Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02061990 - 2.8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon � Directar :of Community Development nty DATE: January .30, , 1994 SUBJECT: CEQA Finding for the Blackhills General Plan SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the ` CEQA findings on the Blackhills General Plan Amendment ., Environmental Impact Report. (Exhibit A Attached) . FISCAL IMPACT . None. f; BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On Tuesday, 'January 23, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the Blackhills General Plan Amendment and directed staff to prepare CEQA findings consistent with the Board's. approval. Staff, in concert with the applicants - `attorneys, has had these findings prepared. We feel this. document meets the Board' s previous direction. cjc6Jblkhls.bo CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE- RECOMMENDATION OF .COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ©F ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OFBOARDON February 6, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 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 ATTESTED . February 6, 1990 CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR JWC:vpl cjc6Jblkhls.bo BY I A A 1# 0 DEPUTY 1 EXHIBIT TLnJfD � 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE BLACKHILLS DEVELOPMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (No . 7-87-SR) , PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) I . INTRODUCTION A. Certification and Overview. 1 . These findings are made by this Board of Supervisors (this "Board" ) of Contra Costa County (the "County" ) , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) and the County regulations promulgated thereunder . These findings include this Board ' s certification of the Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR" or "EIR" ) prepared for the below-described Blackhills development project , and its determination relating to the impacts , mitigation measures , alternatives and overriding considerations regarding this Board ' s intended approval of an amendment to the County General Plan, described below (the "General Plan Amendment" ) . 2 . The Final EIR is comprised of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, the Notice of Completion of - the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR circulated for public review and comment, and additional studies conducted during the public review process which provided technical data which clarified and amplified some of the information in the Draft EIR (the "Studies" ) , the written and oral public comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR and Studies during the public review process , a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR and Studies , and the responses of the County to the significant environmental points raised in that public review and consultation process . 3 . This Board certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, this Board prior to approving the General Plan amendment described below. In so certifying, this Board recognizes that there may be "differences" between the information and opinions offered in 1 . Y r } the documents and testimony that make up the Final EIR and the administrative record. Therefore, by. these findings , this Board ratifies , clarifies and/or modifies the EIR as set forth in these findings , and determines that these findings shall control and that the Final EIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to the determinations reached by the Board in these findings , which are based on the substantial evidence in the administrative record described below. 4 . Although this Board is currently approving only the General Plan amendment, the Final EIR is a "Project EIR" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and is intended to serve as the environmental documentation for the Project as a whole ( as herein described) , including the General Plan Amendment and all subsequent County, and other public agency actions, approvals , permits or other entitlements granted or issued in connection with the planning, approval, construction, operation and development of the below-described Blackhills Project . The Final EIR, or a portion thereof , may also serve as the environmental documentation for the California Department of Fish and Game, U. S . Army Corps of Engineers and/or any other federal , State or local agency actions or decisions relating to any permit , approval or other entitlement which may be issued, or other action, taken, relating to the Project . 5 . At this General Plan amendment stage of the development process it is impossible to forecast with certainty whether the Blackhills project will be approved, will be approved for the maximum density allowed by the General Plan Amendment or some lesser density, or whether the project as finally approved will involve the "worst-case" environmental impacts and scenarios discussed in the Final EIR. Nonetheless , these findings attempt to address all possible Project impacts at this, the earliest stage in the development process . The mitigation measures adopted include measures which are designed to be : ( i) incorporated as policies within the General Plan Amendment; ( ii) be effected through subsequent implementing regulations , ordinances , standards , programs and plans (e . g. , Development Plans and Map Approvals) ; and/or ( iii ) incorporated .into, or imposed as conditions to, future Blackhills approvals . The General Plan Amendment does not amount to the final authorization to develop the area it encompasses . The Planning Commission and/or this Board will be subsequently reviewing and considering the Project development plan and map. The Planning Commission and this Board will diligently implement such mitigation measures , and shall monitor the status of such measures pursuant to the mitigation implementation and monitoring program established herein and in subsequent findings by the Planning Commission and this Board . 2 f i l 1 6 . Unless otherwise indicated in the text of the EIR or these findings , all recommended mitigation measures are determined to avoid or substantially reduce any significant adverse environmental impact of the Project to a level of insignificance, and all mitigation measures , themselves , are determined not to result in any potentially significant adverse impacts . B . The Application, The Site, And Approval Of The General Plan Amendment . 1 . Blackhills Developers ( "Blackhills" ) has made applications to the County for approval of the General { Plan Amendment as well as other related approvals necessary to the development of the 300-acre Blackhills project site (the "Site" ) . 2 . The Site is located within the planning area of the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan and is located just outside of the Town of Danville ' s sphere of influence . The Site is surrounded by Mt . Diablo State Park (designated in the General Plan as "Parks and Recreation" ) to the north, west and east, and by Blackhawk development (designated in the General Plan as "General Open Space" and "Single Family Residential - Low Density" ) to the south. The Site is located approximately 500 feet southeast of Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and at the north terminus of Deer Meadow and Pepperwood Drives . 3 . The General Plan Amendment will allow the continued pattern of development currently enjoyed in Blackhawk, through the redesignation of the Site and the setting of policies which will allow the residential development of single family homes , clustered in the valley areas of the southernmost 24+ acres of the 300-acre Site, and the dedication of the remaining 277+ acres to permanent public and private open space and recreational use (the "Project" ) . The purpose of the Project is to : ( i) create a high quality, single-family residential project of custom homes ; ( ii) create an environment compatible with the adjacent Blackhawk development; ( iii) establish a project design which is sensitive to the environment through limitations on grading, tree removal , and other biotic disturbances; and ( iv) dedicate the majority of the existing open space and hillsides to permanent public and private open space use . 4 . As a part of this development approach, the General Plan Amendment changes the land use designation for the Site from "General Open Space" to "Parks and Recreation" , "Single Family Residential - Low Density" and "Open Space" and establishes certain "considerations" which will shape future Project approvals . 3 r i 5 . The approximate 277 acres of the Site proposed for permanent open space include the hillside area north, east and west of the development area (to be retained as public open space and dedicated to the State of California for inclusion into Mt . Diablo State Park or to another public agency for permanent park protection) ; a smaller hill located northeast of Pepperwood Drive (to be preserved as open space and maintained in the ownership of the proposed homeowners association) ; -and other lower hillside areas ( also proposed for privately maintained open space) . The residential lots would be located within the existing canyon areas and the intervening saddle . The precise boundaries , of these uses is unknown at this General Plan Amendment stage, and will be determined during the subsequent stages of the development approval process . 6 . The present approval , for which these findings are made addresses only the General Plan Amendment . However , the EIR was prepared to address all of the impacts , mitigations and alternatives to the Project . Relative to the ultimate development of the Project , Blackhills has submitted or intends to submit applications to the County for a conceptual development plan, planned unit development (P-1) zoning, development plans , vesting tentative and final subdivision maps and development agreement , as well as traffic, biologic, geologic , archaeological , drainage and other related studies . Blackhills intends to tailor and process the remainder of its land use approval requests in line with the General Plan Amendment . The future development of the Site will be in accordance with the General Plan Amendment to be approved by this Board. 7 . The EIR recommends mitigation measures for the Project as a whole, including mitigation measures which are designed to be incorporated into the future specific development plans . As this General Plan Amendment changes the designation of the Site and does not include any specific authorization to develop the Site, and as this Board may be presented with future specific development proposals for the Site, certain conditions of approval and mitigation measures cannot be imposed in connection with this General Plan Amendment, but must instead be imposed in connection with future land use approvals . Nevertheless , in approving this General Plan Amendment this Board has , wherever possible, either imposed mitigation measures in connection with the General Plan Amendment (so as to mitigate Project impacts at the earliest possible stage in the development process) , or has directed that such mitigation measures be made a part of subsequent conditions to subsequent Project approvals prior to final Project approval . 4 A. C. Procedural History. 1 . The County originally considered preparing a negative declaration for the Project . However , after receiving comments that the Project may involve possible significant impacts to the environment , the County determined that an EIR was required, and a "Notice of Preparation" was prepared . The Notice of Preparation was circulated, and comments were received. 2 . Thereafter , the County prepared a "Draft EIR" dated January 1989 (also referred to as the "DEIR" ) , filed a "Notice of Completion" regarding the Draft EIR with the State, and published the Draft EIR for public review and comment . Also made available to the public were the above-described Studies prepared by Project consultants regarding certain biotic , geotechnical , design and other aspects of the Project . Although the Studies did not provide significant new information requiring an amendment to , and/or recirculation of , the Draft EIR, the Studies did help to clarify and amplify some of the information and discussions already contained in the Draft EIR. The public review period began February 13 , 1989 and was closed April 19 , 1989 , for a total of 66 calendar days (21 days longer than the minimum circulation period required by law) . During that period, written comments regarding the Project, the Draft EIR and the studies were received from state, regional and local agencies , along with homeowners ' associations , environmental organizations, residents and Blackhills . Additionally, testimony was taken relative to these issues at the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission hearings of April 5 , 1989 . 3 . After receiving written and oral comments on the DEIR, the County prepared a response to comments document as well as an addendum and revised addendum to that document (collectively referred to as the "Response Document" ) . Although the Response Document did not provide significant new information requiring an amendment to, and/or recirculation of , the Draft EIR, it did help to clarify and amplify some of the information and discussions already contained in the Draft EIR. 4 . On September 6, 1989 , the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final EIR as complete, and adequate . 5 . On November 1 , 1989 , the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment , and, after receiving public testimony, voted to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors . The Planning Commissions ' recommendation was finalized on November 15 , 1989 , 5 . r r , and includes the following recommended General .Plan Amendment language : LAND USE ELEMENT Change the General Plan designations on this Site for those three categories as shown on Map A attached: o Parks and Recreation This covers land which shall be offered for dedication to Mt . Diablo State Park or to another appropriate public agency for permanent parks protection. The boundaries shown are meant to be interpreted flexibly and shall be subject to negotiation between the County, Developer and the State . Where feasible, lands containing special status species shall be transferred to public control . Open Space This will consist of lands where development rights will be deeded to the County and maintained as project buffer and permanent private open space under control of a homeowners association. o Single Family Residential Low Density These are the areas to which suburban development shall be limited. While the General Plan boundaries are schematic in nature, their intent is to require development to be limited to the lands along Sycamore Creek Valley area and preclude road cuts or homesites on the visually prominent hillside or knolls visible from Mt . Diablo State Park . SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Project .shall be limited to 37 dwelling units . That number is a maximum and the total number actually allowed shall be finalized upon review of development applications on the Site . 6 T . A. The riparian vegetation on the southern 250 feet of Sycamore Creek shall be protected and enhanced for natural wildlife potential . Prior to approval of lots along the extension of Deer Meadows Drive, a follow-up study of the Alameda Whipsnake shall be undertaken, under the control of the County, to further specify the Project ' s impact on this protected snake . The Project to be developed on this Site shall include active on-Site recreational facilities to serve Project residents in addition to the passive recreation lands to be offered to Mt . Diablo State Park . A riding and hiking trail shall be provided, generally- running north and south on the western portion of the Site or on adjacent state park lands . The trail will extend from the Blackhawk Ranch boundary on the south up to the northern boundary of the Site . The trail should allow for the ultimate southerly extension of trail facilities across Blackhawk Ranch to Danville. Development of the eastern portion of the Site, currently outside East Bay Municipal Utilities District Boundary, is contingent on a boundary adjustment bringing these lots into that District . No transfer of development potential from this eastern area, to the main portion of site, shall be allowed. Projects submitted under this General Plan Amendment shall be designed to limit grading on the northern portion of the development area to reflect the natural terrain. Efforts shall be made in Project design to respect the existing native riparian vegetation and large native trees . Where feasible, these will be made project features . 6 . On December 19 , 1989 , this Board held a properly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and General Plan Amendment . On January 23 , 1990 , this Board certified the Final EIR (by these Findings (above) ) , and adopted these findings relative to its intended adoption of the General Plan Amendment recommended by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, except that the "special considerations" component of the General Plan Amendment shall read as follows : 7 . r r. , SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Project shall be limited to 40 dwelling units . That number is a maximum and the total number actually allowed shall be finalized upon review of development applications on the Site . The riparian vegetation on the southern 250 feet of Sycamore Creek shall be protected and enhanced for natural wildlife potential . Prior to approval of lots along the extension of Deer Meadows Drive, a follow-up study of the Alameda Whipsnake shall be undertaken, under the control of the County, to further specify the Project ' s impact on this protected snake . A project to be developed -on this Site shall include active on-site recreational facilities to serve project residents in addition to the passive recreation lands to be offered to Mt . Diablo State Park . Development of the eastern portion of the Site, currently outside East Bay Municipal Utilities District Boundary, is contingent on a boundary adjustment bringing these lots into that District . No transfer of development potential from this eastern area, to the main portion of site, shall be allowed. Projects submitted under this General Plan Amendment shall be designed to limit grading on the northern portion of the development area to reflect the natural terrain. Efforts shall be made in Project design to respect the existing native riparian vegetation and large native trees . Where feasible, these will be made project features . 7 . On February 6, 1990 , these findings and the other above-mentioned actions of this Board were memorialized by Board Order on Tuesday, February 6, 1990 . 8 . To summarize, the General Plan Amendment was modified by this Board to respond to community and environmental concerns . These modifications include the elimination of proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 , and the requirement that. efforts be made in project design and approval to respect existing terrain, native riparian vegetation, and large native trees . 8 0 D . Description Of The Record. The record before this Board relating to this action includes , without limitation, the following : 1 . All Blackhills applications , studies , letters and other submittals relating to the Project; 2 . All staff reports , resolutions , conditions of approval relating to the Project; 3 . All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed by County staff , the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission and this Board prior to and during all public hearings relating to the Project; 4 . The Final EIR, as herein described; 5 . All matters of common knowledge, such as the County General Plan, the County Zoning Code , and other County policies and regulations . In addition to the following specific findings , this Board hereby incorporates by reference the entire record relating to the Project and described above . Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial evidence contained in the entire record described above . The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record as a whole. E . Miscellaneous . 1 . This Board finds and determines that the biotic, geotechnical design and other Studies conducted after publication of the Draft EIR but prior to the certification of the Final EIR and the Response Document did not provide significant new information or require substantial changes to the EIR; .instead, the Studies merely clarified, amplified or made insignificant modifications to the EIR. The Studies were made available to the public for review and comment . Based on its review of the standards set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162-15164 , this Board finds that there is no basis in the record to support requiring the Applicant to prepare an addendum to the Final EIR, a supplemental EIR, or a subsequent EIR to address the modifications to the General Plan Amendment . 9 . T T 2 . In adopting mitigation measures for this General Plan Amendment or subsequent development approvals , this Board is subject to Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , which require that this Board not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is other feasible specific mitigation measures available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation. The number of units allowed by this General Plan Amendment is a maximum figure; the actual number of units which may be allowed will not be determined until the subsequent development plan stage . 3 . The discussions which follow under the captions "Facts" for each category recite some of the background information relating to the General Plan Amendment and the Project . The discussions under the captions "Findings" contain findings made by this Board, based on the entire record before this Board, including without limitation the information which is recited in the discussion of "Facts . '' 4 . This Board intends that these findings and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of these findings and determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings and determinations , that any finding or determination required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document . All of the text included in this document constitutes findings and determinations by this Board, whether or not any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect . 5 . Although the discussions under the captions "Facts" below may primarily or entirely be based on the Final EIR, this Board intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record, including written and oral testimony to the Planning Commission and this Board. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this Board that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact . This Board' s findings as set forth herein are based on all of the facts in the record before this Board. 6 . Any modification of mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR is based on this Board ' s determination that the implementation of the mitigation measure as originally proposed is undersirable, impractical or otherwise infeasible . The reasons for each such particular determination are explained in these findings , and the record as a whole . 10 . 1 II . FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EVALUATED IN THE EIR DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT, AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE A. Plans , Ordinances And Policies . 1 . General Plan/Land Use Compatibility. (a) Facts . ( 1) The land use designation for the Site prior to the General Plan Amendment is "General Open Space" . Although there is no specific discussion of the Site in the General Plan, this Board must consider the Project in conjunction with related goals and objectives ( summarized on page 19 of the DEIR) , including the preservation of visual quality; grading on slopes over 250 ; preservation efforts relating to the natural appearance of creeks and the vegetation they support; protection relating to geologic hazards ; and those other related goals and policies expressly set forth at p . 