the ,Water District ' s ability to provide
adequate treated water service to the Northgate area, by making
it more difficult to bring treated water service to this area.
(c) The Alternate Site Alternative would
eliminate the traffic improvements to Northgate Road, which in
addition to mitigating local impacts of the Project, would
improve an area which had been a safety problem in the past .
91
(d) Approval of the Alternate Site
Alternative would result in continued overgrazing of the
Project Site and subsequent reduction of the natural vegetative
and wildlife habitats , while eliminating the restorative
mitigation measures which have been agreed to by the Applicant
in the Department of Fish and Game.
(e) Approval of the Alternate Site
Alternative would eliminate the possibility of obtaining a
substantial portion of the Project Site as permanent public
open space without cost to the County or the City of Walnut
Creek.
(f) Like the No Project Alternative, the
Alternate Site Alternative would presumably preserve existing
General Plan designations for the Rancho Paraiso property. The
existing General Plan designation for the Rancho Paraiso
property is inconsistent with the previous cancellation of the
Williamson Act contract regarding that property.
(g) The traffic impacts of the Alternate
Site Alternative would be more severe than the traffic impacts
of this Project, due to the concentrated impact on critical
intersections in the Ygnacio Valley, Treat Boulevard, and
Clayton Road corridors . The Alternate Site Alternative would
also have increased noise and air quality impacts related to
this traffic .
(h) Access to the alternate site proposed
would have adverse impacts on abutting residential
neighborhoods, and the alternate site proposal would also have
significant adverse impacts on Newhall Ranch hillside lands .
( i) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval for the Project, including substantial
funding for county homeless projects, on the condition that the
proposed Project is approved. If the Alternate Site
Alternative is adopted, these economic and social benefits of
the Project, including the provision of substantial funding for
county homeless programs, would not be obtained.
(j ) At least with respect to the Project
Site, the environmental, social , economic and other benefits
derived from the Rancho Paraiso Project as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be obtained.
92
E. Acquisition For Open Space .
1 . Facts .
(a) This Alternative, as stated on pages 43
and 44 of the Response Document, proposes the acquisition of
the Rancho Paraiso Site by the City of Walnut Creek or some
other open space organization as a permanent public open space
recreation area.
(b) This Alternative would extend the Lime
Ridge Open Space Area into the Rancho Paraiso Site. If
continued grazing were allowed, this Alternative would mitigate
the direct and secondary agricultural impacts to the proposed
action. This Alternative would also mitigate other adverse
land use, open space, visual, traffic, municipal services,
geotechnical , drainage, biotic , air quality, noise, and
archaeologic potential impacts identified in the Final EIR.
(c) This Alternative will not attain the
basic objectives of the Project . This Alternative could also
result in continued overgrazing of the Project Site unless
grazing is limited or eliminated. This Alternative would also
have the same adverse impacts as the No Project Alternative on
efforts to improve existing substandard water service in the
Northgate Road areas .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that the Open Space Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than this Project and the
Approvals, and restricts the No Project Alternative, for the
following reasons :
(a) Mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have
substantially mitigated most of the environmental effects of
the Project, excepting only those impacts which are listed in
the Final EIR as unavoidable, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project
Alternative.
(b) The Open Space Alternative would
dramatically restrict the Water District ' s ability to provide
adequate treated water to -the Northgate area by making it more
difficult to bring treated water service to this area .
(c) The Open Space Alternative would
eliminate the traffic improvements to Northgate Road, which in
addition to mitigating local impacts of the Project, would
improve an area which has been a safety problem in the past .
93
(d) Approval of the Open Space Alternative-
may result in continued overgrazing of the Project Site and 10
subsequent reduction in the natural vegetative and wildlife
.habitats . Approval of this Alternative would eliminate the
restorative mitigation measures which have been agreed to by
the Applicant and the Department of Fish and Game.
