HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05221990 - 2.12 2 12
To: `',BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
iarvey E. Bragdon, C-mtr
Director of Community Development r �
f �
FROM . ' .- \�IWlG.4
May 10, 1990 �.� irty
DATE
Adoption of Findings and Conditions of Approval - Alamo Summit
SUBJECT: Project ( 2776-RZ)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for this.
project as being adequate.
2. Approve Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 2776-RZ as
recommended by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission to rezone the 178 acre site from General
Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) with the
attached conditions recommended by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission as modified by staff.
3 . Adopt the attached findings as the determination for these
actions.
4. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid
rezoning, waive reading and set forth date for adoption of
same.
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on this
project on March 20, 1990 at which time the hearing was closed.
At the April 17, 1990 meeting, the Board directed staff to
prepare findings and for additional input based on Board
testimony.
Attached are recommended findings for this application. Also
attached are the conditions- of approval recommended by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission with modifications made
by staff. Modified conditions provide for:
the possibility of relocating lots to reduce potential
environmental impacts;
- allowing more flexibility in the siting of trail routes;
replacing the stipulated visitor parking .space standard with
a parking study to be made available with the final
development plan application;
potentially allowing the relocation and replacement of the
existing riparian habitat (willow thicket) elsewhere on the
property;
limiting improvements to. Ridgewood Road to the segment that
is privately-maintained; and
referencing the Final EIR with regard to mitigation measures
and the acceptability of possible alternative mitigation
measures, as a condition of approval for the final
development plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES SIGNATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC ME ION O OAR COMILITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREfS): V
ACTION OF BOARD ON MA_V 7 7 �I Q A n APPROVED 'AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
1.
On May 15, 1990, the Board of Supervisors deferred to this date
the decision on the rezoning request 2776-RZ, Alamo Summit, Inc.
(applicant and owner) to rezone 178 acres of land from General
Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and
preliminary development plan in the Alamo area.
Supervisor Schroder commented on meeting with staff and the Alamo
Improvement Association relative to concerns of the community.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, commented on the
concerns that had been addressed in the conditions including the
willow grove, visibility of homes on the .southern portion of the site,
the whipsnake habitat, clustering of homes, and requested changes in
the findings. He also commented on the California Environmental
Quality Act requirements for this proposal, and advised that today' s
action would be just the first step of a long process in the
development of the project. He commented on the staff recommendation
for approval of the request with the additional conditions he outlined
added.
Supervisor Schroder moved to approve the rezoning with the
conditions as outlined by staff and from the San Ramon Valley Area
Planning Commission. He expressed gratitude for Mr. Wandry' s
sensitivity and the work he had put into this project.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, 3 , and 4
are APPROVED; and as in recommendation 4, Ordinance 90-36 is
INTRODUCED, reading waived and June 5, 1990 is set for adoption of
same.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: ATTESTED May. 22 , 19 9 0
Community Devel.oprment Dept . --
County Counsel 1 PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Alamo Summit Tnc . SUPE VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works-Tom Dudzia.k
Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. o
M382•7-83 Assessor BY ,DEPUTY
2.
CONDIjIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2776-RZ (ALAMO
. SUNNI ) PER MAY 22, 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL ACTION
-4
1. This application is approved for a gated-access residential project as
generally shown on the site plan accompanying the application. This
approval is for a maximum of 37 residential lots. The final number of lots
may be reduced (possibly substantially) in the review of the Final Develop-
ment Plan (FDP) application when additional project design and geotechnical
information is submitted and evaluated. Alternatively, lots may be
relocated within the development to avoid or reduce geotechnical , visual
and vegetation/wildlife impacts.
This approval requires submittal of a number of documents to accompany the
Final Development Plan application. Each of these documents shall be based
on and shall address the detailed mitigation measures contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report on this project.
2. A preliminary soil report shall be submitted with the FDP application.
3. A revised site plan shall be submitted with the Final Development Plan
application providing for the following information:
A. Any adjustments to the boundaries of landslides based on additional
geotechnical review.