19 of the DEIR. Each of those goals and policies are addressed and implemented by these findings . (2) The Draft EIR states that the Site is currently used as visual open space, that it is suitable for grazing and portions are suitable for dry land farming of small grains , and that development of the Property would result only in an incremental loss of these agricultural lands . The Important Farmland Map issued by the State indicates that the Site is not designated prime farm land, although it does appear on the County ' s Important Farmland Map. However , the development of the Site will not result in the loss of viable agricultural land. From a practical standpoint , the Site has not been used in recent years nor does it appear suitable for farming or other agricultural uses . Although cattle graze on portions of the Site when crossing back and forth over unfenced boundaries between the State Park and the Blackhawk open space, the Project Site owner does not specifically operate an agricultural enterprise on the Site . Although there will be a loss of open space, there will be little, if any, loss of economically viable agricultural property. Further , the Site is not in an agricultural preserve, and its agricultural capability is limited. Specifically, the nearly flat lying floor area is mantled by prime agricultural soil -suitable for dryland grain and range . The remainder of the Site consists exclusively of non-prime soils on steep slopes suitable for range, wildlife habitat and watershed. The 11 r • size of the area mantled by prime soils is approximately 15 acres , which is too small to support commercial agriculture . Existing development at Blackhawk creates additional problems , due to the proximity of the agricultural lands to such residential uses . Problems posed by mixing agricultural uses with suburban development would also occur , including domestic animals chasing cattle, trash dumping, trespassers , hunting, broken fences , pesticide and herbicide restrictions , fly and odor complaints from nearby residents, etc . In summary, the Site would not provide an economic , self-sustaining agricultural use, and most of the existing open space value of the Site can be saved by preserving the higher elevations of the Site and by a sensitive design within the Project . There is a strong demand for housing in the Central County area . If "infilling" is not allowed on sites such as the valley floor of the Site, there could be added development pressure on outlying, more valuable .( and viable) agricultural land. (4) Certain goals of the General Plan indicate that, where possible, riparian vegetation along creeks should be retained and mature trees along Sycamore Creek should be preserved. Where drainage improvements are required, care should be taken to retain Sycamore Creek ' s natural appearance and preserve the vegetation it supports . ( 5) The Project as initially proposed may have conflicted with the General Plan policy discouraging padded lots on slopes steeper than twenty-five percent and development of high geological risk areas . Proposed Lots 9 , 10 and 17 require grading on slopes steeper than twenty-five percent . Certain areas of the Site may be susceptible to geologic risks, including landslides and fast moving debris flows . The General Plan states that improvements should be protected from geologic risks . ( 6) The Site is on the flank of the ..Scenic Blackhawk Ridge and much of the Site is visible from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard. Glimpses of higher elevations of the Site are also available from Blackhawk Road. Both of these roads are identified as Scenic Corridors . Blackhawk Ridge is identified as a Scenic Ridge, however , this designation does not affect the Project because it is well below the ridge crest . ( 7) The Blackhills proposal of 40 lots on approximately 24 acres of the Site would yield a density which is within the 2 dwelling units per net acre maximum specified by the General Plan for planned unit developments . Under County Code Section 84-66 . 002 , although certain 12 nonresidential uses are excluded from density computation, areas set aside for common open space, outdoor recreation or parks are not . Use of the approximate 86 . 9 acres proposed for "single family residential - low density" (and related private open space uses to be maintained by the homeowners association) in the density computation would yield a gross unit per acre figure of . 46 . Further, the category "common open space/outdoor recreation or parks" contemplated by the County Code appears to include all the property intended for private and public open space use . Use of the entire 300 acres in the density computation would yield a gross unit per acre figure of . 13 . Use of only the 24 acres intended for residential lots would yield a gross unit per acre figure of 1 . 66 . (8) The ultimate acreage of private open space will depend upon subsequent approvals and on the outcome of negotiations with the State Department of Parks and Recreation regarding the ultimate park boundary. (9) The Draft EIR also suggests a design of the Project to retain certain creek segments with outstanding value because of their tree cover . ( 10) The Draft EIR also recommends against the grading plans proposed for Lots 9 , 10 and 17 for slope stability concerns . The EIR states that eliminating the hillside lots would make the Project more consistent with the adjacent Blackhawk development . The geologic section of the DEIR indicates that there is a debris flow hazard at the mouths of gullies and along the main channel of Sycamore Creek . According to the EIR, some of the mitigation measures have land use implications and the Alternatives section, discussed below, suggests means to mitigate these impacts . ( 11) The Site presently is located within the A-2 (General Agricultural) Zoning District . Permitted uses within this District include agricultural uses , open space, and one ( 1) single-family residence per parcel . The allowable density for residential use is a maximum of one ( 1) unit per five (5) acres , or 60 units for the 300-acre Site, although it is uncertain whether a subdivision creating 60 parcels would secure County approval given existing physical Site constraints and related County policies . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The Project shall be functionally and visually compatible with the Blackhawk development and 13 y . 1 shall meet all applicable 'General Plan criteria . As such, it will not pose significant land use problems . The Project design shall concentrate development on the southernmost valley portions of the Site. Upper slopes and ridge spurs which are of visual , community wide significance shall be preserved as permanent open space, consistent with current County open space goals and policies . In particular , proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 shall not be developed for residential use . The designation of Single Family Residential - Low Density is appropriate for the portion of the Site which may be developed because of the existing adjacent Blackhawk development . A project that continues the infilling of the valley floor (and lower elevations) of the Sycamore Creek Canyon, similar to Blackhawk, will also not raise new open space issues . Like the Blackhawk development, this General Plan Amendment provides an opportunity to determine the boundaries between permanent open space (Mt . Diablo State Park) , private open space and residential development , which boundaries are not established by the current General Plan designation of the Site . (2) Where possible, existing native trees shall bepreserved and individual home designs shall '.respect the location of such trees so as to enhance views and provide adequate screening . Methods for tree preservation during site grading or construction shall include adequate staking and fencing . Grading and construction shall avoid the tree dripline where possible in order to minimize impacts to root systems . The riparian vegetation on the southern 250 feet of Sycamore Creek shall be protected. (3) Prior to any development of the Project and Site, Blackhills shall be required to obtain rezoning to a planned unit development designation (P-1) , approval of development plans , subdivision map, and other related development entitlements . Additional mitigation measures imposed as conditions of approval shall be attached to these subsequent approvals , including conditions precluding any development on Blackhills ' proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17, all of which potentially involve slopes of greater than 25% , and, as discussed below, involve other unmitigatable significant impacts . (4 ) This Board ' s findings regarding the loss of open space and agricultural lands are set forth in Sections IV and V, below. ( 5) Although the loss of open space or agricultural space will be unavoidable, the other land use impacts will be insignificant, or will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures adopted by the particular findings 14 r . ~ following the discussion of each impact , below, and by the subsequent findings and conditions of approval adopted in relation to subsequent Project approvals . ( 6) The Project will be consistent with the General Plan Amendment and these findings , as required by State law. The impacts of the Project as a whole are addressed by the EIR ( and these findings) collectively and separately under the individual impacts listed below. 2 . Zoning/Development Plan Consistency. ( a) Facts . ( 1) The Site presently is located within the A-2 (General Agricultural ) Zoning District . Permitted uses within this District include agricultural uses , open space, and one ( 1) single-family residence per parcel . The allowable density for residential use is a maximum of one ( 1 ) unit per five ( 5) acres , or 60 units for the 300-acre Site (although it is uncertain whether a subdivision creating 60 parcels would secure County approval given existing physical Site constraints and related County policies) . (2) Land west, south and southeast of the Site are within the Blackhawk Development, and are zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) . Land east , west and north of the Site is in Mt . Diablo State Park, and is zoned F-R (Forest and Recreation) . (3) The proposed development on approximately 24 acres of the Site yields a density which is within the 2 dwelling units per net acre (maximum) specified by the General Plan for planned unit developments . Under County Code Section 84-66 . 002, although certain nonresidential uses are excluded from density computation, areas set aside for common open space, outdoor recreation or parks are not . Use of the 86 . 9 acres proposed for "single family residential - low density" ( and related private open space uses to be maintained by the homeowners association) in the density computation would yield a gross unit per acre figure of . 46 . Further , the category "common open space/outdoor recreation or parks" contemplated by the County Code appears to include all the property intended for private and public open space use . Use of the entire 300 acres in the density computation would yield a gross unit per acre figure of . 13 . Use of only the 24 acres intended for residential lots would yield a gross unit per acre figure of 1 . 66 . 15 (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) The proposed density of the Project is consistent with the General Plan goals , policies and standards regarding the planned unit development zoning designation proposed for the Project . (2) The subsequent zoning approval , if any, shall. contain conditions reflecting the mitigation measures required by these findings as well as such additional mitigation measures as determined appropriate by this Board, which, collectively, will avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance such impacts . 3 . Town of Danville . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) Development of the Site will result in both service impacts on the Town, including minor traffic and parking increases , use of community parks , normal wear and tear on Town roads , and Town Planning review of land development applications processed by the County, as well as an indeterminable amount of new revenue to the Town of Danville, including gas and sales tax revenues and traffic violation assessments . (2) The Town has requested that Blackhills be required to contribute fees toward construction of Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ( "JPA" ) road projects , even though the Blackhills Project is not subject to that Agreement . The Town also has requested that Town parkland dedication fees be imposed on the Project , despite the fact that the Project is not in the Town and is already dedicating approximately 277 acres of its 300-acre site to open space (parkland) uses . (3) The Town also has expressed concern regarding the visibility and grading of lots above the valley floor , particularly the proposed grading and development plans for Lots 9 , 10 and 17 . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the fact herein and entire record, this Board finds that : 16 ( 1) The environmental impacts of the Project to the Town of Danville are insignificant . (2) Although the State "General Plan Guidelines" generally provide that County land use decisions should be carried out in consultation with adjacent cities , those Guidelines do not require that County land use decisions comply with the general plan or ordinances of such nearby cities . Further, - the Town ' s traffic fees imposed in accordance with the JPA are not binding on the Project because the Project is outside the "area of benefit" established by, and the express terms of , the JPA. Likewise, the Town ' s parkland fees . are not applicable . Any Project impacts on Town parks will be 'more than offset by the Project dedication to the State Park, which Town residents may likewise use . (3) Although the impacts to the Town are insignificant , the Project will nonetheless provide certain mitigating measures . Mitigation measures to impacts on the Town of Danville in addition to the measures required by these and subsequent County approvals will include gas tax revenues from Project residents who purchase gas from stations in Danville (which revenues would contribute to maintenance costs of Danville roads) ; sales tax revenues from Project residents patronizing Danville businesses (which will provide monies into the Towns General Fund) ; and assessments relating to traffic violations by Project residents . Although the extent to which revenues generated by Project residents will offset any impacts and costs to Danville is uncertain, this situation exists wherever two separate jurisdictions exist side by side (a situation that prevails throughout Contra Costa County) . Rather than a significant policy impact, it is an indirect and hence insignificant impact of development within an urban area composed of many local jurisdictions . (4) Proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 shall not be developed. ( 5-) Subsequent Project Approvals shall include conditions which incorporate the above-described mitigation measures . The inclusion of such mitigation measures _shall ..avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance any significant Project impact on the Town of Danville . B. Public Services and Utilities . 1 . In General . The EIR states that, in general , the Project will require a variety of community services and natural resources which represent a cost to the community. The direct and 17 indirect Project impacts and the recommended mitigation measures and findings are discussed fully below under the individual impact headings ( i . e . , schools , police services , traffic , etc . ) . 2 . Schools . ( a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s impacts on schools are discussed on pages 26-29 and 37 of the Draft EIR, in several public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record . The Project is located within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and is expected to generate approximately twenty-three (23 ) public school students : ten ( 10 ) at the elementary school level , five ( 5) at the intermediate school level and eight ( 8) at the high school level . (2) The elementary school enrollment is currently above capacity and approximately one hundred ( 100 ) students from an adjacent area are diverted to another elementary school . The intermediate and high school enrollments are at 96 . 6 percent and 96 . 8 percent of capacity, respectively. However , there is a projected decline in intermediate and high school enrollment over the next- 4-5 years based on the age distribution of children now in the area . The District has determined that portable classrooms will be installed should the need arise . Moreover , long-range plans are in place to meet the educational needs of the public school children. (3) A new elementary school located approximately 2 . 5 miles southwest of the Site opened in the Fall of 1989 and is serving the Site and vicinity.- Long-range School District plans include construction of two (2) additional elementary schools , to be completed in five to seven years . Within the next 15 years , a new intermediate school and a high school are planned. (4) Development of a residential subdivision on the Site will require school service, which represents .a cost to the community. Thus , the EIR lists such impacts on community facilities as an unavoidable adverse impact . However , this impact is not significant . To the extent the Project and other development projects within the School District ' s jurisdiction may cumulatively impact the School District ' s ability to provide school services , such projects will undergo analysis and any impacts will be identified, and school services will be altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . The School 18 District is charged with addressing, determining and resolving Project-specific and cumulative impacts . The School District does not believe the Blackhills Project will cause capacity problems . ( 5) The residential development will be assessed school impact fees by the School District . California Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 limit this Board' s ability to impose mitigation measures relating to schools , and recognizes the payment of such fees as full environmental mitigation of school impacts caused by new development . ( 6) The School District provides bus service to students at a cost of approximately $1 . 20 per student per day. According to the District , the buses are at capacity at present and the continuing growth from the Blackhawk and Sycamore Valley areas will require purchasing additional buses . (a) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) By operation of County and School District ordinances and policies , the payment of school impact fees and bus service fees shall be imposed upon this Project through conditions to subsequent approvals , and Blackhills or its successor shall pay such fees as and when required by such ordinances , policies and conditions . Pursuant to State law, the payment of such fees will be considered full mitigation of any school-related Project impacts . (2) Although this Project may have a general unavoidable indirect impact by creating a need for public services, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating specifically to schools are either insignificant or will be avoided or mitigated to insignificance, as set forth above and as further discussed in Section III , below. 3 . Sanitary Sewer Service. (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project ' s sewer impacts are discussed on pages 29-30 and pages 36-37 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. 19 (2) Residential development on the Site will require a sanitary sewer system. Sewer service to the adjacent Blackhawk area is provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( "CCCSD" ) . Approximately 40 + acres of the Site must be annexed into the CCCSD, requiring approval by both LAFCO and the applicable Conducting Authority. Additionally, if annexation is approved, existing sewer lines serving Blackhawk will have to be extended to, and access easements provided on, the Site . (3) The District ' s treatment plant has a current capacity of 45 million gallons per day and, according to CCCSD, this capacity is predicted to be adequate ( at current rates of population growth) at least until the mid-1990s . The Project ' s expected average daily sewer flow of approximately 35 , 070 gallons constitutes , approximately, less than 1/2 of 1% of the District ' s remaining 8 . 6 million gallons/day of capacity. ( 4 ) Direct costs of sewering the Site would be paid by the future homeowners in the Project . Indirect costs include expansion of the CCCSD treatment plant . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) Project impacts relating to sewer service are insignificant because the proposed residential — development would use less than 1/2 of 1% of CCCSD ' s remaining capacity and because sufficient collection capacity to service the Site presently exists . (2) Prior to final Project approval by the County, an annexation request will be made to CCCSD, and an engineering study will be performed to determine the size and alignment of facilities needed to serve the Project . The study will also determine if the existing off-site mains in the Blackhawk Country Club have adequate capacity to carry the sewage generated by the Project . It will be Blackhills ' responsibility to fund both CCCSD ' s engineering study and the actual construction of any required mains . The CCCSD is responsible for addressing questions regarding ability to serve, with the conclusion that if the applicable district is able to fully serve the Project , then the Project-specific service impacts will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance . (3 ) If the Project is annexed to CCCSD, the acreage fees would be approximately $1 , 000 per acre, including private open space . If 213 acres of the Site are 20 deeded to public open space use, annexation fees would be required for the remaining 87 acres . Connection fees also would be charged . ( 4) To the extent that the Project and other ongoing development within CCCSD service area may cumulatively impact CCCSD facilities and services , such development will undergo analysis by the CCCSD, such impacts will be identified by the CCCSD and the facilities and services altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . CCCSD, in conjunction with the State, is responsible for such long-range planning and implementation . Any Project-specific impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the inclusion of the Project in the CCCSD . ( 5) Low flow toilets in accordance with Section 17921 . 3 of the Health and Safety Code and water conserving sinks , shower and lavatory faucets in accordance with California Energy Commission Standards for New Residential Buildings reduce water consumption, resulting in reduced loads on sewage treatment facilities , and therefore will be made conditions to subsequent Project approvals . ( 6) To the extent any such impacts are significant , they will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. These mitigation measures are incorporated into this Project by the application to this Project of the applicable energy and water conservation standards and as conditions to subsequent development approvals . It is not feasible or appropriate to incorporate into this General Plan Amendment specific mitigation measures relating to low-flow toilets , sinks , showers , or lavatory faucets because this General Plan Amendment sets forth general designations for the Site only. ( 7) To the extent this Project may have an unavoidable impact by creating a need for community facilities such as expansion of the CCCSD treatment plant , the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating specifically to sewers are determined either 'insignificant or- avoided -or mitigated to a level of insignificance as discussed herein and in Section III , below. 