(e) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
would result in the loss of 210 homesites which would be
created by development of the Rancho Paraiso Site, and would
result in the loss of a potential of 242 homesites pursuant to
the General Plan Amendment, and would also result in the loss
of available housing and other price ranges as the "move up"
market resulting from this Project would not be created.
(f) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
would result in the loss of an unspecified number of
construction jobs which would be created by development of the
Rancho Paraiso site over a period of several years .
(g) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
would eliminate a potential source of funding for regional
traffic improvements, along with other fees which would be
collected in connection with the Project .
(h) Approval of the Open Space Alternative
would eliminate the possibility of obtaining a substantial
portion of the Project Site as permanent open space without
cost to the County or the City of Walnut Creek. The Applicant
has stated in hearings before this Board that the property is
not for sale, and the County, City, or any other public agency
would need to expend sums both to purchase the property and to
obtain the legal means of purchasing the property. The
expenditure of substantial public funds to acquire the Rancho
Paraiso Site for open space, as opposed to obtaining
approximately half of the Site as open space without cost to
any public agency pursuant to this Project, would reduce the
ability of the purchasing agency to purchase open space
properties in other areas .
( i) The purchase of the Project Site is
infeasible and was previously rejected by the City of Walnut
Creek, when it was determined that local homeowners would not
support an assessment district to finance acquisition of the
Rancho Paraiso Site as open space.
(j ) The Applicant has agreed to numerous
Conditions of Approval , including substantial funding for
county homeless programs , in return for the approval of the
Project . If the Open Space Alternative is adopted instead of
the Project, these economic and social benefits , including the
94
- substantial funding for county homeless programs, would not be
bbt'ained.
(k) The environmental , social, economic and
other benefits derived from the Rancho Paraiso Project as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would
not be obtained.
VII . ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. Electric Power Transmission Lines .
1 . Facts .
(a) No electric power transmission lines
are located upon the Rancho Paraiso Site. The closest existing
transmission lines are over 2,000 feet from the homes which
will be developed. The issue of power line impacts was raised
in a letter to County Staff, submitted after the expiration of
the comment period on the EIR, suggesting that any potential
hazard to health of future Rancho Paraiso residents from power
line fields to the east of the site be explored. This letter
included a study entitled "Biological Effects of Power Line
Fields , " dated July 1 , 1987 .
(b) The only aerial cable which currently
traverses the Rancho Paraiso Site is a cable television cable,
not a power transmission line. All power lines serving the
Rancho Paraiso and individual homes will be underground.
(c) The July 1987 report contains
preliminary conclusions regarding the impact of electric and
magnetic fields generated by overhead electric transmission
lines . The report states that research studies report no known
significant effects and no effects on human reproduction,
growth or development. The study concludes that no assessment
of cancer risks can be made and recommends more research on
this point . The report recommends only future research'' and
does not state that the location of power lines within a given
distance from a residential development has a significant
impact on the residents of that development .
(d) The electric and magnetic fields which
are generated by power lines weaken rapidly with distance from
the power lines . Buried power lines produce almost no electric
or magnetic fields .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the entire record before this Board, this
Board finds that:
95
(a) The existing electric transmission
lines located to the east of the future Rancho Paraiso homes ,
will not pose a threat to the future residents of those homes,,-. 4
and will not have a significant adverse impact on those
.residents.
(b) The existence of these power lines does
not constitute a subsequent change in the Project requiring
important revisions of the Final EIR, because the power lines
are not themselves a change in the Project, and because the
power lines are not a new significant environmental impact .
(c) The existence of these electrical
..transmission lines does not constitute a substantial change
*with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
'undertaken requiring important revisions in the Final EIR.
There has been no change in circumstances , and no revision to
the Final EIR is necessary because the impact of the
transmission lines is insignificant .