B. Identification of cut-and-fill areas for proposed internal road
improvements, and the location and height of related retaining walls.
C. Identification of any trees in proximity to building sites or proposed
road improvements with a trunk circumference of 72 inches or greater
at a height of 4-1/2 feet above the ground. The species of the tree
shall be labelled and identified whether it is to be preserved or
eliminated. If no such trees are present, then the site plan shall be
notated accordingly.
D. Delineation of the habitat area (Diablan sage scrub) of the Alameda
Whipsnake in the vicinity of Lots 1 - 7. A second boundary shall be
delineated on the map at least 30 feet beyond the boundary of the
first line to serve as a buffer for the habitat area. The outer
boundary shall serve as the perimeter of an area to be labelled
"protected species habitat zone."
E. Delineation of public pedestrian/equestrian trails in accord with
Condition #4 below.
F. Delineation of the riparian habitat on Lots 11 and 15.
G. Roads and building sites shall comply with the Creekbank Setback Code
requirements.
4. The Final Development Plan Application shall comply with the following
public trail requirements:
2.
5
A. The Final Development Plan map shall provide trail alignments as
generally shown in the attached 1/29/90 staff study, and generally as
provided for in the applicant's preliminary agreement with County
Service Area R-7A. The County recognizes that the applicant may not
be able to authorize public access to the private portion of Ridgewood
Road unless all other parties with an interest in the right-of-way
have given their permission. Trail design shall be adequate to serve
the intended types and volumes" of trail users as determined during the
Final Development Plan review. Trail rights-of-way outside proposed
or existing roadbeds should be considered whenever convenient and not
causing extensive grading or removal of vegetation.
B. No trailhead public parking facilities shall be required on the Alamo
Summit site.
C. No public trail access through the Alamo Summit site shall be required
unless a trail access is secured to the south providing a connection
with the EBRPD trail planned along Las Trampas Road.
D. Further review of trail location, access controls and equestrian use
shall occur at time of the Final Development Plan review.
5. The snake habitat buffer zone described above in Condition #3. D. may be
modified based on independent evaluation of the proposed change by a
qualified herpetologist. This independent evaluation of any proposed
change shall be made available with the Final Development Plan application.
6. The appropriateness of retaining Court C in the southwest corner of the
site shall be subject to further review at time of the Final Development
Plan application. The review shall consider information from East Bay
Municipal Utility District on the District's infrastructure needs (water
mains, service road requirements) in the vicinity of the project site. The
review shall consider possible alternative infrastructure routes and visual
impacts and mitigation measures.
7. Determination of the number of visitor parking spaces required for each lot
in the project shall be made at the time of Final Development Plan
approval . The Final Development Plan map shall identify those segments of
the roadway system in the project where roadside parking -should be
prohibited. Visitor parking may be located along those sections of roadway
where such parking is determined not to interfere with emergency vehicle
access or tight curves. The plan shall indicate the location of each
proposed roadside parking space. (See also Condition of Approval #8.K.
below. )
8. The following documents shall be submitted with the FDP application:
A. Program for protection of the Alameda Whipsnake and its habitat during
the construction stage and on an on-going long-term basis.
3.
B. Either (1) a program for protection and enhancement of the riparian
habitat (willow ticket) on Lots 11 and 15, long-term and during the
construction stage; or (2) a program for creation and long-term
protection of suitable replacement riparian habitat elsewhere on the
property in a location suitable for such habitat.
C. Plans for the perpetual control and abatement of hazardous weeds and
brush to minimize fire fuel buildup.
D. Proof of access rights (e.g. , preliminary title report) onto Ridgewood
Road.
E. A demand survey and response program to serve the child care needs of
the project in accord with the requirements of Ordinance 88-1 of the
Zoning Code.
F. A study on the feasibility/desirability of providing two-way
(ingress/egress) emergency access through the site benefitting Castle
Crest and Ridgewood Road residents.
G. A study on the feasibility/desirability of utilizing EBMUD
rights-of-way by project construction vehicles.