4 . Domestic Water Service . (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s impacts on water service are discussed on pages 30-34 and pages 36 and 38 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses , and in 21 other portions of the administrative record. Although the majority of lots proposed in the Blackhills Project (32 of 40) are presently within the sphere of influence and service boundary of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District ( "EBMUD" ) , 8 of these 40 lots are not . Therefore, in order to provide water service to those 8 lots , EBMUD ' s sphere must be amended and the lots annexed . Although EBMUD has adopted a general policy against new annexations , it also has adopted a "small boundary adjustment" exception to that policy. Under this exception, the Board may approve minor annexations where : ( 1) the number of lots to be annexed are few and are less in number than the project lots presently within the District ; (2) the development is desired and approved by the applicable land use jurisdiction (County) and the land use and environmental documentation recognize EBMUD as the logical provider of water service; (3) annexation of the units to the District represents the most practical and feasible method of obtaining water service; and ( 4 ) the units , when added to the cumulative total of units already added to the District under the exception, do not total more than 200 for a two-year period commencing November , 1989 . Blackhills proposes an amendment of the EBMUD sphere of influence and annexation of the 8 lots , while simultaneously detaching a portion of the Project Site currently in EBMUD . These actions will result in a net reduction of EBMUD ' s existing service area . Further , the annexation proposed will fit within EBMUD ' s existing policy regarding annexations because it satisfies the four (4) conditions of ' the "small boundary adjustment" exception described above. (2) The EIR recommends annexation prior to development of the Site . Blackhills would be responsible for a prorated portion of the planning and capital costs for the extension of water service and possible enlargement of facilities necessary to serve the Project . (3) All proposed lots , except Lot 9 , are within the elevation range of EBMUD ' s Blackhawk Pressure Zone . The Blackhawk Pressure Zone has limited capacity and improvements .to major water distribution facilities may be required to - serve additional development in the region. (4) Based on EBMUD ' s estimate of average daily water use of 1 ,000 gallons per residence, the proposed residential units would use an average of 40 , 0.00 gallons of water per day, including irrigation for landscaping, if all of the proposed 40 lots were approved. This would require about 0 . 004% of the capacity of EBMUD ' s combined 9 , 200 , 000 gallon reservoirs . Maximum daily water consumption is approximately 3 , 000 gallons per day per dwelling unit . Based on these consumption figures , the maximum daily demand 22 for the maximum density, 40-unit Project , would be 120 , 000 gallons per day. Maximum water service to these units would cause the storage-to-maximum-day ratio to drop below 1 . 5 to 1 . 47 . The incremental increase in demand would not likely trigger the construction of another reservoir . ( 5) The Project would be subject to all County and EBMUD restrictions and water conservation measures . In the foreseeable future, use of domestic water will need to be curtailed during drought years . EBMUD is seeking alternative water sources and urges all new development to incorporate water conservation measures into their plans . During drought summers , a water rationing plan could be put into effect . EBMUD has indicated the use of conservation measures is critically important . Specifically, the EIR further recommends ( as mitigation measures ) drought tolerant vegetation, low water use irrigation systems and water conserving plumbing equipment to help reduce water consumption . ( 6) The EIR states that development of a residential subdivision on the Site will require a variety of community services and natural resources , including provision of domestic water to the Site. According to the Draft EIR, these indirect costs are unavoidable adverse impacts . However , these indirect impacts do not appear to be significant unavoidable impacts . Any Project-specific impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the inclusion of all lots into the EBMUD, the construction of needed service infrastructure and the payment of any required fees . EBMUD itself is charged with addressing questions regarding ability to serve the Project, with the conclusion that if the applicable district is able to fully serve the Project then the Project-specific service impacts will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extent the proposed Project and other development in the EBMUD service area may cumulatively impact the capacity of the EBMUD system, such development will undergo analysis , such impacts to the system and supply will be identified and the physical systems and supply sources altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . EBMUD is responsible for such long-range planning and implementation. (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) The impact of the Project upon water supply is not significant because average daily water usage would "'require only about 0 . 0040 of the capacity of EBMUD ' s combined reservoirs in the area . 23 (2) Proposed Lot 9 is not adequately within the applicable pressure zone and therefore shall not be developed. (3) To the extent any such impacts are subsequently determined significant , this Board determines that they will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the above-discussed mitigation measures as conditions to subsequent development approvals . These include incorporation into the Project of drought tolerant vegetation, low water use irrigation systems and water conserving plumbing equipment to help reduce water consumption . Any development of the Project and Site will be subject to then-existing restrictions on water use imposed by EBMUD in response to water shortages , such as the current requirement that developers agree to restrictions on water use as a condition of receiving water service . It is infeasible to incorporate such specific measures into this General Plan Amendment because such measures relate to specific development plans and not to the general designations and maximum density range which constitutes this General Plan Amendment . ( 4 ) To the extent that the Project and other ongoing development within EBMUD may cumulatively impact EBMUD facilities and services , such development will undergo analysis by EBMUD, such impacts will be identified by EBMUD and the facilities and services altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . EBMUD, in conjunction with the State, is responsible for such long-range planning and implementation. Any Project-specific impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the inclusion of the . Project in EBMUD. ( 5) Although this Project may have a general unavoidable impact in creating the need for community eservices, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating specifically to domestic water service are either insignificant- or will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of conditions on subsequent development approvals requiring the mitigation measures described above, and as further discussed in Section III , below. 5 . Police Service . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project ' s impacts on police services are discussed on pages 34-39 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses, and in other portions of the administrative record. Police services would be provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff ' s Department . The Site 24 currently is in County Service Area P-6 and Patrol Beat 13 which encompasses an area of approximately ten square miles . The Project will add to the service responsibility of the Sheriff ' s Department but will not result in hiring additional personnel . (2) Access to the Site is through roads within Blackhawk . Blackhawk receives police protection which is greater than normal police protection through County Service Area P-2A, which is patrolled by Deputy Sheriffs assigned to Blackhawk . The Draft EIR recommends as mitigation, the annexation of the Project Site to County Service Area P-2A. The need to extend regular street patrol onto the Project Site would incrementally increase the demand for P-2A service, but will not significantly impact Blackhawk police services . If the Site does not annex to County Service Area P-2A, similar police protection may be provided by the same patrol cars (although the service district and financing structure might differ) or by patrol cars in the ten square mile Alamo beat . (3 ) According to the EIR, development of a residential . subdivision on the Site will require a variety of community services and natural resources , including police protection, which represent a cost to the community. Thus , the EIR lists such impacts on community facilities as an unavoidable adverse . impact . It does not , however , state that impacts on police service are significant . (4) Although not discussed in the EIR, the generation of higher property taxes will be an additional mitigation measure. This is an inherent aspect of the Project and does not require adoption as a condition of approval now or in connection with any future development approvals by this Board. These additional revenues will help to fund fire and police services . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the . entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The Project ' s impacts relating to police services are insignificant because the need for services generated by the Project can be served by existing County sheriff services . To the extent Blackhills wishes to receive "enhanced" police services, such as those enjoyed in Blackhawk, it shall seek annexation of the Site to County Service Area P-2A, or seek enhanced services through a tax zone in P-6 , as done in other areas of the County. 25 (2) To the extent that the Project and other ongoing development within the County Service Area may cumulatively impact the Sheriff ' s Department , such development will undergo analysis by the Sheriff ' s Department , such impacts will be identified by the Sheriff ' s Department and the services .altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the .need dictates . Any Project-specific impacts would be additionally mitigated to a level of insignificance by the inclusion of the Project in County Service Area P-2A or the establishment of a tax zone in P-6 . (3) To the extent this Project may have an unavoidable impact by creating a need for community services, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating specifically to police services are determined to be either insignificant or avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the mitigation measures discussed herein and in Section III , below. 6 . Fire Service . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project ' s impact on fire services are discussed on pages 35-36 and 38-39 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. Fire protection in the area is provided by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District . The nearest station is located approximately two miles south of the Site and response time to the Project is 5 minutes which is considered adequate . Based on the character of vegetation and the steepness of slopes, the residential site is an area of moderate to high fire hazard. The fire district ' s concerns relate primarily to wooden shake roofs , unirrigated open space area, road width and grading and access to open space areas . The State Department of Parks and Recreation is concerned about potential fire hazards from the dwelling units nearest Mt . Diablo State Park boundaries . (2) The EIR recommends as a mitigation "that the Project design include street widths and grades , emergency access to open space areas , the use of fire resistant "Class C" roofing materials and hydrant locations and fire flows acceptable to the Fire District . A letter from the State Department of Parks and Recreation has requested retention of the existing emergency access through the Site to the fire road along the Sycamore Creek Canyon. (3) The EIR also recommends as part of Project, the approval of a fire protection strip at the rear of residences adjoining open space land, to reduce the potential 26 for the spread of fire from the residential site to adjacent open lands . The plan could include designation of areas to be regularly cultivated, irrigated landscaping using a fire resistant species , segments of Project roadway, a combination of such methods or other methods which the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District would find adequate . Maintenance of the fire protection strip should be binding on the subsequent homeowners association. Except for areas which may be habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake, Blackhills proposes the same type of fire protection buffer as used in the adjacent Blackhawk development, which has proven effective in the past . (4) According to the EIR, development of a residential subdivision on the Site will require a variety of community services and natural resources , including services of the San Ramon Fire Protection District , which represent a cost to the community. The EIR lists such impacts on community facilities as unavoidable adverse impacts . It does not , however , state that these impacts are significant . ( 5) To the extent this Project and other development projects within the Fire Protection District may cumulatively impact the District ' s ability to provide fire protection services , . such projects will undergo analysis and any impacts will be identified. Fire services will be altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . The Fire District is charged with addressing, determining and resolving Project-specific and cumulative impacts . ( 6) Although not discussed in the EIR, the generation of higher property taxes will be an additional mitigation measure. This is an inherent aspect of the Project and does not require adoption as a condition of approval now or in connection with any future development approvals by this Board. These additional revenues will help to fund fire services . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the -entire record, this Board -:finds that : ( 1) The Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating to fire services are insignificant or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures contained herein as conditions of approval or Project modifications at the time of subsequent Project approvals . Fire service will not be affected adversely by the Project given the Project ' s size and proximity to existing fire 27 stations . Except for areas which may be habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake, Blackhills shall provide the same type of fire protection buffer as is used in the adjacent Blackhawk development . (2) To the extent that the Project and other ongoing development within the District may individually or cumulatively impact the Fire District , such development will undergo analysis by the Fire District , such impacts will be identified by the Fire District and the service altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . (3 ) To the extent the Project may have -an unavoidable impact by creating a need for community services , the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating specifically to fire services are determined to be either insignificant or avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance as discussed herein and in Section III , below. 7 . Natural Gas , Electricity, and Telephone Service . ( a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project impacts upon natural gas , electricity, and telephone service are discussed in the EIR at page 36 , in the public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record . The Project area ' s gas and electric services are provided by PG&E; telephone service is provided by Pacific Bell and related long distance carriers . Underground facilities for these services are currently available within Blackhawk . (2) The EIR states on page 36 that no significant impacts on natural gas , electricity and telephone services are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project . (3) The EIR' s listing of unavoidable impacts .on community services does not specifically discuss impacts on gas , electricity or telephone service as an unavoidable impact . No mitigation measures are proposed. Energy consumption impacts caused by the manufacture and production of building materials at other locations mentioned in the EIR' s discussion of unavoidable impacts is speculative at best and outside the reasonable realm of impacts which should be reviewed in the EIR. 28 (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) Impacts of this Project relating to natural gas , electricity and telephone service are insignificant . Any Project-specific impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the inclusion of the Project in the appropriate service districts , the construction of needed service lines or other infrastructure and the payment of appropriate fees . The service providers themselves are charged with addressing questions regarding ability to serve, with the conclusion that if the applicable service providers are able to fully serve the Project , then the Project-specific impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance . To the extent the proposed Project and other ongoing development within the service area of the applicable service provider may cumulatively impact both the capacity of existing systems and overall demand on supply, such development will undergo analysis , such impacts to systems and supply will be identified and the physical systems and supply sources altered or expanded to accommodate cumulative growth as the need dictates . These service providers , in conjunction with the State, are responsible for such long-range planning and implementation . (2) Although this Project may have an unavoidable, adverse impact in creating a need for public services , the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating specifically to gas , electricity and telephone service are insignificant . C. Open Space and Trails . (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s impacts on open space and trails are discussed on pages 40-46 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses, and in other portions of the administrative record . The development plans submitted by the Applicant call for developing approximately 24 acres of the Site and retaining approximately 15 acres as private open space . Another approximate 213 acres is proposed for dedication to the State Park and would buffer the Park from the Blackhills ' residential area . The remaining Site acreage is proposed as a "rind" that separates the rear of the residential lots from lands that are proposed for dedication to the State . This area is proposed to be retained as private open space, or it could be added to the lands that are proposed to be dedicated to the State, or a combination thereof . The State is interested in acquisition of lands on the Site through 29 dedication; - it is anticipated that the State will negotiate the boundary with Blackhills and the County. , (2) The Trails Plan of the General Plan calls for a bicycle/riding/hiking route along Diablo Road/Blackhawk Road, but does not otherwise address trail routes in the area of the Project Site . The East Bay Regional Park District is interested in a trail in the general vicinity, which has been addressed by this Board in the Athenian School EIR. The State has no trails planned through the Site . There are no public trail easements through the Blackhawk Country Club, so a trail from Mt . Diablo State Park could not be extended through the Site to intersect Blackhawk Road. "Save Mt . Diablo" has indicated that it would be desirable to construct a .northwest trending trail along the south flank of Blackhawk Ridge across the Site . However , the State Department of Parks and Recreation has not commented on the need for a trail easement . (3) Figure R5 of the Response Document shows a possible trail alignment through private open space in Blackhawk and through the Northwest corner of the Blackhills Site which ultimately extends into Mt . Diablo State Park . The Response Document states on page 81 that evaluation of this trail alignment is beyond the scope of the EIR and the trail is not proposed by the EIR as a mitigation measure . (4) The opportunity to provide an easement for a hiking trail across the Site will exist after this General Plan Amendment . ( 5) Blackhills has indicated its willingness to grant a trail easement across its property as the County and State Parks determine appropriate . (6) The Draft EIR points out that in judging the impact of development, it is important to recognize that the current general designation of the Site is "general open .space" , which is not permanent open space . Furthermore, the State has not identified this property for direct purchase and has not indicated opposition to the proposed development , which would dedicate approximately 3/4 of the land to the Park. While lots as small as five acres are consistent with the prevailing zoning, physical and policy constraints make it uncertain whether the maximum 60 five-acre lots would receive approval . ( 7) Comments on the EIR have suggested that the EIR should carefully evaluate the alternatives of public or private purchase of open space by the State of California, open space preservation organizations , public 30 agencies or the Blackhawk community. The alternative of public or private purchase of the Project Site for open space would not further the goals and purpose of the Project proposed by Blackhills . The "No Project" alternative includes .this type of alternative . Further , there is no evidence that any private party or public agency has made an offer to purchase the property or to open negotiations for such purpose, nor has there been any indication that the owner would consider a sale . In the absence of any specific evidence indicating an intention to purchase the Site for open space, the matter is so speculative as to be beyond the scope of the EIR. (8) Approval of the prior Blackhawk General Plan amendment and rezoning established many precedents for development on the south flank of Mt . Diablo . Approval of a residential project on the Site that extends Blackhawk-type development into the Site does not raise serious new planning or open space issues . Blackhawk has established a pattern of development on the floor of the Sycamore Creek Valley. (9 ) If agreeable to the State Department of Parks and Recreation, negotiations should be undertaken to establish they boundaries of lands dedicated to the State Park . Furthermore, the design of the Project should be refined to be sensitive to the outstanding natural terrain features on the Site. Design should strive to minimize grading on hillside areas , retain needed trees wherever possible, retain existing rock outcrops , and preserve segments of Sycamore Creek that are wooded. The Project will result in a gain of State parkland . Furthermore, it will involve a dedication of approximately 90% of the total Project acreage to permanent open space use . As a result , it will result in a net increase to the County' s inventory of permanent public open space . As stated in the DEIR on page 141 , because the proposed General Plan Amendment would establish 90% of the 300-acre site as permanent open space, the Project could be considered implementation of the planning goals for open space . Existing open space uses , as identified in the DEIR, are private and are not of a permanent nature . ( 10) Conditions to subsequent development approvals shoulld ensure that emergency fire access is preserved through the Site and require a buffer at the rear of residences that will serve as the fire break . The width of this buffer should be based on recommendations of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, along with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District . ( 11) The EIR states under the list of unavoidable adverse impacts that the Project will result in loss of visual open space . Specifically, the EIR states that 31 following development, short-range views of the Site from Blackhawk would be dominated by engineered slopes and residential development . After landscape plants become established and with revegetation of graded slopes , short-range views of the Site would be similar to views of residential projects in the vicinity. The development would be visible from some locations along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and glimpses of the higher elevations of the Site are available from Blackhawk Road. Views from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard would be similar to existing views of the Blackhawk development . ( 12) The list of unavoidable impacts of the Project does not include any impacts relating to trails . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) The impacts of this Project on open space and trails are either insignificant or will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in these findings and in the conditions to subsequent development approvals . For example, if agreeable to the State Department of Parks and Recreation, negotiations should be undertaken to establish the boundaries of lands dedicated to the State Park . Project design will be sensitive to the natural terrain features on the Site, and where feasible, will preserve such natural features . The Project will also implement the General Plan' s open space goals by establishing 90% of the Site as permanent open space . (2) This Board ' s findings relating to loss of open space as potentially unavoidable impacts are set forth in Section III , below. D . Traffic and Circulation. 1 . Post-Construction Traffic . ( a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s impacts upon traffic and circulation are discussed at pages 47 through 75 in the DEIR, . the public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. (2) The Project includes circulation improvements such as paved private streets with concrete curbs and gutters on one or both sides . Like the neighboring 32 Blackhawk development , no sidewalks or other walkways are proposed. Overall , Project roadway grades , which generally conform with the development area ' s canyon flow terrain, would be moderate . The Project ' s main roadway system would have a number of turnaround areas of different types . The Project would utilize a "balanced" grading approach where all earth moved will remain on-site. (3), Blackhills has a legal right of access over certain roads owned by the Country Club at Blackhawk Improvement Association, Inc . (the "Association" ) , extending from the Blackhawk main gate to and along Blackhawk Drive, then to and along Blackhawk Club Drive, and then to and along Deer Meadow and Pepperwood Drives to the boundary of the Site . The Association has acknowledged that use of the easement to provide ingress and egress for up to forty-one homes would not overburdenthe easement . (4) The existing rate of Blackhawk trip generation is slightly more than seven trips ( 7 . 3 ) per day per unit , and less than one trip per peak hour per unit . Based on a conservative 10 trips per 24 hours per unit and one trip per peak hour per unit, thel Project , if built to the maximum 40 lots proposed, would generate an estimated 400 trips/day (200 round trips) and 40 trips per peak hour (20 round trips) . (5) At 40 vehicles per peak hour, the proposed Project would generate an average rate of one vehicle every 1-. 5 minutes during each peak hour . This level of traffic is insignificant when considered alone, and will cause . a minor but insignificant cumulative addition to existing peak hour traffic volumes along the Blackhawk street system, Blackhawk Road, and other roadways serving the Blackhawk area . The increase in .traffic volumes caused by the Project will not create significant capacity or safety impacts within Blackhawk. ( 6) Based on the consultant ' s all-day intersection count at Live Oak Drive and Deer Meadow Drive, it is estimated that 280 trips ( 70 percent of the proposed Project ' s daily traffic) would be generated during the 12-hour period between 7 : 00 a .m. anld 7 : 00 p.m. Of these 280 trips , a total of 80 is estimated for the 2 peak hours , which would leave 200 trips to be spread over the 10 off-peak hours of the 12-hour daily period. Thusl, it is estimated that (on average) the Project would generate �20 trips ( 10 round trips) during each off-peak hour of the -busiest 12-hour daily period, or an average of 1 vehicle each 31 minutes . This level of traffic would be a minor , insignificant cumulative addition to existing traffic volumes . I I 33 ( 7) One comment on the Draft EIR questions the sufficiency of the EIR' s jobs/housing analysis . The Response Document explains that compared with the general level of recent and continuing growth in the San Ramon Valley area, the proposed 40-unit Project could not be expected to substantially influence the regional balance of employment and housing. Even if each of the 40 households were to generate two daily commute trips outside of the area, the resulting change in the level of regional traffic cannot specifically be analyzed within the context of regional study. Thus , in terms of the regional setting, the Project would result in minor , insignificant cumulative impact with regard to jobs/housing balance and. commuter traffic . (8) Table VI on pages 56-57 of the 'DEIR lists a number of existing traffic and circulation problems relating to the route through Blackhawk to the Project Site and possible solutions to those problems . This list of problems reflects concerns expressed by Blackhawk residents and the Association, discussions with the Blackhawk Deputy Sheriffs , and field observations made during the EIR traffic analysis . Because these problems already exist , they cannot be attributed to the proposed Project , although Project traffic would have a minor , adverse cumulative effect . The most appropriate way for the Project to contribute to the solution of these problems would be for Project residents to pay their fair share of any remedial costs, through inclusion in, or an agreement with, the Association. (9 ) The Draft EIR discusses the Project ' s impact on Blackhawk street maintenance on page 73 . The DEIR states that a maintenance district or equivalent arrangement, financed by Project residents , would be required to provide for maintenance of the private Project streets . Project traffic would also contribute to the need for long-term maintenance of streets along the routes through Blackhawk to the Site . Such maintenance is currently provided exclusively by Blackhawk residents . Therefore, the EIR recommends that the Project ' s roadway maintenance responsibility include a fair share responsibility for contribution to the long-term maintenance for portions of the Blackhawk roadway system which will be used by Project residents . ( 10) . The EIR lists unavoidable impacts of the Project on pages 135-137 and impact on Blackhawk ' s street maintenance is not included in this list . ( 11 ) Blackhills recognizes the above described impacts to Blackhawk and is agreeable that the Project should pay its fair share of the maintenance of roads utilized for access to the Project and for staffing of the 34 gates to Blackhawk . Blackhills has met with the Association and in executing an agreement (the "Agreement" ) which addresses and resolves the above-listed impacts : Pursuant to the Agreement, Blackhills shall pay the costs of all necessary improvements to the Blackhawk Main Gate, shall pay the same Association fee as is presently paid by Blackhawk residents (which fees will be used to maintain the Blackhawk street system) , shall pay whatever, additional fees may be imposed for maintenance of streets within the Project Site, and shall be responsible for the remediation of easement streets damage by construction traffic . The Agreement also addresses other aspects of the Blackhills development , as further discussed below. ( 12) Although traffic from the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on area roadways , it will cumulatively contribute to increasing traffic volume and the need for financing long-term improvements along Project serving roadways in Contra Costa County and the Town of Danville. Neither of these jurisdictions anticipates , sufficient funding to provide for the long-term roadway improvements which will be needed to accommodate on-going development in the region. 1 Both jurisdictions are, therefore, required to supplement roadway improvement funds through the imposition of development fees . The Town of Danville has requested that the County require Blackhills to pay the Town a fee of $5,377 per unit in accordance with the fee requirements of the 1987 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ( "JPA" ) . However, as stated elsewhere in these findings , the Project is not one of those specifically listed in the JPA and is not included in the JPA' s area of benefit . It is anticipated that the County will consider the requirement of a fee of approximately $5, 276 per unit in accordance with the recommended 1988 County-wide area of benefit fee schedule for road improvements (unincorporated areas) . ( 13) The EIR recommends that in establishing the Project ' s obligation for roadway improvement fees the County should consider ( 1) the potential for inequity in the imposition of both the County fee and the Town of Danville fee, and (2) the possibility of requiring the area of benefit fee only and distributing the funds between Danville and the County in accordance with the estimated distribution of Project traffic . In this way, the Project would be contributing to improvement funding in a manner which would reflect its actual trafficlimpacts on the various area roadways . The table on 'page 75 of the Draft EIR indicates how the fees could be distributed using this method. ( 14) Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (Assembly Bill 1600) and other related constitutional 35 and -statutory provisions require that a public agency justify both the type and the amount of fees imposed on a development project . Blackhills has indicated a willingness to pay either the Town of Danville ' s fee or the County' s fee, or a portion of both. The full application of both fees would be inequitable, •unjustifiable, and hence, invalid under controlling law. ( 15) The EIR lists as an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project the minor increase in traffic volumes on roadways linking the Site with I-680 . The EIR does not , however , state that this impact is significant . The EIR also states that cumulative impacts on freeways are virtually impossible to mitigate on a project-by-project basis and constitute unavoidable adverse impacts . The EIR states , however , that the Project would be required to contribute its fair share to improvements on roads linking the Site to I-680 and assist in the maintenance and improvement of private roads within Blackhawk that are used by Blackhills residents . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The Project will have a minor , but insignificant direct and cumulative post-construction traffic impact on Blackhawk, County, Town and other regional roadways . To the extent that any Project post-construction traffic impacts are determined significant, the payment by Blackhills of traffic impact fees to the County and maintenance and related fees to the Association pursuant to the Agreement shall avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance any such significant impacts . (2) Blackhills ' legal right of access , by means of a recorded easement , will not be overburdened by the Project . (3) The EIR also identifies certain mitigation measures for Project impacts to particular Blackhawk "roadways, including contributions by Project residents for -remedial solutions to existing traffic and circulation problems in Blackhawk and long term maintenance of streets along the route through Blackhawk to the Site, which measures shall be made conditions to subsequent Project approvals . ( 4) The findings regarding the Projects insignificant, yet unavoidable cumulative impact on traffic are discussed in Section III , below. Particular construction, Blackhawk roadway, and other traffic-related Project. impacts are discussed below. 36 .2 . ... .Construction Traffic/Impacts. on Blackhawk . ( a) Facts . ( 1)i Project development will occur in two phases . Phase I will consist of the planning and construction of subdivision improvements up to the point where lots would be ready for house construction, will require approximately seven months of work, and will involve more than 600 trips by construction vehicles . This estimate includes 15 transport vehicles for hauling construction equipment; 600 truck trips for delivery of aggregate, asphalt , concrete, pipe and other materials; and 20 to 25 personal-vehicle trips per day for construction workers . It is not known how the estimated 600 truck trips would be spread over the estimated seven months of subdivision improvement work . It is anticipated, however, that most of these trips would occur during the shorter roadway construction portion of Phase I , which involves the delivery of large volumes of base rock and paving materials . (2) Phase II involves the construction of individual houses by an unknown number of builders , and will involve average daily construction traffic of approximately 100 light vehicles and two larier trucks . This is an average rate; the actual rate may vary depending on when lots are sold, the number of lots sold, weather conditions , etc . (3) During the period of Project construction (Phases I andlII ) , which could take several years , construction traffic will increase the potential for congestion and safety hazards along the route through Blackhawk to the Site. The potential for such problems would be greatest at the Blackhawk west entrance. (4 ) The EIR' s list of unavoidable impacts includes construction-related problems , including construction traffic . (5) The EIR recommends that Blackhills work with the Blackhawk Association to prepare a construction traffic management.._plan. (6) Heavy Project construction vehicles have the potential to cause damage to roadway improvements along the Blackhawk Country Club route to the Project Site. In order to mitigate such potential damage, the EIR recommends that before construction begins , the Applicant prepare a report, acceptable to the County and the Blackhawk Association, indicating the condition of existing roadway improvements along the route to the Site . A second study would i i i 37 be required after completion of Project improvements to determine whether roadway repairs are required to correct damage caused by construction vehicles . Blackhills also should be required to assure that the route to the Site will be kept clean of construction debris and, as necessary, that roadway damage caused by construction vehicles will be repaired during the term of Project construction. ( 7) As stated above, Blackhills and the Association, through the execution of the Agreement , will establish such a construction traffic management plan, which will include regulation of hours of heavy vehicle traffic; provision of personnel to assist the Blackhawk entrance gate guards in controlling and directing heavy-vehicle traffic for construction; control and direction of traffic; coordination, notification, and supervision of developer-sponsored subdivision improvements by administration of a construction traffic management program; provision of services to clean up the roadways used within Blackhawk; provisions for testing, maintenance and repair of Blackhawk roadways ; timing, convoying and general distribution of construction traffic ; establishment of schedules for construction periods and transport of construction equipment over the streets owned by the Association; and inclusion in the Project- CC&R ' s of limitations on home construction to conform with the similar rules and regulations imposed by the Association; and other like and related requirements which will avoid or mitigate to the extent possible the construction traffic impacts of the Project . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The impacts of Project construction traffic will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of those mitigation measures required by the Agreement between Blackhills and the Association. Such mitigation measures will also be made conditions to subsequent Project approvals . (2) The construction traffic impacts on the area, region and/or County are insignificant . (3) This Board' s findings relating to construction traffic impacts on Blackhawk as potentially unavoidable impacts are set forth in Section III , below. 38 3 . Alternative Access . ( a) Facts . ( 1) Possibilities of six alternative access routes to the site are discussed on pages 64-69 of the DEIR, and are illustrated on Figure 22 , page 65 . A more detailed preliminary alternative access study, generally along the existing fire road alignment from the Blackhawk soccer field to the northwest corrier of the project site, is shown on pages 21 and 22 of the DEIR, Appendix B . (b) Findings . Based upon the EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 )11County staff , Mt . Diablo State Park staff and the San Ramon Fire District should jointly consider the desirability of a new fire road link along the secondary canyon at the northwest corner of the Project Site . This joint assessment should consider whether such a link is needed in order to assure adequate fire protection for the Project and surrounding area, and if needed, whether the availability of such a route would be a worthwhile tradeoff in terms of environmental damage . The precise horizontal and vertical alignment for a minimally-adequate fire road should be determined and the impacts Iof such a road on vegetation, wildlife, visual quality, and drainage have not been analyzed and are beyond the scope of review at this General Plan Amendment stage of the Project approvals process . Blackhills will be providing additional roadway alignment information which may be needed by the Fire District and the State Park during the subsequent stages of the Project approvals process . (2) At this General Plan Amendment stage of the Project approvals process, it is anticipated that the needs and impacts of the Project relating to alternative access will be addressed and resolved at subsequent Project approvals . It is not feasible to impose such mitigation measures in connection with this General Plan Amendment, because this Board has notjyet reviewed plans and studies relative to such access . Such information will be prepared and will be reviewed and considered by the County at subsequent development stages , but prior to final Project approval . 39 E . Biotic (Vegetation/Sensitive Taxa/Wildlife) (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Draft EIR discussion of the Project ' s impacts on biotic resources commences on page 76; several studies , public comments , County responses and other information generated during the review process also address the potential biotic impacts of the Project and are part of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . (2) The Project proposes approximately 24 acres of residential development , which will involve balanced grading ( i . e . , all soils remain on-site) , with natural terrain techniques , of much of that acreage . Areas that are graded will be "cleared and grubbed" of existing vegetation. (3 ) Approximately 276 acres of the Site will be left in its natural state and retained as open space , with most of that acreage dedicated to the State of California for incorporation into Mt . Diablo State Park (or to another .State or County agency for public open space use) and the remaining acreage retained as privately maintained open space . Several trees proposed for removal may qualify as heritage trees pursuant to the Contra Costa County Heritage Tree Ordinance based on their size . (4) Several field surveys of the Site for vegetation and sensitive plant and animal populations were conducted, including studies by Blackhills ' consulting biologist, Harding Lawson Associates ( "HLA" ) and the consultant involved with the preparation of the EIR, Environmental Collaborative ( "EC" ) . ( 5) According to the studies conducted, proposed lot 9 would have impacted the population of the "Diablo Rock Rose" on the Site, a species which is listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare and endangered. The species is not listed on the California Department of Fish and Game ( "CDFG" ) or the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service ,I7( "USFWS" ) lists of rare, threatened or endangered plant species and therefore is currently afforded no legal status . The Diablo. Rock Rose meets the definition of "rare" under the conditions of Section 15380 of CEQA. Elimination of the entire population would be considered a significant adverse impact of the proposed Project and would most likely be opposed by representatives of CDFG. Treatment of the population would require coordination with CDFG, subject to their jurisdiction under the Native Plant Protection Act 40 (6) Additional field surveys conducted by EC revealed a total of seven populations of Diablo Rock Rose, most located outside the area planned for grading and development . The populations located a considerable distance from the proposed development area vary in size from approximately 20 plants to over 200 plants . The two populations located on either side of proposed lot 9 would be most vulnerable to possible impacts from Project-related activities . As discussed in the Draft EIR, the population on the west-facing slope would likely be eliminated by the proposed access to proposed lot 9 . The EC study concludes that although the species appears to be abundant on the Site, due to its status as a candidate for federal listing and its "rare" designation by the California Native Plant Society ( ''CNPS" ) , preservation of both of the populations adjacent to proposed lot 9 is warranted. According to the Response Document , as recommended in the Draft EIR, consideration should be given to eliminating proposed lot 9 or relocating the proposed access , and future treatment of the two populations near proposed lot 9 should be coordinated with representatives of the CDFG. ( 7)1 In April 1989 , HLA conducted additional surveys of the area of the Site proposed for development plus 800 feet beyond the development boundary to determine the presence and/or extent of populations of sensitive plant species on the Site . The only sensitive plant species located on the Site was the Diablo Rock Rose . The survey found that the population of Diablo Rock Rose is more extensive than earlier studies indicated. The population believed in spring of 1988 to consist of eight plants was found to consist of approximately 3.0-50 individuals . HLA also observed 3 additional populations of Diablo Rock Rose within their study area and found that it appears that none of these newly discovered populations will be affected by the proposed development . one population consisting of approximately 10 individuals was found on the east-facing slope within a proposed open space area . A second population of five individuals was located in the small canyon above proposed lot 3 . The third population was, located in the upper canyon of the intermittent drainage channel which is situated east of proposed lots 13 and 14 . This population is extensive, consisting of approximately 150-200 individuals . None of this population will be directly affected by the development . HLA concludes that the identification of additional populations of Diablo Rock Rose within the proposed open space areas of the development reduces the significance of the impact on the population to be affected by the construction of the road to proposed lot 9 . This also indicates that suitable habitat areas exist on site for relocation of those individuals of Diablo Rock Rose that would be displaced by the development . 