(d) The existence of these electric
transmission lines does not constitute new information of
substantial importance to the Project which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was
certified as complete. The information is not important
because the impact of these lines on this residential
development, located some distance from the lines, is
insignificant . The existence of these electric transmission
lines does not show that the Project will have any significant
effects not previously discussed in the Final EIR, because the
impact of these lines on this residential development is
insignificant . The existence of these electric power lines
does not show that significant effects previously analyzed in
the Final EIR will' be substantially more severe than shown in
the Final EIR. The existence of these electric transmission
lines does not show that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would be feasible. The
existence of these electric transmission lines does not show
that mitigation measures or alternatives not previously
considered in the Final EIR would substantially lessen one or
more significant effects of the Project on the environment .
B. Modifications to the Project .
1 . Facts.
(a) The design of the Rancho Paraiso
Development was modified to remove the units which were
previously proposed for the south knoll , shifting those units
to other areas of the Rancho Paraiso Site where they will
present less of a visual impact. This was accomplished by
96
r
t
'including several cul-de-sacs within the Project and by
• providing a r:onnector street between the two lower portions of
the loop road on the site. This connector street will pass
behind the Cox and DeVito properties with homes to be developed
on the inward side of the road, away from the Cox and DeVito
properties . The number of units proposed has been reduced from
219 to 205, pursuant to Conditions of Approval adopted by this
Board. One lot was eliminated to provide better linkage
between Arbolado Park and open space areas . Detention basins
which were originally proposed by the Applicant were deleted at
the request of County Public Works staff . Those detention
basins were not a mitigation measure proposed by the Final EIR.
(b) The development of homes on the central
knoll has been restricted by the imposition of a Condition of
Approval requiring that no homes on the central knoll be built
to the west of the 440-foot contour line.
(c) The modifications to the Project will
reduce the land use and open space impacts of the Project, by
preserving the southern knoll and increasing the amount of open
space that is available. The Project will also preserve open
space in a less-fragmented fashion when compared to the
original proposal , and will reduce the perceived extension of
residential development into hillsides approaching Lime Ridge
through the preservation of the south knoll . The permanent
alteration of land forms on the site will be reduced. The
elimination of home sites on the south knoll and the reduction
in the number of home sites does not create any additional
significant impacts , or increase the severity of any impact
previously analyzed in the Final EIR.
(d) The modified project will not change
any impacts of the Project upon agriculture or result in any
additional agricultural impacts . Because the Project contains
a reduced number of homes , no significant impact on population
in housing is created as a result of the modification.
(e) The modified project will reduce the
number of average daily trips, thus reducing the transportation
impact, and not creating any additional transportation impact .
(f) The modified project includes fewer
homes than were analyzed in the Final EIR, so the impact on
municipal services will be reduced, and no significant impact
relating to municipal services will be created as a result of
the project modifications .
(g) The modified project contains less
grading overall than the initial project, and includes the
preservation of the south knoll . Overall , less area will be
97
graded, and the volume of earth to be moved will be less . '
These modifications in project will reduce the impacts relating
to grading and geology, and will not increase any impact or
create any new significant new impacts .
(h) The modified project includes fewer
homes, so the impacts on drainage and water quality will be
proportionately reduced. The modified project will also
provide substantial protection to the Devito ponds, because the
Applicant will be required to collect and convey drainage
water , and the lateral road across the Devito boundary will
prevent runoff from entering into the DeVito ponds . Thus , the
modified project further mitigates drainage from water quality
' impacts, and does not create any new or increased significant
impact .
(i) The project modifications will not
increase the impact upon vegetation and wildlife, and will
reduce those impacts by maintaining the south knoll as a
pristine open space area.
(j ) The project modifications will reduce
the visual impact of the Project , and will not create
additional or increased significant impacts . Removing homes
from the south knoll reduces the visual impact, and restricting
the development of homes in the central knoll also reduces the
visual impact of the Project .
(k) The Project includes a reduced number
of homes, resulting in reduced traffic and air quality
impacts . The modified Project will not generate additional
noise, and the long-term noise impact will be reduced in
proportion to the reduced number of homes on the site . The
impact to the Project upon archeology will be identical or
slightly reduced, . as a substantial portion of the Site will be
developed, but the south knoll will be preserved.