H. A study on the feasibility/desirability of establishing a special
assessment district (similar to the geologic hazard abatement district
concept) involving the project and other properties with access onto
Ridgewood Road. The purpose of the district would be to provide
necessary improvements and assurances that would qualify Ridgewood
Road for maintenance by the County.
I. A study on the feasibility of requiring tree plantings along Danville
Boulevard in accord with the corridor improvement plan ("Boulevard of
Trees Program") of the Association for the Preservation of Danville
Boulevard. The study should consider tree plantings on a one-for-one
basis to compensate for any large (heritage) trees removed from the
project site. The replacement program would only apply to trees that
are removed with a circumference of 72 inches or greater, four and
one-half feet above the ground. The study will also address bonding
of any heritage trees to be preserved and protected during
construction.
J. A program to provide private policing of the project site during the
period of construction activity aimed at preventing or minimizing
potential nuisances. The program shall address
- temporary fencing/gating of access roads to prevent trespassing
and protection of construction equipment;
- trash and dust control measures;
4.
s
limitations on noise-generating construction activity (days,
hours of operation) ;
minimization of any inconvenience to neighborhood residents
associated with road and subdivision construction activity;
measures to control routing of construction vehicles to the site.
K. A study to determine the appropriate number of visitor parking spaces
(in addition to garage parking) to be required per parcel . The
applicant shall solicit the comments of the EIR consultant, Wagstaff &
Associates, on the study prior to submittal . Visitor parking may be
provided on the driveway apron of each parcel or elsewhere on the
parcel where parking areas may be created without excessive grading.
No more than six (6) visitor parking spaces shall be required per
parcel , determined as specified in this condition. In establishing
parking requirements, consideration shall be given to the goals of
minimizing paving and grading. Where the total number of visitor
parking spaces available to a particular parcel , either on that parcel
or along nearby roadways, is less than required, construction of
additional common parking areas may be required. For purposes of
counting the spaces available for a particular parcel , each roadside
or common parking space may be shared by and counted as serving more
than one parcel .
L. Other documents requested by the Zoning Administrator.
9. The FDP application submittal shall include a set of Project Design Guide-
lines. The principal function of the guidelines shall be to demonstrate
compliance with scenic ridge and route general plan policies and visual
compatibility with nearby development.
A. General Content: The guidelines shall consist of a set of principles
to control the design and development of individual lots. Each design
principle should be illustrated for clarification. The guidelines
shall apply to all lots within the project to provide for consistent
treatment. At the same time, the guidelines shall provide articulated
treatment of particularly sensitive lots identified in the Visual
Factors Section of the Final EIR. The guidelines shall include
specific design parameters and measurements as much as possible.
B. Specific Content: The guidelines shall address the detailed mitiga-
tion measures pertaining to Visual and Geotechnical Factors contained
in the Final EIR. The guidelines shall include (but not be limited
to):
1) Measures to reduce the effective bulk of buildings.
2) Measures to reduce the visual impact of development including
protection of existing trees.
5.
,a
J
1
3) Measures for topographic and vegetative restoration of landslide
repair areas.
4) The guidelines shall integrate riparian habitat, Whipsnake
habitat and fire hazard protection plans.
5) Flat building pads should, be avoided.
10. The FDP application shall include large-scale, true-to-scale, resolute
renderings of the project site as viewed from three off-site vantage
points. The renderings shall show the likely outcome of proposed project
development including grading, building mass, roofline design, existing
tree mass to be preserved and introduced landscaping.
The exhibits shall be based on the proposed Project Design Guidelines. The
renderings shall utilize the following vantage points:
- Ramona Way
- Interstate 680 at Livorna Road
- Stone Valley Road east of Interstate 680
11. The FDP application submittal shall include a set of proposed development
and use restrictions, and advisory comments to be included in the project
C. C. & R. 's. The restrictions shall address the recommended mitigation
measures contained in the Final EIR. The restrictions shall include the
proposed prohibition on the keeping of livestock.