41 (8'') HLA subsequently conducted additional searches for rare plant species and on May 25 , 1989 walked the area focusing in particularly on Brewer Dwarf Flax . Based on their failure to locate any individuals during this survey, HLA concluded, based on the results of all their surveys , that the species does not occur on the Project Site . The May 1989 survey did, however , locate about 10 plants of Mt . Diablo Fairy Lantern in the vicinity of proposed lots 4 and 5 . Three populations of Mt . Diablo Fairy Lantern were encountered by EC during their field surveys in April , 1989 . The EC study stated that although several individuals of the species would be eliminated with implementation of the Project , all or the major extent of all three identified populations would be retained and no mitigation is considered necessary. Mt . Diablo Fairy Lantern is not federally or state listed as rare, threatened or endangered. It is placed on the "watch list" by the California Native Plant Society because it is uncommon enough that its status should be monitored regularly. Because it is not afforded any legal status nor considered "rare" pursuant to CEQA or California Native Plant Protection Act definitions, removal of plants in the vicinity of proposed lots 4 . and 5 should not result in a significant impact on the species . (9 ) The EIR states that although development would reduce the existing wildlife habitat value of the Site and the contribution it makes to the value of the adjacent park lands , retention of approximately 245 acres as public open space would permanently establish over 800 of the Site as undeveloped wildlife habitat . Furthermore, the Response Document states that according to the standards typically used by qualified biologists and the CDFG, a well-designed and implemented low flow channel could mitigate 'the impacts of the Project on riparian vegetation and habitat to a level of insignificance . ' The DEIR merely calls attention to the fact that there are residual effects , even for a mitigated impact . ( 10) The biologic consultant for Blackhills , HLA, has prepared a Stream Zone Enhancement Plan, °the objective of which is to establish riparian and wetland vegetation along a possible man-made channel so that it provides wildlife habitat and would serve as an amenity for 'Project homeowners , should the stream be culverted. If the Creek is culverted, a low flow channel offers the best method of compensation. A plan that retains those segments of the Creek containing large, specimen trees would be superior to on masse culverting. The effect of the Project on the Sycamore Creek channel would depend on the grading concept , setback of structures from the Sycamore Creek and the wildlife value of 42 landscape plant materials , all of which will be addressed at the subsequent development plan stage of the process . ( 11 ) If chosen, coordination of such a channel alteration program would be accomplished during the initial stages of Project design to ensure that concerns and requirements of both agencies could be easily incorporated into the Project . During the formal review of the proposed Project , CDFG has indicated the following approaches to Project mitigation : ( 1 ) retain existing stream channel and restore culverted or modified channel segments , enhancing riparian vegetation along the corridor; (2) retain existing stream channel to the degree possible and enhance riparian vegetation along the corridor as necessary to mitigate required vegetation removal ; (3 ) provide an alternative low flow channel with extensive landscaping, establishing native riparian vegetation along the new corridor . The Applicant ' s revegetation plan is an effective means of compensating for loss of riparian habitat along the existing channel . The low flow channel is a means to enhance existing vegetation and restore vegetation affected by the grading operation. The low flow channel with the vegetation enhancement is a practical means of mitigation, if the stream is culverted. ( 12) In comments on the Draft EIR, the CDFG reiterated its previous statement that if it is not possible to avoid impacts to Sycamore Creek, the Department will support the Stream Zone Enhancement Plan provided by Blackhills because it would meet the Department ' s policy of no net loss . Additionally, the design and revegetation scheme would be acceptable . ( 13 ) Most of the existing wildlife habitat in the developed portion of the Site would be affected by grading activities . Portions of the annual grassland and savanna habitat on the three privately maintained parcels of open space would be preserved, with the importance of these areas to wildlife reduced due to the proximity of residential development . Wildlife species occurring within the developed portion of the property would generally change from species associated with grassland, isavanna and riparian habitats to those typically found in suburban areas . The cumulative impact of the increased presence of people and domestic animals on the Site, along with grading, will result in an incremental loss of wildlife habitat value . ( 14) Because of its apparent scarcity throughout its range in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties , the Alameda Whipsnake is listed as "threatened" under the California Endangered Species Act . It recently was assigned a "Candidate 2" rating underithe Federal Endangered Species Act, I i i 43 making it eligible for coiY'ideration for the threatened listing on the federal registry as well . The DEIR originally stated . that although the Alameda Whipsnake had not been observed on the Site, suitable habitat for the subspecies would be eliminated, in the vicinity of proposed lot 9 . Grading to accommodate the building pad for proposed lot 9 would destroy approximately two acres of suitable habitat , including coastal scrub vegetation and rock outcrops . The DEIR recommended minimizing development in areas with suitable habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake, and possibly eliminating proposed lot 9 and retaining the area as undeveloped open space . In the alternative, the DEIR recommended a detailed field study and trapping program during the appropriate time of the year (beginning in April) , focusing on potentially suitable habitat areas and providing conclusions on the presence or likelihood of occurrence of the subspecies on the Site . ( 15) To provide a determination on the occurrence of Alameda Whipsnake on the Site, Dr . Samuel M. McGinnis conducted a detailed trapping study of potentially suitable habitat for the Whipsnake, after the DEIR was prepared. The study was conducted between March 24 and July 1 , 1989 , encompassing the major activity period of the Whipsnake, in an effort to clarify and amplify the information in the DEIR. Surveys were concentrated in the two areas where stands of chaparral vegetation occur within or adjacent to proposed development, in the vicinity of proposed lots 12 and 13 (Area A) , and the area encompassing proposed lot 9 and the surrounding proposed open space (Area B) . A copy of the report and exhibits are contained in Appendix R-A of the Response Document . During the study, Dr . McGinnis trapped Alameda Whipsnake on six different occasions (one recapture) , all of which were from Area B in the vicinity of proposed lot 9 . Dr . McGinnes concluded that Area B may be one of several feeding areas within the annual foraging range of the snake rather than a specific home or denning site and that the area encompassing proposed lots 4-7 may represent a marginal area within the foraging range of the snake . ( 16) The Response Document concluded that due to the lack of information on the life history of the subspecies and the absence of successful trapping within the marginal area, Dr . McGinnis ' conclusions regarding the marginal area were speculative . It is reasonable to conclude that based on the absence of captures , Whipsnake apparently do not occur in the vicinity of proposed lots 12 and 13 ; and based on the frequency and extent of captures , the area in the vicinity of proposed lot 9 appears to provide the only important habitat for the snake on the site . Although Whipsnake have typically been reported from chaparral habitat , the status report for the species indicates that they may occur in any inner coast range 44 plant community, including grasslands , open woods , on rocky slopes , and along open streams (Ellis , 1987) . The suitability of the mosaic of grassland, scrub and woodland vegetation in the area of proposed lots 41-7 has not been demonstrated conclusively to be used by Whipsnake, nor has it been shown to be marginal habitat . Trapping within this portion of the site in the current study was apparently disrupted by cattle, which destroyed the only trap line in the area (McGinnis , 1989 ) . Given the long presence of cattle in prior years in that area, it is questionable whether the area of proposed lots 4-7 was ever used during that time as Whipsnake habitat . However , additional survey efforts in this area will be conducted to determine whether. this area is within the foraging territory of the Whipsnake . ( 17) Dr . McGinnis proposes certain mitigation measures regarding the relocation of habitat (Snake report at p. 6 , 1f 1( a)-(b) ) should subsequent studies reveal the presence of the Whipsnake near proposed lots 4 through 7 . Such mitigation measures impose minimum burdens on Blackhills and therefore shall be emplloyed and imposed as conditions to subsequent Project approvalls prior to final Project approval if it is determined that the Alameda Whipsnake forages in the area of lots 4-7 . ( 18) The area encompassing proposed lot 9 represents a small portion of the known foraging habitat of the Alameda Whipsnake : It is the opinion of the biologist for the EIR that proposed lot 9 should be retained as undeveloped open space . ( 19�) The proposed Project would not eliminate potentially suitable habitat for California Tiger Salamander and redlegged frog (both identified as species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game, and candidate species for federal listing. ) Due to the degraded condition of Sycamore Creek to the north of the existing residents , and the absence of large pools along the portion of the Creek channel , this area is at best marginal habitat for California Tiger Salamander , and Project implementation would not represent a significant adverse impact on this species . However , 1the lower 250 feet of Sycamore Creek may provide . suitable habitat and shall remain open and undisturbed. (20) According to the EIR, the proposed Project may eliminate marginal foraging habitat for the Golden Eagle on portions of the Sete . There are no Golden Eagle nests on Site or in the vicinity. The proposed development will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Golden Eagle. Because of the limited spacial extent of the Project and its location 45 adjacent to a residential neighborhood, the impact is not considered to be significant . Rather , it is an unavoidable, insignificant adverse impact of the proposed Project . Impacts , ....if any, on other native bird species shall be determined and mitigation measures adopted prior to final project approval . (21 ) Trees of significant size, particularly native species , shall be retained and incorporated into the design of the Project to the degree possible, with the limits and extent of grading modified as to the extent feasible to preserve both individual trees and areas of tree cover . The Draft EIR recommended a detailed tree survey to accurately map the location, size and species of trees in the area proposed for development and to serve as the basis for modification of the grading plan, indicating areas where existing ground contours should be maintained to the degree possible . The EIR discusses particular areas in which proposed grading should be eliminated or modified to accommodate native trees of significant size . A detailed tree inventory was prepared by the Applicant and will be used in preparing the grading plan to retain individual tress to the degree possible . (22) The EIR also recommends that landscaping in the proposed open space areas and along the riparian corridor on the Site should utilize native plant species to enhance the wildlife habitat value of these areas . Graded slopes should be seeded with a mixture of plant species common to the grassland on the Site, including perennial grasses and forbs . Vegetation along the riparian corridor should consist of both native tree and shrub species". (23) The Project ' s landscape architect envisions a landscape plan which will incorporate along the entrance way informal groupings of Sycamore trees . The proposed trees for the internal streetscape include sycamore, liquid amber , ash, flowering cherry and maple . Proposed graded slopes adjacent to the Project ' s open space will be contour rounded and planted with native grasses of the same varieties as the existing undisturbed sloped. In addition, a native tree augmentation plan will be incorporated as part of the final landscape plan which will designate the planting of 15-gallon oak clusters to supplement and blend with the existing oak cover .which exists in various locations on this Site . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) Proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 shall not be developed, and shall be retained as open space . 46 (2) The impact of the Project upon biotic resources shall be alvoided or mitigated to a level - of insignificance by the above-described mitigation measures as well as subsequent additional mitigation measures and/or Project modifications which shall guide future County approval decisions , which shall be imposed on subsequent Project approvals prior to final Project approval and which shall require that riparian vegetation, Sycamore Creek and large native trees be protected, ipreserved and made Project features , where feasible . To the extent that the recommended mitigation measures are not incorporated into this General Plan Amendment , the recommended mitigation measures relate to specific subsequent development plans which will be addressed and acted upon by this Board prior to' final Project approval ; it is not feasible to impose such speicific mitigation measures at this General Plan Amendment stage . (3) Additional findings regarding the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project on wildlife habitat and endangered species are set forth in Section III and IV, below. F. Geology and Grading. (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s impacts on geology and grading are discussed at pages 87-98 in the DEIR, in several public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. The primary geotechnical considerations to be addressed throughout Project approvals are expansive materials , local ground water conditions, landslides , debris flows , excavation conditions , and earthquake risks . (2) Areas of significant grading are in the outcrop belt of miocene marine sedimentary rocks .(chiefly sandstone) . The .slope stability of this rock is far superior to the miocene non'-marine rocks which occur in most developed areas of the San Ramon and Tassajara Valleys . -(3)� Subsequent to the preparation of the DEIR, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants ( "BGC" ) prepared a geotechnical report (dated July 19 , 1989 ) for the Project to clarify geologic hazards and amplify the recommendations for Project development . According to BGC report , debris flow source areas are located east and west of the Site . There are debris flow source areas upslope from the proposed residential lots; the soils in the hillsides overlooking the property are silty clays and .clayey silts . Sandy soils present a greater debris flow hazard because they are less cohesive and tend to 47 travel at relatively higher velocities and travel further out valley floor areas . (4 ) The BGC report contains recommendations pertaining to site grading, drainage, foundation and pavement design. BGC ' s overall assessment is that with appropriate engineering measures , geology and grading risks can be kept to an acceptable minimum. BGC particularly concludes and recommends : ( i) that specific delineated precautions be taken regarding expansive materials to ensure against distress to building foundations , floor slabs and exterior flat work; ( ii) that there are no on-Site faults which pose a risk of ground rupture; ( iii) that building of structures to applicable code standards will reduce risks of damage due to ground shaking to a level compatible with those recommended for Seismic Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Code ( 1985) ; ( iv) that liquifaction is not a geologic hazard on the Project Site; (v) that the risk of lurching, ground spreading and ground subsidence on the Project Site is remote; (vi) that the risks posed by earthquake induced landslides can be fully avoided or mitigated by the removal and replacement of unstable earth as well as the construction of designed permanent slopes ; and (vii ) that debris flow risks of the Project are considered ''moderate" to "high, " but that remediation of such hazards is technically feasible and available through a number of alternatives, including grading and earthwork (buttresses and subdrains) ; landslide removal followed by restoration of the material as engineered fill ; debris deflectors to protect structures which may be in the path of future debris avalanches or rapid flows; setbacks of structures from hazardous areas; the establishment of drainage devices and easements to enable maintenance; and a chain link debris fence to protect proposed lots 12 and 13 and their access from boulders from upslope . ( 5) In a staff report dated November 7 , 1989 , the County' s Planning Geologist determined that the recommendations in the BGC report provide satisfactory protection and should be adopted as conditions of approval . ( 6) A separate but related concern raised by the EIR is legal liability for possible slides . The annexation of the Project to an existing Geologic Hazard Abatement District ( "GHAD" ) , or the establishment of a new CHAD would provide maintenance and repairs for future landslide movements . The GHAD is an assessment district for the purpose of preventing, mitigating, abating or controlling geologic hazards and can also provide maintenance for erosion control , other open space improvements or other public improvements . This would include cleaning and maintenance of any structures installed in the Project to protect improvements from the effects of debris flows (e . g. deflection walls , containment 48 structures etc . ) . Blackhills has proposed annexation into the existing GRAD or , in the alternative, establishment of a separate GHAD. The GHAD would address concerns regarding liability for possible future geologic hazards . ( 7) The Draft EIR recommends that when a lot line is established between the State Park and private open space, consideration should be given to the known or inferred extent of landslides . Ideally, slides which could threaten the subdivision and all graded slopes should remain in private ownership. Through conservation easements and protective measures , the wildlife value and other attributes of the private open space lands could be assured. i (8) The Site is located in the eastern portion of the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region . The nearest active faults pass approximately 3 . 5 miles to the west , seven miles to the east and six miles to the north of the Project Site . Other Bay Area faults that are sufficiently near the study area to trigger damaging levels of ground shaking include the Hayward and San Andreas Faults . It can be anticipated that improvements on the Site would be subject to the effects of at least one high magnitude earthquake during the useful life of the proposed development . The site would undergo "strong". to "weak" ground shaking in the event of a Richter magnitude 7 . 0 earthquake originating on the Calaveras Fault . This "strong" shaking is forecast for alluvial sites on the valley floor; "weak" for bedrock areas . A similar magnitude earthquake on more distant faults could also produce damaging levels of ground shaking. At these intensities , even modern woodframe structures may be subject to structural damage . If a large earthquake occurs nearby, some buildings could be damaged by ground Ishaking and the secondary effects of ground shaking ( including disruption of utilities , road failure and fire) . (b) Findings . Based upon the EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : i ( 1 ) Proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 shall not be developed. i (2) The geology and grading impacts of the Project will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the employment of the currently-accepted standards of geotechnical engineering and design practices and other mitigation measures recommended in the BGC report (with the exception that cut slopes for the three southwest lots be 3 : 1 (H :V) unless retained by structural walls) which will be i i 49 'adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent Project approvals prior to final Project approval . These measures relate to specific grading or development plans which will be considered by this Board relative to such subsequent Project approvals . It is not feasible to consider and actually impose them at this General Plan Amendment stage of the process . G. Visual Quality and Design. 1 . Long and short range views . ( a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project ' s impacts on visual quality and .design are discussed on pages 99-107 of the DEIR, in several public comments and responses , and in other portions of the administrative record . ( 2 ) The Project will be visible from within the Mt . Diablo State Park as visitors travel on Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard/South Gate Road . The General Plan identifies the roadway as a " scenic , rural recreation route . '' Proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 are visible to northbound traffic on a segment of Blackhawk Road, which is designated as a scenic collector . street . (3 ) A large number of the existing residences within the Blackhawk development are also visible from the vantage point chosen for the EIR analysis . The addition of the proposed homes within the Blackhills development will have no further impact on the view corridor : from South Gate Road. Extensive revegetation during grading, and screening-type landscaping after home construction will soften views . Any view of the Project from South Gate Road will gradually be softened by use of earth tones and nonreflective building materials and landscaping . Downscoping grading and preserving trees within the development area also will be beneficial . ( 4 ) The EIR recommends either eliminating proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 or redesigning the grading concept to eliminate, or nearly eliminate their building pads . The residences could be set into the terrain, with grading limited largely to the foundation areas of the residences . ( 5) In order to promote revegetation growth on any south-facing graded slopes , Blackhills proposes to uti '. ize maintenance personnel during the first summer season after installation to ensure the establishment of the revegetation program. The proposed plant palette for 50 revegetation of all - slopes will utilize native plant materials indigenous to the area, which require little water . The plant materials proposed will be drawn from the EBMUD water conserving guideline booklet . ( 6) Contour grading will be required on the perimeter of the development where the graded area meets permanent open space . within the development , graded slopes will parallel side yard and rear yard property lines . In these areas contour grading is not required. ( 7 ) The visual impact of future residences on existing residences cannot be evaluated at present because the siting and height of future residences is not known . The assumptions made by the architect for the EIR assume a large ( 4 , 000 sq. ft . ) , two-story residence on each lot . This approach was useful for generally characterizing the visual effects of the Project . It is not the duty of the EIR to prepare sections or renderings from each potential vantage point and, because the specific design of future residences is not known in detail , such sections could be misleading , Only two Blackhawk residences will share a property line with a developed lot in the Blackhills Project. Additionally, a split-level pad is recommended on proposed lot 1 . (8) Mitigation proposed by Blackhills and discussed in the EIR for visual impacts of the Project is the dedication of 900 of the Site to permanent public and private open space use . This will buffer the Project and the distance from vantage points will soften views . Blackhills has indicated a willingness to contour round engineered slopes and use feasible biotechnical slope stabilization to revegetate graded slopes . (9 ) The above-described Agreement between Blackhills and the Blackhawk Association will help to ensure continuity and compatability between Blackhills and Blackhawk . ( 10) Following development , short-range views of the Site from Blackhawk Country Club would be dominated by engineered slopes and residential development . After landscape plans become established, and with revegetation of graded slopes , short-range views of the Site would be similar to views of residential projects in the vicinity. The development would be visible from some locations along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, although glimpses of development on (proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17) the higher elevations of the Site potentially visible from Blackhawk Road, will be prevented by precluding development on those lots . Views from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard would be similar to existing views of the 51 Blackhawk Development . - Other short-range views will be similar to existing views . Any view impacts from other locations , such as Mt . Diablo , will be insignificant when considered in relation to the overall existing views . ( 11 ) In adopting mitigation measures for this General Plan Amendment or subsequent development approvals, this Board is subject to Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092( c) , which require that this Board not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there are other feasible specific mitigation measures available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation . The number of units allowed by this General Plan Amendment is a maximum figure; the actual number of units which may be allowed will not be determined until the subsequent development plan stage . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) As set forth below in Section III , the visual impact of the loss of open space, while unavoidable, is not significant . (2) To the extent that such impacts are determined significant, they will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the above-described mitigation measures to will be incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions to subsequent Project approvals , prior to final Project approval , at the time that this Board considers such approvals . (3) Appropriate mitigation measures are available and will provide a level of mitigation comparable to the proposed reduction in the number of lots . This Board accordingly rejects the reduction in the number of lots as a specific mitigation measure in connection with this General Plan Amendment . H . Drainage and Flood Hazards . (a) Facts . ( 1) The EIR discusses the Project ' s impact on drainage and flood hazards on pages 108-122 of the DEIR, and in several public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. 52 (2) The hydrology work to date is not for final design purposes . Rather , it was intended to provide order of magnitude information that could be used in preliminary Site planning . Final hydrology studies would be performed following approval of the preliminary development plan, and after receiving input from the County Flood Control District and Planning Commilssion . (3 ) The Site ' s surface soils are relatively impermeable and the Site has a low infiltration rate and a high ratio of runoff lrainfall . A substantial portion of rainfall runs off the surface shortly after it falls , carrying surface materials with it . The Site is assumed to have very limited groundwater resources . Residential development of the Site would have a negligible effect on groundwater recharge and quality. . In its list of unavoidable adverse impacts , the EIR states that surface runoff from the Site will contain some detergents , grease, oil , litter and other substances . Such impurities are not toxic to fish and wildlife in concentrations common to suburban development . However , they do constitute a minor , although insignificant , adverse cumulative impact . Neither this nor any other unavoidable adverse impacts are listed in the EIR as significant . ( 4 ) The grading and development proposed for the Project Site will increase peak runoff on Sycamore Creek by one percent ( 1%) ; an insignificant amount . For the 25-year storm, peak flows at the south boundary of the Project would increase from 640 to 646 cfs; for the 100-year storm, peak flows would increase from 879 to 888 cfs . ( 5) Blackhills ' proposed drainage approach includes possible culverting of a portion of the existing channel of Sycamore Creek; possible construction of a low-flow channel through the Project; constructing a storm drain system that will carry runoff that exceeds the capacity of the low-flow channel ; employing landscape plantings along .the low-flow channel to compensate for loss of vegetation that currently exists along Sycamore Creek; and the possible construction of a detention basin which would be designed so that peak flows from the Site after buildout of the Project would- not increase over existing volumes . Drainage improvements , including culverts , low-flow channels and detention basins would be owned by the private property owners and/or the homeowners association and they, or a maintenance district, would be responsible for necessary maintenance . ( 6) The increase in runoff resulting from the Blackhills Project may not cause peak flows to exceed the design criteria for the existing basin in the County Club . According to the EIR, from a hydrologic standpoint , a basin may 53 not be needed on the Blackhills Site . A Blackhills basin could serve as a sediment trap thereby reducing maintenance costs for the downstream basin . Based on these facts , the EIR recommends that prior to further drainage studies and approval of the preliminary development plan, the County Flood Control District should provide its recommendations on the advisability of a detention basin and on the appropriate location and design criteria . ( 7) The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ' s comments on the Draft EIR states that a permanent public entity such as a benefit assessment district would guarantee perpetual maintenance of any proposed detention basin . Based on this and other comments from the District , the Response Document recommends that if a detention basin is built , that an additional mitigation measure may be the formation of a public entity (e .g . , a benefit assessment district) to ensure the long-term maintenance of the detention basin and other drainage facilities in the Project . Blackhills proposes annexation into the existing Blackhawk Maintenance District (M-23) if appropriate . ( 8) New development in the Sycamore Creek watershed aggravates the existing flooding problem in San Ramon Creek between Livorna and Chaney Roads . To mitigate this impact , developers are required to either construct improvements on this segment of the San Ramon Creek or they may elect to make a cash payment at the rate of $0 . 10/square foot of new impervious surface created . Within twelve months of receipt of a contribution, the District guarantees to use the monies to implement drainage improvements . (9) Approximately 12 acres of the Site are within an area susceptible to debris flows . To mitigate this impact, the EIR recommends evaluating the location of any detention basin during future design work . A debris basin, if needed, could be designed to serve as a debris flow basin/sedimentation basin .only, or it could be engineered to also serve as a detention basin for flood waters . ( 10) The EIR also recommends requiring ' an erosion control plan prior to processing the grading permit . The erosion control plan objectives are : to prevent sediment from graded areas from entering Sycamore Creek; to prevent sediment from impacting streets , private lots or permanent open space in Blackhawk; and stabilization and -revegetation of graded slopes , especially high cut slopes or fill slopes . The EIR states that over the long term, hydroseeding of steep, high graded slopes may not be an effective means of controlling raveling, hill erosion and sloughing. Therefore, biotechnical slope stabilization 54 measures should be considered, including establishment of some deeper rooted, drought tolerant vegetation that would thrive on poor soils . California native vegetation, such as California Buckeye and Ceanothus would be candidate species . ( 11 ) Runoff caused by the low-flow channel will pass through two culverts in the Project . There is some possibility that either of these culverts could become plugged with debris or that for storms exceeding the 25-year event, flows exceeding the capacity of culverts could occur and cause flooding. As mitigation for this impact , the EIR recommends that development should be graded so that excess flows may be carried through the area without causing damage to structures . Proposed lot pads could be elevated sufficiently so that any excess flows could be carried through the streets . A maintenance district would be one mechanism for checking and removing any debris that may plug the culverts . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) The Project ' s impacts on drainage and flood hazard potential are insignificant or will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of mitigation measures as conditions to subsequent Project approvals , prior to final Project approval . To the extent that specific avoidance or mitigation measures are not hereby imposed or made a part of the General Plan Amendment , this Board determines that such measures will depend on Project configuration as reflected in a subsequent specific development plan which this Board will consider prior to final Project approval ; it is not feasible to impose specific avoidance or mitigation measures at this General Plan Amendment stage . I . Air Quality. (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s air quality impacts are discussed on pages -123 through 126 of the Draft .EIR, the public comments and County responses and in other portions of the administrative record. (2) The EIR states that air quality in southern Contra Costa County is generally good, with measured concentrations of pollutants , consistently below applicable standards . The San Francisco Bay Area exceeds three national ambient. air quality standards : The entire Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for ozone; only Alameda County 55 is a nonattainment area for total suspended particulates ; and San Jose, Vallejo and Oakland are nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide . (3 ) The effects of Project-related construction activity would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of total suspended particulates . Dustfall would be a nuisance at neighboring properties where it would soil exposed surfaces , requiring more frequent washing during the construction period. Fugitive dust would be emitted both during construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces . Clearing and earth moving activities would comprise the major source of construction dust emissions , but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate significant dust emissions . (4 ) As mitigation for these impacts , the EIR recommends watering, the normal method of dust control on construction sites , which would reduce emissions by about 50% . In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ' s ( "BAAQMD" ) Regulation No . 2 includes dust control requirements with which Blackhills should comply. BAAQMD inspection for compliance only occurs if a complaint is received . The County Building Inspection Department would have responsibility for processing the grading and building permits , and would have primary responsibility for enforcing dust control requirements . If dust becomes a problem, the Building Inspection Department is authorized to shut the job down until effective measures are undertaking by the builder and his grading contractor . ( 5) The Project would have a permanent effect on automobile traffic patterns and volumes , emission patterns and emission rates . Although these increases would not be considered significant by themselves , according to the EIR they would contribute to the cumulative degradation of regional air quality. Combustion of natural gas for heating and other household uses would also generate small amounts of pollutants . Use of fireplaces would increase total suspended particulate levels . Sewage generated on the Site would generate a proportionate share of emissions from the CCCSD sewage treatment plant in „Martinez . ( 6) The EIR states that the Project ' s local and regional impacts can be reduced through traffic flow improvements . Because pollutant emission rates are increased by congestion, any roadway or intersection improvements that increase average speed, reduce congestion or reduce vehicle idling can be considered air quality mitigation measures . Mechanisms are in place to make improvements to correct the roads in the area and the Project will participate through the 56 payment of fees (Blackhills would be required to .pay fees to make improvements to the road network linking the Site with I-680 , including County-wide area of benefit for road improvements , etc . ) . ( 7) Additional recommended mitigation measures include liberal planting of street trees and other roadside landscaping; chimney devices which trap ash; and reduction of vehicle miles and vehicular traffic via improved mass bus service and encouragement of carpools . ( 8) As discussed in the EIR' s discussion of unavoidable and . irreversible adverse impacts, the effects of the Project on air quality are considered to be minor , insignificant cumulative impacts . Furthermore, as reflected in the Response Document , the Project would introduce no new stationary air pollution sources to the Project area and, within the setting of recent continuing development in the San Ramon Valley area, the maximum 40 Project units could not be expected to result in air pollution which would be individually measurable within the overall regional air basin. Therefore, while the Project would have minor cumulative impacts , it would not result in significant air quality impacts within the air basin. Analysis of the air quality impacts of cumulative, area-wide residential development is beyond the scope of the EIR. (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) This Board' s findings relating to air quality impacts as potentially unavoidable impacts are set forth in Section III , below and in its Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IV, below. (2) The .remaining air quality impacts of the Project will either be insignificant or avoided or reduced to a level insignificance by the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures discussed above . The recommended mitigation measures- are- either incorporated into this General Plan Amendment or will be incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions to subsequent Project approvals which will be considered by this Board. To the extent that the recommended mitigation measures are not incorporated into this . General Plan Amendment , the recommended mitigation measures relate to subsequent specific development plans which this Board will consider prior to final Project approval ; it is not feasible to impose such specific avoidance or mitigation measures at this General Plan Amendment stage . 57 J . Cultural Resources . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project ' s impacts on cultural resources are discussed on pages 127 through 130 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. (2) A record search indicated that there are no known archaeologic sites on the south flank of Mt . Diablo, which includes the Project Site . (3 ) No cultural resources have been recorded on the Site and no aboriginal archaeologic materials were found. Furthermore, the field reconnaissance revealed no evidence of archaeologic resources in the Project area . The EIR indicates , however , that there is always some potential that buried archaeologic material or prehistoric cultural resources will be uncovered by future earth moving . All personnel involved in future excavation should be warred of this potential . ( 4 ) The EIR recommends that if prehistoric materials are uncovered during development of the Site, all work within 100 feet of the find should be stopped, and the County Community Development Department should be notified within 24 hours . Blackhills should be required to retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the find . The archaeologist should prepare a report that documents the investigation and provides- recommendations for any mitigation measures that may be deemed necessary. ( 5) There are no sites or structures in the vicinity of the Site which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Inventory of Historic Resources . The County Community Development Department has compiled an inventory of historic sites and architectural specimens that are of local significance . Of the four sites/structures of local significance which are located within approximately two miles of the Site, only one, the site of Charles Gardiner Goold ' s home, is on the Site . There is no evidence of. the home, and its precise location is uncertain . ( 6) The EIR' s listing of unavoidable impacts of the Project doe's not include any impacts relating to cultural resources . 58 (b) Findings . Based upon the EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) The impacts of this Project upon cultural resources are not significant . There are no known archaeological or prehistoric cultural resources on the Site . (2) To the extent that archaeological , historic or prehistoric cultural resources are subsequently found on the Site, any impacts of this Project on cultural resources may be significant , such impacts will be mitigated to insignificance by the imposition of the above-described mitigation measure . The mitigation measures recommended in the EIR will be incorporated into the Project or imposed as a condition to subsequent Project approvals prior to final Project approval . The mitigation measures relate to specific development plan applications , and it is not feasible to impose the recommended mitigation measure until specific development plans are applied for and considered . K. Noise . ( a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s noise impacts are discussed in the DEIR on pages 131 through 134 , the public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. Because much of the proposed development .is sheltered from other development areas by topography noise impacts on and from the Site will be minor and insignificant . (2) The Site is located within an area that has some exposure to automobile noise associated with traffic on Blackhawk Road to the south and Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard to the northwest . However , the exterior noise levels on the Site fall within the "acceptable" range according to Noise Element Guidelines adopted by the California Office of Noise Control . On-Site noise typical of a residential project could have a very ,minor ...impac.t on .visito.rs to the State Park . The Project as proposed contains a buffer zone of private open space between the residential uses and the land slated for State Park dedication which will assure that noise levels will be acceptable for existing and proposed uses . Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed or required. (3) On-Site noise levels will be similar to existing noise levels in the adjacent residential area, a logical assumption considering the similarity of the proposed 59 development , and the Project , after completion of short-term construction noise, will be consistent with General Plan noise standards . Construction work schedules have been determined by the Agreement with the Blackhawk Association to avoid construction noise before 7 : 30 a .m. and after 5 : 00 p .m, and on weekends and holidays . (4) The residential property south of the residential area, along with adjacent portions of the State `Park would be the primary receptors for temporary construction noise . For a period of weeks , sporadic noise levels of 60 to 80 (Summary says 60-70) dBA could be experienced at locations within approximately 200 feet of work areas . In particular , the initial site preparation scrapers , bulldozers , loaders , backhoes and large dump trucks would generate noise levels presented in Table XIV of the Draft EIR. ( 5) After site preparation and foundation laying, primary noise sources will be material delivery trucks and power tools used for carpentry. Because construction work primarily would be done during normal working hours and would be of short duration, construction is unlikely to create a serious noise problem. ( 6) The EIR recommends as a mitigation restricting construction activity to Monday through Friday, 8 : 00 a .m. to 5 : 00 p.m. for all work locations within 500 feet .of the Blackhawk Country C1ub 'Development; using modern equipment with noise-quieting design and shielding any stationary sources of high-intensity noise with plywood or the equivalent . ( 7) According to the Response Document , animal species that are sensitive to noise would be, alarmed by noise and man' s presence on the site . Some may be scared off during construction and some may not return. However , even in species that are sensitive to noise, many individual animals .will become .accustomed to the noise and gradually reinhabit the surrounding open space areas . Because parklands are hundreds of feet from the proposed residential area, Project-related noise would not be significant . (8) The EIR lists as an unavoidable and irreversible adverse impact the Project ' s minor , cumulative noise impacts . (b) Findings . Based upon the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : 60 ( 1 ) This Board ' s findings regarding noise impacts as potentially unavoidable impacts are set forth in Section III , below, and in its Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V, below. (2) The noise impacts of this Project are either insignificant or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the above-described mitigation measures . Supervision o construction by the Building Inspection Department is incorporated into the Project by operation of County rules and regulations . The remaining mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions of approval in connection with subsequent development approvals . To the extent that the recommended mitigation measures are not incorporated into this General Plan Amendment , the recommended mitigation measures relate to subsequent specific development plans rather than the general designations of this General Plan Amendment; it is not feasible to impose these mitigation measures in connection with this General Plan Amendment . III . OTHER CEQA FINDINGS A. Growth Inducing Impact . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Project ' s potential growth-inducing impacts are discussed at page 135 of the DEIR, in the public comments and County responses and in other portions of the administrative record. (2) The Site is an island, bounded to the south by Blackhawk, and to the north, east and west by Mt . Diablo State Park . The private open space lands in Blackhawk are deed restricted, so that further development is not feasible . Similarly, lands in Mt . Diablo State Park are not subject to development pressures . Therefore, action on the pending application will not induce growth in the immediate area beyond this Site . (3) Blackhills proposes to develop on the floor of a valley on the Site, similar in character to the adjacent Blackhawk project . The entire Site could be added to the State Park, but the State has no plans to purchase the property at this time . The correspondence from the State does not express opposition to a well-planned development on the valley floor area . 61 (4) Given the Projects ' small size, it will not create a need for neighborhood services and businesses not already existing or planned for the Blackhawk area . ( 5) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 states that the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action relate to the economic or population growth which occurs beyond that of the immediate project . Development of the Project would not involve the extensions of roadways or utility facilities which would accommodate additional development beyond the Site, and the Site would be completely surrounded by either existing development or the State Park . The Project ' s dedication of all open land surrounding it as well as its adjacency to Blackhawk and Mt. Diablo State Park will effectively prevent any such subsequent growth. Hence, the Project will have no growth-inducing impacts . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts -herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The Project will not have a growth-inducing impact and any growth-inducing impacts will be insignificant . B . Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . 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 unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project . This Board finds that each significant impact not listed in the Final EIR section addressing unavoidable and irreversible impacts is determined to be capable of avoidance or mitigation to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR. 1 . Loss Of Agricultural Productivity. (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The Draft EIR states that the Site is currently used as visual open space, that it is suitable for grazing and portions are suitable for dry land farming of small grains , and that development of the Property would result only in an incremental loss of these agricultural lands . The Important Farmland Map issued by the State indicates that the Site is not designated prime farm land, although it does appear on the County' s Important Farmland Map . 