(1) The impact of this Project on the
Ginocchio Ranch will be substantially reduced by the project
modifications . Preservation of the south knoll will provide a
substantial buffer and a natural land barrier between the
Rancho Paraiso development and the Ginocchio Ranch, reducing
the possibility of nuisances to agricultural operations . The
project modifications will not create any additional or
increased significant impacts on the Ginocchio Ranch.
2 . Findings .
Based on the entire record before this Board, this
Board finds that :
98
f
(a) The Project modifications do not result
in ,any significant environmental impacts which were not
considered in the FinFl EIR, and do not increase the severity
of any environmental impacts considered in the Final EIR. The
Project modifications will substantially reduce the adverse
environmental impacts of the Project . Therefore, the Project
modifications do not constitute changes which require major or
important revisions to the Final EIR.
(b) The project modifications do not
constitute substantial changes in the circumstances under which
the Project is undertaken requiring major or important
revisions to the Final EIR.
(c) The project modifications do not
constitute new information relating to the Project which shows
any additional significant effects , or more severe significant
effects, when compared to the impacts analyzed in the Final
EIR. Nor do the project modifications constitute new
information creating a need for further consideration of
mitigation measures .
(d) Based on its review of the standards
set forth in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162-15164 , this Board finds that there is
no basis in the record before it to support requiring the
applicant to prepare an addendum to the Final EIR, a
Supplemental EIR or a Subsequent EIR to address the project
modifications.
C. No Precedent For Further Development . This
Board finds that certain properties contiguous to the Project
Site are designated in the County General Plan and in the
County Zoning Ordinance for agricultural use. This Board' s
action in approving this Project and residential development of
the Project Site in no way commits this Board to allow any
further urbanization on adjacent properties . It is this
Board' s intent that these Approvals shall not be considered by
this Board as establishing any precedent for Board approval of
any development applications in the area surrounding the
Project Site.
VIII . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with
these findings . This Board adopts the following program in
fulfillment of this requirement :
99
M
The Applicant shall file a written report
with the County Community Development ,
Department approximately once every six
months, beginning six months following
approval of this Project by the Board of
Supervisors . The written report shall
briefly state the status in implementing
each mitigation measure which is adopted as
a Condition of Approval or which is
incorporated into this Project . Community
Development staff shall review the written
report and determine whether there is any
unusual and substantial delay of over one
year in, or obstacle to, implementing the
adopted or incorporated mitigation measures
which requires action by .Department staff .
If the Applicant requests it , the result of
this review will be provided to the
Applicant in writing. If the staff
determine that action is required, the staff
and the Applicant shall consult and, if
possible, agree upon additional actions to
be taken to implement the mitigation
measure(s) which is subject to the delay or
obstacle . If and only if the staff and the
Applicant are unable to agree upon the .
additional actions to be taken, then either .
staff or the Applicant may bring the matter
before the Zoning Administrator for a
decision whether any action should be taken
and what that action should be. Staff and
the Zoning Administrator shall be limited to
imposing reasonable actions as permitted by
law which will implement the existing
mitigation measures . In reviewing the
timeliness of the implementation measures ,
staff shall consider the project timetable
as presented to the Planning Commission.
This timetable envisions build-out of the
Rancho Paraiso Site at the rate of
approximately 50 units per year, subject to
reasonable but unanticipated delays due to
weather and the like.
IX. GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this Project, including approval of the General Plan Amendment ,
approval of the Rezoning, approval of the Final Development
Plan, and approval of the Subdivision, and the Rancho Paraiso
Development and further intends that the following findings and
100
r
r
r
lk
determinations shall be generally applicable to all findings
` tanj determinations as a whole contained herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings ,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies, oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, the EIR,
resolutions, conditions of approval , and the information
submitted by the Applicant, all relating to the Project and the
Approvals .
B. This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations , that any finding and/or determination required
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject matter of the project or any of the
Approvals shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of
these findings and determinations . All of the foregoing
constitute findings and determinations by this Board whether or
not any particular sentence or clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire
administrative record relating to the Project and the
Approvals, including, without limitation, that evidence
presented in hearings on the project before the Planning
Commission. The findings and determinations constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by the
competent and substantial evidence in the administrative record
as a whole.
101
4
PART II : FINDINGS RELATIVE TO ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN ► ; �
AMENDMENT, THE REZONING, THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
AND THE TENTATIVE MAP.
I . FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 26-2 . 1806
A. This Board finds that the re-proposed zoning will
comply with the Contra Costa County General Plan (as set forth
in the 1978 South Ygnacio Valley General Plan Amendment and the
. County-wide General Plan) . A General Plan Amendment for the
Rancho Paraiso Project Site has been adopted to redesignate the
Project Site from Agricultural Preserve to Single Family Medium
Density, General Open Space, and Parks & Recreation. This
Rezoning is consistent with the General Plan Amendment . The
Rezoning will also correct a current inconsistency, as the
existing Agricultural Preserve designation is intended only for
lands under Williamson Act contracts with the County. In 1980 ,
the Board of Supervisors cancelled the Williamson Act contract
for the Project Site. In addition, the Staff Report for the
Rezoning states that the Project, including the Rezoning, is
consistent with the entire County General Plan, and Part I ,
above (the CEQA findings) , specifically discusses consistency
of the Project , including the Rezoning, with the Open Space and
Safety Elements of the County General Plan.
B. This Board finds that the uses proposed in the
P-1 District are compatible both within the P-1 District and
with uses in adjacent districts . The Project Site is proximate
and adjacent to existing residential developments , as well as
to open space, recreation and agricultural lands . The Project
is designed to serve as a transition between the open space and
residential uses . Numerous mitigation measures and conditions
of approval have been incorporated into the Project which will
ensure that the Project is compatible with all adjacent uses .
The Project includes open space areas, including a substantial
open space buffer along the southern and southeastern edges of
the property, provisions for protection and rehabilitation of
open space and wildland areas, an equestrian trail head, a
permanent hiking and riding trail along or, near the western
property line of the Project Site, design provisions to
mitigate trail impacts on abutting lots, and measures to
mitigate impacts on adjacent agricultural operations . The
Project design also incorporates large lot sizes to ensure that
the residential units on the Project Site itself are compatible
with each other .
C. This Board finds that community need has been
demonstrated for the proposed use. The Project homebuyers will
be primarily local area residents desiring a larger home. The
102
j .
!availability of housing sold by these "move-up" buyers will
cause more affordable housing to become available to the
community and the region. In addition, there is currently very
little housing of the type proposed for this Project which is
available to accommodate white-collar workers employed in the
Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill/Concord area. Many such workers now
commute from such areas as San Ramon and Danville because
sufficient comparable housing is not available in Walnut Creek
and the surrounding area.
II . FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PURSUANT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 84-66 . 1406
A. This Board finds that the applicant intends to
commence construction within two and one-half years from the
effective date of the approvals .
B. This Board finds that the proposed planned unit
development Project is consistent with the Contra Costa County
General Plan as amended by the General Plan Amendment, as more
fully set forth in Part II , Section I .A, above.
C. This Board finds that the Project will constitute
a residential environment of sustained desirability and
stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and community, as more fully set forth
in Part II , Section I .B, above. In addition, this Board finds
that the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval imposed on the Project and Project ' s design features
will further ensure that the Project will be stable, desirable
and compatible with the surrounding community.
D. This Board finds that the development of a
harmonious and integrated plan justifies exceptions from the
normal application of the County Code. The Project as
currently designed includes open space, residential sites , and
trail facilities justifying the application of the flexibility
available under a P-1 District .
III . FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTATIVE MAP PURSUANT TO
THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (GOVT. CODE SECTION 66411
ET SEQ. ) AND THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
(CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE, TITLE 9)
A. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473, that the proposed subdivision meets and performs
all of the requirements and conditions imposed by the
Subdivision Map Act and Contra Costa County Subdivision
Ordinance, as more fully set forth in the findings incorporated
herein and as mandated by the Condition of Approval requiring
103
1
the Subdivision to conform to the provisions of the County
Subdivision Ordinance.
B. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code
,.Section 664.73. 5, that the Subdivision, together with its
provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with the
.Contra Costa County General Plan as amended by the General Plan
Amendment , as discussed in Part II , Section I .A, above. This
Board further finds that there are no specific plans applicable
to the Project Site.
C. This Board finds , pursuant to Government Code
..Section 66412 . 3, that the effect. of the Approvals on the
housing needs of the region has been considered. In doing so,
this Board has attempted to balance the regional housing needs
against the public service needs of area residents, as well as
.against theavailable fiscal and environmental resources . This
Board finds that it would be difficult to develop the Project
Site for high-density residential uses, the Project has
substantial benefits, there is a need for comparable high
.quality housing in the Project area, and the Project appeals to
homebuyers desiring a "move-up" home, creating more affordable
housing. This Board finds that the existing infrastructure may
not be able to serve a higher-density development , that a
higher-density development would create substantial visual
traffic and other adverse impacts , and that the Projett Site is
not suitable for high-density development, so that the Project
as proposed properly balances the region' s competing needs .
D. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473 . 1, that the design of the proposed subdivision,
provides , to the extent feasible given the configuration,
orientation and topography of the Project Site, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities within the
subdivision. Among other facts , many of the homesites may be
able to take advantage of a southern exposure as shown on
Figure 6 of the DEIR.
E. This Board finds that no substantial evidence has
been presented before this Board which requires a finding
pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 mandating denial of
the proposed subdivision, as fully discussed in Part I , above .
IV. GENERAL
This Board makes the following general findings and
determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to
this Project, approval of General Plan Amendment, approval. of
the Rezoning, approval of the Final Development Plan, and
approval of the Subdivision, and further intends that the
following findings and determinations shall be generally
104
x
i applicable to all findings and determinations as a whole
xputained herein.
A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings,
this Board hereby incorporates by reference the applicable
portions of the County Staff reports and studies, oral and
written evidence submitted into the record, the EIR,
resolutions, conditions of approval, and the information
submitted by the Developer, all relating to the Project and the
Approvals .
B. This Board intends that the foregoing findings
and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings and
determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by
reference any other subdivision of these findings and
determinations, that any finding and/or determination required
or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any
particular subject matter of the project or any of the
Approvals shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of
these findings and determinations . All of the foregoing
constitute findings and determinations by this Board whether or
not any particular sentence or clause states such.
C. Each and all of the findings and determinations
contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire
administrative record relating to the Project and the
Approvals, including, without limitation, that evidence
presented in hearings on the project before the Planning
Commission. The findings and determinations constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by the
competent and substantial evidence in the administrative record
as a whole.
105
ORDINANCE NO. 89-21
�Re-Zoning Land in the
Walnut, Creek Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION is Page M-16 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is
amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached
her.cto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No.
2795-RZ
FROM: Land Use District A-4 Agricultural Preserve
TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Unit Development
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly,
pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2-003.
X XX
....... ....
............
.... ........
+A .. .... . .. ..
X
lZ
NO
.X . ..............
X .. .... ...
..........................
A-2
%
........... .
............
R-40
A-4 j
A
SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of
supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTATIMESa
newspaper published in this County.
PASSEL) on ' April 11, 1989 by the following vote:
Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain
1. T. M. Powers
2. N. C. Fanden X)
3. R. I. Schroder X)
4. S. W. McPeak X)
5. T. Torlakson
ATTI"IST: Phil Batchelor, County Adiniiiistritor �--�•-�— f—��r����...�'.!}
.icor! (Jerk of (lit! Boird of Supervisors
By DepChairman of the Board
444A i . (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 89-21
2795-RZ Perma