62 (2) However , the development of the Site will not result in the loss of viable agricultural land . From a practical standpoint , the Site has not been used in recent years nor does it appear suitable for farming or other agricultural uses . Although cattle graze on portions of the Site when crossing back and forth over unfenced boundaries between the State Park and the Blackhawk open space, the Project Site owner does not specifically operate an agricultural enterprise on the Site . Although there may be a loss of open space, there will be little if any loss of economically viable agricultural property. (3) Further , the Site is not in an agricultural preserve, and its agricultural capability is limited . Specifically, the nearly flat lying floor area is mantled by prime agricultural soil suitable for dryland grain and range . The remainder of the Site consists exclusively of non-prime soils on steep slopes suitable for range, wildlife habitat and watershed. Use of the Site for range can lead to loss of its . . . viability as wildlife habitat . The size of the area mantled by prime soils is approximately 15 acres , which is:. too small to support commercial agriculture . (4) Existing development at Blackhawk creates additional problems , due to the proximity of the agricultural lands to such residential uses , including domestic animals chasing cattle, trash dumping, trespassers, hunting, broken fences , pesticide and herbicide restrictions , fly and odor complaints from nearby residents , etc . ( 5) In summary, the Site would not provide an economic, self-sustaining agricultural use, and most of the existing open space value of the Site can be saved by preserving the higher elevations of the Site and by a sensitive design within the Project . There is a strong demand for housing in the Central County area . If "infilling" is not allowed on sites such as the valley floor of the Site, there could be added development pressure on outlying, more valuable ( and viable) agricultural land. (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1-) The incremental loss of potential agricultural lands is not significant . The Site currently is used primarily as visual open space, and is not presently used for ( and would likely not sustain) an economically viable agricultural_ use . 63 2 . Community Facilities . . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The development of a residential subdivision on the Site would require a variety of community services . Approval of the Project implies a commitment to provide the services required by a suburban population . There could be long-term costs to the Town of Danville, such as the cost of providing park and recreation facilities . These costs may be offset by sales taxes paid to the Town by Project residents and by other Project fees and dedications imposed as conditions of subsequent development approvals . (2) Services are available, or could be provided, to the proposed development and although the Project would have a minor cumulative contribution to the long-term demand for area-wide services , it would not individually or cumulatively result in significant utility service or community facilities impacts . (3) State law limits the ability of this Board to reject or modify this Project based on school impacts and. the developer of this Project will be required to pay a school impact fee which may be used to fund school improvements . (4) The utilities and other service providers who will serve the Project have sufficient capacity to provide service to the Project . (b) Findings. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) To the extent that the Project ' s impact on demand for community services is unavoidable, it is insignificant . As discussed in the EIR and in Section III of these findings , the Project ' s sewer and water supply impacts are insignificant . With respect to schools, school fees would " be -applied to each residence to mitigate any impacts of residential development on school facilities . With respect to other public services, the appropriate service providers have indicated that there is sufficient capacity to serve the Project . (2) To the extent that the Project ' s impact on demand for community services is potentially significant, this impact of the Project will be mitigated by several features which are a part of , or which will be 64 j, incorporated into, the Project during subsequent development approvals . These features include the mitigation measures for water , sewer , schools , fire protection and police protection, and other services discussed in Section II of these findings , as well as other mitigation measures which will be imposed as conditions to subsequent Project approvals . 3 . Traffic And Circulation. ( a) Facts . ( 1 ) Development of the property would generate an estimated 400 average daily trips , nearly all of which would be oriented toward the west. This would represent a minor cumulative increase in traffic volumes on roadways linking the Site to I-680 . (2) Construction traffic will present a minor unavoidable impact which will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by adherence by Blackhills to the "construction traffic" provisions of the Agreement between Blackhills and the Blackhawk Association, described herein . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) This impact of the Project, while unavoidable, is not significant . The Project ' s impact on traffic is minor , and the traffic fees generated by the Project will lead to roadway and traffic improvements which will mitigate the Project ' s individual and cumulative impacts and also help to relieve pre-existing traffic problems . (2) Any conditions of approval and mitigation measures discussed herein and imposed upon future -development approvals would further reduce the Project ' s impacts upon traffic to a level of insignificance . Thus , to the extent that this impact of the Project is potentially significant, this impact may still be mitigated to a level of ins-ignificance---by--several- features -which. could be incorporated into the Project during subsequent development approvals . These features include the various mitigation measures .discussed in .Section II , above . ' 65 4 . Loss Of Visual Open Space . ( a) Facts . ( 1) The development would be visible from some locations along Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard and glimpses of the higher elevations of the Site are available from Blackhawk Road. Views from Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard would be similar to existing views of the Blackhawk .development, except the Blackhills project would be as much as 2 , 000 feet nearer the roadway. Following development , short-range views of the Site would be dominated by engineered slopes and residential development . After landscaped plants become established, and with revegetation of graded slopes , short-range views of the Site would be similar to views of residential projects in the vicinity. ( 2) The cumulative reduction of open space area would be an unavoidable adverse impact of the Project . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The loss of open space and the visual impact of that loss , while unavoidable, will not be significant . After landscaped plants become established and graded slopes are revegetated, short-range views of the site will be similar to views of existing nearby residential projects . Furthermore, the Project will help to preserve substantial open space on the Site, and the actual loss of open space, after landscaping and revegetation, will be limited to the residential lots themselves . (2) The above-described unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by several features which are a part of , or which would be incorporated into, the Project including Project changes made subsequent to the preparation of the EIR and mitigation measures adopted pursuant to subsequent development approvals . These features include the utilization of grading techniques, landscaping, placement and possible reduction in the number of residential lots and other design features which have yet to be approved by this Board. These features also include review of final maps and landscape plans by the appropriate County officials . 66 5 . Loss Of Habitat . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The cumulative impact of the increased presence of people and domestic animals on the site, along with grading, will result in an incremental loss of habitat value . In the area of Lot 9 , a special status plant and snake are known to occur in proximity to development . The effect of the Project on the creek channel would depend on the grading concept, setback of structures from the creek, and the wildlife value of landscape plant materials . The possible substitution of a portion of the creek with a low flow channel and planted vegetation for a natural creek represents a feasible mitigation measure . (2) As stated herein, proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 shall not be developed. (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) Lots 9 , 10 and 17 shall not be developed . (2) The impacts of the Project , without the development of lots 9 , 10 and 17 , while unavoidable, are not significant . Overall , the impact of the Project on the value of the wildlife habitat and plant habitat will depend in part on the final tentative map, grading and development plans which may ultimately be approved by this Board. There is. substantial development on property adjacent to the Site . (3 ) To the extent that these impacts are significant , they will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by several features which are a part of , or which would be incorporated into, the Project including Project changes made subsequent to the preparation of the EIR and mitigation--measur,es imposed. on subsequent project approvals . Such subsequent Project approvals shall be conditioned to require that : the riparian vegetation on the southern 250 feet of Sycamore Creek shall be protected and enhanced for natural wildlife potential ; the grading on the northern portion of the development area is limited to reflect the natural terrain; and efforts be made in Project design to respect the existing native riparian vegetation and large native trees , and that such be made project features . 67 s 6 . Water Quality. ( a) Facts . Surface runoff from the site will contain detergents , grease, oil , litter , and other substances . Such impurities are not toxic to fish and wildlife in concentrations common to suburban development . However , they do constitute a minor , adverse cumulative impact . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) This impact of the Project , while unavoidable, is not significant . Any impurities which are released into surface runoff as a result of the Project would not be toxic to fish and wildlife in concentrations common to suburban development . The EIR concludes that these impacts are "minor . '' (2) To the extent that this impact is significant , this impact of the Project will be mitigated by related drainage measures which will be made a part of the Project during subsequent development approvals by this Board. (3) 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 possibly under the no-project alternative, which alternative is rejected as described below. 7 . Construction-Related Problems . (a) Facts . ( 1) These problems include noise, ...'' dust,-- erosion, siltation, and construction traffic . Pursuant to the Agreement between Blackhills and the Blackhawk Association (described herein) and through the use of best .management.. practices , these problems will be controlled and kept to- a minimum. (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) These impacts of the Project , while unavoidable, are not significant . Proper management 68 . practices (as required by the Agreement) will control any problems associated with construction noise, dust , erosion, siltation and traffic to a minimum. Furthermore, most of these impacts will be of a temporary nature. (2) To the extent that these impacts are potentially significant , these impacts of the Project can be mitigated by measures discussed in the EIR and previously in these findings . These measures will be implemented in connection with future Project approvals , prior to final approval . 8 . Earthquake Hazards . (a) Facts . ( 1) Potential earthquake-caused damage is unavoidable . If a large earthquake occurs nearby, some buildings could be damaged by groundshaking and the secondary effects of groundshaking . The extent of damage would depend on many factors including characteristics of earthquake shaking, design and construction of the buildings , and height and steepness of engineered slopes . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) 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 risk, and routine construction practices minimize this risk . (2) To the extent the risk is considered significant, it will be mitigated by a level of insignificance by several features which will be incorporated into the Project by this Board during subsequent development approvals . These features include proper grading, design and construction practices and compliance with provisions of the Uniform Building Code .rel.at,ing .to seismic safety, which compliance is required of all developments such as this Project . Further , 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 . (3) The above-described adverse impact of the Project would similarly be an unavoidable and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the 69 Project identified in the Final EIR, except possibly under the no-project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more fully described 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. 9 . Energy Consumption. (a) Facts . ( 1 ) Development of the Site will involve direct use of energy for construction and indirect use for production of materials . Also , long-term energy input will be required for the operation of households , operation of public utilities, maintenance of project facilities , and operation of automobiles . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that ; ( 1 ) This impact of the Project , while unavoidable, is not significant . The impact of the Project is not significant relative to the similar impacts that any residential development project would have on energy consumption. (2) Alternatively, to the extent that this impact is significant , it will be mitigated by the imposition at .the time of subsequent development approvals of building .standards designed to increase energy efficiency of residential buildings . (3 ) The above-described impacts of the Project on energy conconsumpti.on would similarly be an unavoidable and irreversible impact under any of the alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except possibly under the no-project alternative, which. alternative is rejected 'as more fully described in Section VI , below. In ;;addition, .the .impacts of the Project on .energy consumption is an impact of almost any residential or other development project . 10 . Air Quality and Noise . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The effects of the Project on air quality and noise are minor , cumulative impacts . 70 . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) These impacts of the Project , while unavoidable, are not significant . (2) These minor cumulative impacts would be mitigated to a leval of insignificance by application at the appropriate stage of development approvals of the mitigation measures recommended for mitigation of air quality and noise impacts in Section II of these findings . (3) The above-described impacts of the Project would similarly be unavoidable and irreversible impacts under any of the alternatives to the Project identified in the Final EIR, except possibly under the no-project alternative, which alternative is rejected as more fully described below. C. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses Of The Environment And The Maintenance And Enhancement Of Long-Term Uses . 1 . Generally. (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is discussed at pages 137-139 of the DEIR, in public comments and County responses and in other portions of the administrative record. (2) The current General Plan recognizes that "general open space" is not permanent open space. The area proposed for residential development is not in a sewer district , and only a portion is in a water district . (3) The relatively level portions of the Site are restricted to the canyon floor, and the only -access =to -the., Site_ .is..via ,priv.a.te...ro.ads through the Blackhawk Country Club. Clearly, this access limits the development options for the Site . Under the prevailing General Plan designation, the owners could apply for a subdivision (minimum parcel size, five acres) . of ..up to 60 lots . The valley floor area could be developed, but the sloping hillside areas are poorly suited to development . Most of the five-acre lots on the valley floor could be served with domestic water without annexation to EBMUD, and soils in this area are generally suitable for septic systems . In this scenario, the steep 71 hillside portions of the 300-acre property would likely continue to serve as wildlife habitat and watershed land . ( 4) The State Park is over 17, 000 acres at present and. this application could add another 213 (or more) acres . If deed. restrictions were placed on private open space lands in the Blackhills project , 90 percent of the site (273 acres) would become permanent open space . ( 5) The EIR does not list any general significant impacts of the Project regarding the relationship between short-term and long-term uses of the environment and provides only the above general discussion . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The general impacts of the Project on the relationship between short-term and long-term uses of the environment are not significant relative to the similar ,impacts that any residential development project would have on short-term and long-term uses of the environment . (2) Alternatively, to the extent that these impacts are significant , they will be mitigated by the imposition at this time or at the time of subsequent -development approvals of the mitigation measures discussed elsewhere in this EIR, particularly under the Section II discussion of impacts on plans , ordinances and policies . (3) To the extent that these impacts are not insignificant , the environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any adverse impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , below. 2 . Jobs/Housing Balance . (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s impact on the development area ' s jobs/housing balance is discussed at page 138 of the DEIR, in public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. (2) In 1986 the Community Development Department issued a report entitled "Recent Growth Trends in Contra Costa County. " It indicated that 62, 900 jobs have been created in Contra Costa County since 1980 . The Association of 72 Bay Area Governments ( "ABAG" ) projects 142 , 500 new jobs in Contra Costa County during the period 1985-2005 . Much of the growth in jobs is occurring in San Ramon Valley communities (Danville, San Ramon) . (3) ABAG published a 20-year forecast by population, household, and employment figures . For the 20-year period, 1985-2005 , ABAG projects that employment will increase by 79 . 5% in Danville, 296 . 9% in San Ramon, and 57 . 6% in Alamo-Blackhawk . The county-wide increase over this time period is estimated at 60 . 4% . Thus , the communities in the San Ramon Valley can expect the job opportunities to increase from 20 , 400 in 1985 to 57,200 in the year 2005 ( a 180 . 4% increase) . . (4) Over the forecast period 1985-2005, ABAG projections indicate that the population of Contra Costa County will grow from 706 , 500 to 901 , 014 , an increase of 194 , 514 , or 27 . 5% . In the San Ramon Valley, Danville is expected to increase by 34 . 9% , San Ramon by 62 . 40-o , and Alamo-Blackhawk by 39 . 4% . This amounts to a population increase for the San Ramon Valley from 70 , 800 to 103 , 100 ( 45 . 5%) . . ( 5) The ABAG projections for the next 20 years are for 36 , 000 jobs to be created in the San Ramon Valley and for the population to grow by 32 ,300 . In the year 2005, the Valley is expected to have 57, 200 jobs and a population of 203 , 100 . These figures indicate that considerable population growth is anticipated in the San Ramon Valley planning area, which includes the Site . The ABAG projections indicate that the rate of job growth will outpace population growth during this period. Most of the jobs will be for professional people, or those in service-related files . ( 6) The EIR does not list any impacts of the Project on jobs/housing balance as significant in the above discussion of the jobs/housing current and forecasted setting. ( 7) One comment on the Draft EIR questions the sufficiency of the EIR' s jobs/housing analysis . The Response Document explains that compared with the general . level of recent and continuing growth in the San Ramon Valley area, the proposed 40-unit Project could not be expected to _ substantially influence the regional balance of employment and housing. Even if each of the 40 households were to generate two daily commute trips outside of the area, the resulting change in the level of regional traffic cannot specifically be analyzed within the context of regional study. Thus , in terms of the regional setting, the Project would result in minor , 73 .insignificant cumulative impact with regard to jobs/housing balance and commuter traffic . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) The adverse impact of the Project on the area jobs/housing balance is not significant . Residential development will help balance the present "jobs heavy" jobs/housing balance . 3 . Regional traffic . (a) Facts . ( 1) The Project ' s short-term versus .long-term impacts on regional traffic are discussed at page 139 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record . (2) Virtually any use of the Site will generate traffic and therefore have some cumulative impact on regional traffic . According to the traffic engineer for the EIR, the proposed project would generate 400 average daily trips (ADT) , nearly all of which would be oriented toward Danville, San Ramon, and I-680 . Diablo Road would remain a two-lane, winding rural road. The Danville General Plan does indicate improvements at the Diablo Road/Green Valley Road intersection are slated to be made within the next four (4) years . Most of the project traffic is expected to use Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road. Even with the planning improvements , peak-hour traffic on roads linking the Amendment Area with I-680 will experience increased congestion and delays as development occurs in the traffic corridor . These problems are due to the regional growth in traffic , and site-generated traffic is a minor component of the anticipated cumulative growth in traffic volumes . TJKM, Traffic Engineers, prepared a report that identifies Trivalley :Transportation .issues . Although not directly related to the proposed project , it provides a framework for examining the cumulative effects of development on traffic . This study forecasts the level-of-service at selected intersections at buildout of the Sycamore-Camino Tassajara area, along with Dougherty Valley. (3) According to CalTrans , I-680 currently carries a two-way a .m. peak hour traffic load of 8 , 743 trips , and a p.m. peak load of 10 , 082 trips . In the year 2010 , TJKM forecasts two-way peak hour traffic loads of 74 14 , 090 trips (a.m. ) and 15 , 460 trips (p.m. ) for this segment of I-680 . Improvements to I-680 , which are scheduled for construction in 1988-1990 will initially ease the flow on the freeway and Danville Boulevard/San Ramon Valley Boulevard . However , the gradual increase in traffic on I-680 will result in capacity problems and increased traffic on parallel routes . (b) Findings . Based. on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1 ) These project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on regional traffic are not significant . (2) To the extent that these impacts are significant, they will be mitigated by the imposition at the present time and at the time of .:subsequent development approvals of mitigation measures designed particularly to mitigate traffic impacts as discussed more fully in these Findings in Section II . D. Cumulative impacts . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The cumulative impacts of the Project are discussed throughout the DEIR, also on DEIR pages 139-140 , and in public comments , County responses , and in other portions of the administrative record. Likewise, these Findings address both project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project under each of the individual impact headings ( i . e . , traffic, . public services , etc . ) of Section II and in this Section. Also, according to the DEIR, a list of "Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts'' is given on pages 135-137 of the DEIR which, in effect, is a list of the cumulative impacts of the Project . (2) DEIR Figure 39 shows the proposed Project in relation to approved and proposed projects in the - :--urea . � The projects r-epres,ented by -the shaded pattern have received at least preliminary development approvals . Those represented by slanted, parallel lines are proposed projects that have not received preliminary development approvals . A development status report for the projects shown in Figure 39 is presented in DEIR Appendix E . It includes a listing of the lot yield (divided into single-family, patio and condominium units) , and status of the project as of the posted date. 75 (3) The primary cumulative impacts presented by these projects are related to traffic , loss of open space and loss of agricultural (grazing) lands . The traffic-related effects of cumulative development have been evaluated by TJKM, Transportation Consultants_. The EIR prepared for the Camino Tassajara GPA evaluated these cumulative traffic impacts . The reader is referred to that report for a comprehensive discussion of cumulative traffic and planned improvements . (4) The Blackhills Project is such a small component of regional traffic that its contribution to peak hour traffic can only. be identified at intersections .within two (2)miles of the Site . At greater distances it cannot be separated from regional traffic because it makes up less than 1% of peak hour volumes . . The effect of regional (cumulative) traffic is to cause increased congestion and delays . It also results in increased noise along collector streets .and increased vehicular emissions . ( 5) The County Noise Element ( 1975) identifies Blackhawk Road, Sycamore Valley Road, Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road, Alcosta Boulevard, and a segment of Diablo Road as significant noise sources ( i . e . , roads where noise intensities of greater than 60 dBA exist) . As the traffic volume gradually increases , the area impacted by 60 dBA is incrementally increased. Future traffic along feeder roads that are not currently designated as significant noise sources may impact frontage development with noise levels of 60 dBA or greater . Similarly, automobile emissions may increase along roads as traffic volumes increase . ( 6.) Eventually, signalization of more intersections is needed, along with other capacity-related road improvements . To address this problem, the County and Danville have reached an agreement regarding road improvements , and developers .in the Danville area and adjacent unincorporated areas are being required to pay a per-unit fee . The County has established a Countywide Area of Benefit for Road Improvements . Funds collected under this ordinance are used to make capacity-related improvements to collector streets in the unincorporated .area . (7) With regard to the cumulative loss of open space, the Town of Danville adopted its general plan in 1988 ; - and Contra Costa County adopted the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan in 1977 . These plans are intended to set land use policy of the respective planning areas . The Blackhills amendment would establish 90 percent of the 300-acre site as permanent open space . In this sense, the Blackhills 76 development could be considered implementation of the planning goals for open space . (b) Findings . Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Board finds that : ( 1) As discussed in these Findings for each type of project impact in Section II above, and in Section IV (unavoidable) . These cumulative impacts of the Project, while unavoidable, are not significant . ( 2) To the extent that any of the Project ' s cumulative impacts are determined significant , they will be mitigated by the imposition at the present time and at the time of subsequent development approvals of mitigation measures designed particularly to mitigate traffic impacts as discussed more fully in Section II . E . Alternatives . The Draft EIR discusses three (3 ) alternatives to the Project : the "no-project" alternative, the "environmentally superior" alternative, and the "reduced density'' alternative . The Final EIR also discusses why "alternative sites" are not available . This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project . This Board also recognizes that at this General Plan amendment stage of the development process it is impossible to forecast with certainty whether the Blackhills project will be approved, will be approved for the maximum density allowed by the General Plan Amendment or some lesser density, or whether the project as finally approved will involve the "worst-case" environmental impacts and scenarios discussed in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, these findings attempt to address all possible Project impacts at this , the earliest stage in the development process . The mitigation measures adopted include measures which are designed to be: ( i) incorporated as policies within the General Plan Amendment; ( ii ) be effected through subsequent implementing regulations , ordinances , standards , programs and plans (e . g. , Development Plans and Map Approvals) ; and/or ( iii) incorporated into, or imposed as conditions to, future Blackhills approvals . The General Plan Amendment does not amount to the final authorization to develop . . the area it encompasses . The Planning Commission and/or this Board will be subsequently reviewing and considering the Project development plan and map. . The Planning Commission and this Board will diligently implement such mitigation measures , and shall monitor the 77 ^ r status of such measures pursuant to the mitigation implementation and monitoring program established herein and in subsequent findings by the Planning Commission and this Board. Therefore, the findings this Board makes relative to the Project alternatives represents the level of detail available at this, the first stage of the development process . Subsequent Project approvals will ultimately determine the configuration and density of the Project; such subsequent approvals will consider the mitigation and avoidance measures contained in the suggested alternatives , and will strike the proper balance between the competing benefits to the County and its citizenry of a reduced density residential development project with an uncertain amount of land ( if any) to be dedicated to permanent open space use, and a residential development with greater density, but guaranteed dedication of the majority of the site (approximately 90%) to permanent public and private open space uses . 1 . The "No-Project" Alternative . (a) Facts . ( 1 ) The no-project alternative has the advantage of generally less traffic , noise, runoff and grading and environmental effects than those resulting from the proposed General Plan Amendment, and has the disadvantages discussed herein. (2) The "no-project" alternative would retain the existing General Plan designation of "general open space" for the entire Site . The Site could continue to serve as watershed and wildlife habitat with the lower elevation of the Site used for extensive agriculture (e .g. grazing) . However, the agricultural capability of the land and limited size of the valley bottom argue against a commercial agricultural use of the property. Under a land use permit it might be feasible to use the existing 10 , 000 square foot residence as a conference center , retreat or other non-agricultural commercial enterprise; or the owner could elect to submit an application for up to 60 ranchettes ( 5-acre ,,minimum) , although given existing physical and policy constraints , it is uncertain whether approval of all 60 lots could be secured. Alternatively, the Site could be purchased by the State and added to Mt . Diablo State Park or the Site could be purchased by the ' Blackhawk Association and added to open space in Blackhawk. Either of these acquisition scenarios would require an agreement with Blackhills . The State also has the capability of condemning the Site . However , the State currently has no plans to acquire the site and has not expressed opposition to the Project . 78 _ (3) With respect to potential development pursuant to the no project alternative, although water service would be available from EBMUD, the Site could not be sewered unless annexed to CCCSD . The alternative, septic sewers and leach fields , has consistently been opposed by the County Health Department and County ordinance restricts leach fields to slopes of no more than twenty percent . Because bedrock sites are poorly suited for leach fields , potential ranchettes sites are largely restricted to the valley floor . (4) This alternative would not include any designation of park and recreation lands , would not include any dedication of 90% of the Site to permanent open space and wildlife habitat , and would not protect against future development of all or a portion of the Site . ( 5) As stated elsewhere in these findings , many of the environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment and the Project have been or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and this General Plan Amendment and this Project will provide many benefits , including dedication of permanent public and private open space, public revenues and construction jobs . (b) Findings . This Board finds that at this stage, the no-project alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment , and rejects the no-project alternative for the following reasons : ( 1) Mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan Amendment , or which will be incorporated into future development approvals as conditions of approval , have avoided or substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most of the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the Project, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the no-project alternative . (2) Approval of the no-project -alternati•ve---would :reduce =the:..=benefits to be obtained from the General Plan Amendment and development of the Project . In particular , approval of the no-project alternative would result in the loss of up to 40 homesites which would be developed on the Site . Approval of the- no-project alternative would also result in 'the loss of construction jobs which would be created by development of the northern portion of the Site over a period of several years . Approval of the no-project alternative would preclude the proposed preservation of approximately 900 of the Site as permanent open space and wildlife habitat . 79 (3) Approval of the no-project alternative would eliminate a potential source of funding for traffic improvements along with other fees and dedications which would be collected or made in connection with the General Plan Amendment and the Project . (4) In sum, approval of the no-project alternative would preclude obtainment of the environmental , social , economic and other benefits derived from the General. Plan Amendment and the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , below. 2 . Reduced Density Alternative . ( a) Facts . ( 1) The reduced density alternative envisions reduced density on the Project Site by designating approximately 25 acres of the Site "Country Estates" ( 0-1 DU/per net acre) . This designation purports to provide: greater flexibility in locating residences on individual lots ; retention of existing wooded segments of the channel ; five catchment areas for debris flows located at the mouth of each major gully, designed to trap mud and water before it impacts developed lots; elimination of one or more of the three hillside lots; and less grading on any retained hillside lot . This alternative envisions retention of the riparian vegetation and Sycamore Creek channel at both the north and south Project boundaries and relocation of the detention basin to the north portion of the Site . Existing trees inside the basin could be retained. In the case of small gullies , the reduced density alternative recommends locating sideyard lot lines in line with the projection of the gully onto the valley floor to ensure that residences are offset from the gully and provide space for a debris deflection wall . (2) The reduced density alternative also envisions limits on grading for hillside Lots 10 and 17 and "downscoping" of grading elsewhere in the Project , elimination of the residence on Lot 9 , protection of the Diablo Rock Rose population and retention of existing rock outcrops . The Draft EIR' s proposed land use map for the reduced density alternative provides approximately 275 acres of permanent open space and yields approximately 20 lots . (b) Findings . This Board finds that at this stage, the reduced density alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment and the Project, and rejects the reduced density alternative for the following reasons : 80 ( 1) Mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan Amendment and the Project , or which will be incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval to subsequent development approvals , have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and 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 . Pursuant to CEQA, particularly Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , reduction of housing density is not allowed if other feasible mitigation measures are available that will provide . a comparable level of mitigation, as is the case here . (2) To the extent that the reduced density alternative would reduce the number or location of homesites within the Site, approval of this alternative would reduce the possibility of obtaining -traffic improvements to Mt . Diablo Scenic Boulevard, other fees and dedications , and the number of jobs which would be generated by the Project as proposed by the Applicant . Furthermore, approval of the reduced density alternative would reduce the environmental , social , economic and other benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment and the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. 3 . Environmentally Superior Alternative . (a) Facts . ( 1) This alternative is based on the Applicant ' s development concept, but incorporates various mitigation measures discussed in the EIR. This alternative anticipates 30 lots in the range of 0 . 4 acres or greater , roads with a consistent paved width of 32 feet , a debris basin/detention basin upstream from the Project and retention of areas of significant tree cover along Sycamore Creek . Catchment areas for debris--flow avalanches or deflection walls would be provided where needed. The existing rock outcrop opposite .Lot 14- would be retained and no hillside lots would be proposed. The grading for-.-, lots--would be limited chiefly to the foundation areas of the residences . The boundary of the open space lands to be dedicated to the Park would be negotiated with the State . (b) Findings . This Board finds that at this stage, the environmental development alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the General Plan Amendment and the Project , and rejects the environmental development alternative for the following reasons : 81 ( 1) Mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan Amendment and the Project or which will be adopted as conditions of approval to subsequent development approvals have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate most if not all of the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and the Project , thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the reduced-density environmentally superior alternative . Pursuant to CEQA, particularly Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , reduction of housing density is not allowed if other feasible mitigation measures are available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation, as is the case here . (2) Approval of the environmentally superior alternative would reduce the benefits to be obtained from the General Plan Amendment and development, of the Project by restricting the ability to develop homesites on the Site .. Specifically, the number of homes and construction jobs and the amount of traffic funding and other fees and dedications would be precluded by approval of this alternative instead of the proposed General Plan Amendment . Accordingly, approval of the environmental development alternative would reduce the environmental , social , economic and other benefits which could be derived from this General Plan Amendment and the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , below. (3) With the prohibition against development on proposed lots 9 , 10 and 17 , the majority of Project impacts have been avoided. This alternative fails to justify why a 10-lot reduction is necessary to avoid Project impacts . 4 . Alternative Sites . Based on the Final EIR, public comments , County responses, Project goals and objectives, and the record as a whole, this Board finds that an analysis of alternative sites _ . ` .for the 'Project is, not -desirable, feasible or required in the present case . This Board acknowledges that recent California appellate court decisions have clarified and expanded the requirements for EIRs, ruling that in some cases an EIR may be required to include an evaluation of alternative sites for the Project, in addition to Project alternatives located on the same site . These rulings have noted that this evaluation is not required in all cases , but is instead a case-by-case determination based on the facts and circumstances of each project . 82 The Final EIR acknowledges and this Board finds that the analysis of alternative sites is not appropriate for this Project for the following reasons : ( a) The Project is an island, surrounded by Blackhawk and Mt . Diablo State Park . The Project is the logical and anticipated extension and conclusion of the existing Blackhawk development and will provide private open space buffer between residential development and the permanent open space acreage dedicated by the Project and already existing in the Park; (b) There is a great demand for security ( "gated" ) communities which offer country club services and amenities, yet there is no other alternative site in the San Ramon Valley. or . its environs which could provide such services and amenities for an individual project of the limited size proposed ( 40 lots) ; (c) No other site would provide the above-mentioned services and amenities without effecting growth-inducing impacts; (d) ' No other site could sustain the extensive .provision of open space dedications of both a public use (State park) and private use (homeowner) nature in relation to the percentage of acreage developed (approximately 10o development; 900 open space dedication) ; and (e) No other site satisfies the goals of the Project in light of the above . IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Generally. 1 . This Board finds and determines that to the extent that any of the above-discussed significant direct or indirect Project impacts , including cumulative Project impacts , remain unavoided or mitigated to less than a level of insignificance, such impacts are acceptable in light of the soc-ial, .. economic, - environmental and -other Project benefits . discussed below, and that such benefits outweigh and make "acceptable" any such environmental impacts of the Project . This Board also finds and determines that those mitigation measures and alternatives which were discussed in the EIR, public comments , County responses or other portions of the administrative record but which are not or will not be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment , or subsequent Project approvals are " infeasible" given those Project benefits . 83 B. Specific Project Benefits . Specifically, this Board finds that the following social , economic, environmental and other Project considerations warrant approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Project notwithstanding any significant impacts of the Project which are not fully avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance, or which might be reduced through the choice of one of the alternatives to the Project : 1 . Environmental Benefits and Open Space . The Project includes a number of environmental benefits . The Project will dedicate 90% of the Site to public and private open space and wildlife habitat uses , with no cost -to the public . These dedications will result in a net gain of approximately 213 acres to the inventory of permanent public open space and wildlife habitat , and a gain of approximately 276 acres to the inventory of visual open space . This open space will guarantee the permanent availability of wildlife habitat and passive recreational lands . The Project will be designed to avoid impacts to biotic resources by, among other things , preserving lots 9 , 10 and 17 in their natural state and by preserving the majority of the existing riparian and other vegetation on the Site . The Project will also retain most of the existing stream alignment . The Project will provide a buffer between the existing and proposed residential uses and the permanent open space and wildlife habitat uses , and will represent the last of the development which will occur in that area. 2 . Provision of needed housing. The Project will provide needed executive housing for the area and region. Purchasers of homes on the Site are likely to include "move-up" homebuyers desiring a larger , more upscale home, who will in turn sell there existing homes . Construction of the Project will therefore make available some existing housing in different price ranges to the surrounding community and the region. In addition, the Project will not substantially affect the jobs/housing balance and will help meet. the housing needs and goals identified in the General Plan. 3 . Provision o.f Jobs . The Project will provide local and regional development-related employment opportunities (construction, landscaping, home design, interior decorating, etc . ) . 84 f' r. r 4 . Public revenues . The Project will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the Site and will 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 taxes on building materials , payroll taxes relating to construction employment, patronization of local businesses by construction-related employees and Project residents, etc . V. 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 : The Applicant shall file a written report with the County Community Development Department approximately once every twelve , months , beginning twelve months following the final approval of the preliminary development plan by the Board of Supervisors and continuing throughout the approval process until the Project Site is developed and the last home built pursuant to additional land use approvals which may be granted by the County. The written report shall briefly state the status in implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a Condition of Approval or which is incorporated into the Project . Community Development staff shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay of over one year in, or obstacle to, implementing the ,adopted or incorporated-mitigation measures which requires action by Department staff . If Blackhills requests , the result of this review will be provided to Blackhills in writing . 85 .v. If the staff determines that action is required, the staff and Blackhills 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 Blackhills are unable to agree upon the additional actions to be taken, then either staff or Blackhills may bring the matter before the Zoning Administrator for decision whether any action should be taken and what that action should be . Staff and the Zoning Administrator shall be limited to imposing reasonable actions as permitted by law which will implement the existing mitigation measures . In reviewing the timeliness of the implementation measures , staff shall consider the project timetable, subject to reasonable but unanticipated delays due to weather and the like . 32280/01.31.0 72522-001 86