12. The private segment of Ridgewood Road between the project entrance and
Lunada Lane shall be improved. Improvements shall provide for resurfacing
and widening of the pavement to a minimum of 20 feet and installation of
guardrails on the downhill side. The road width should be increased to at
least 24 feet at bends in the roads unless determined to be infeasible.
These improvements shall be completed in the first construction phase.
After the completion of construction activity, the applicant shall fully
repair any construction-related damage to Ridgewood Road.
Proposed road improvement designs shall be submitted with the Final
Development Plan application.
13. The FDP application submittal shall include detailed site plans and render-
ings of the two project entrances. The entrance at Ridgewood Road should
be redesigned to allow room for the queuing of at least three vehicles
between Ridgewood Road and the security gate.
14. All non-resident and construction traffic shall be required to use
Ridgewood Road. This restriction shall be implemented in part by design
and operation of the security gate system at the project entrances.
6.
t ,
15. All residences within the project shall be designed with automatic
sprinkler systems and fire retardant roofing.
16. The project shall comply with the requirements of Title IX of the County
Ordinance Code.
17. Each of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final Environmental
Impact Report on this project are incorporated as a condition of approval
as may be modified or rejected in accordance with the findings of the Board
of Supervisors regarding approval of the project adopted on May 15, 1990.
Where the EIR or the Board's findings suggest alternative mitigation
measures to address a particular environmental impact, selection of one of
the alternatives shall be made as a condition of approval for the final
development plan.
18. Special attention shall be given to the southern portion of the site in the
vicinity of the water tank directed at reducing visual impacts.
19. Reduce the number of parcels on the knoll where Court B is located in order
to reduce the potential impact on the Whipsnake habitat and to reduce
potential visual impacts.
20. As part of the Final Development Plan application submittal , the developer
shall consider as an option a clustering concept for the development of the
subject property.
RD/aa
RZVI/2776-RZC.RD
12/7/89
1/29/90 .
Revised 1/31/90
Revised 5/7/90
Revised 5/9/90
Revised 5/29/90
P
4• t t I� •t I
'�t�:`4:�;2,`AY"'t..�o . I'>::+':<�ii� ;; :: iti`�::C:.ii:;. •
PIDSEb
Aumo 6okk IT-
Fla
��G' y: . ':i::`:�{i:;r:h y � • • •f }* `his
y PROJECT.- t:
`;?+:til';'{::;}:':�' 't''� � {\�,/ + ♦ •11 a
`� • �Iw�• 111 •
f 11 y ♦ /�a. +�1 iy�
+ JONES RANCH • _ :-a•� /1,+
i. • � � • 11�M
000
.* i •
f •4 - "�J' X1111
„I M
ALAMO RIDGE :•
' • 7 �i
rr • i
s
•
•
LAS TRAMPAS REGIONAL �• `z• ,:�' •
WILDERNESS AREA �•■�,• Existin
Q Bicycle} Riding, Hiking
rr�r proposed EBRPPDfTrail
4
1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE ALAMO SUMMIT PROJECT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ( "CEQA" ) AND THE COUNTY CODE,
AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2776-RZ
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County,
California (this "Board" ) adopts the following findings
regarding the Alamo Summit Project , including Board approval of
Application No . 2776-RZ for rezoning and the preliminary
development plan.
I . INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The approvals before this Board are the preliminary
steps in consideration of the Alamo Summit Project in the. Alamo
area of Contra Costa County (the "County'' ) . These findings are
adopted by this Board to comply with CEQA' s requirement for
findings and generally to explain the Board ' s decision in
approving the Alamo Summit Project .
A. This Project .
The Alamo Summit Project is a proposal to develop a
178-acre site (the "Project Site" ) located on the west side of
Alamo adjacent to Rossmoor , within the unincorporated territory
of the County. The Project Site is located generally near the
western terminus of Ridgewood Road and the southern terminus of
Castle Crest Road in the Alamo area.
The proposed development consists of a single-family
residential subdivision containing 37 homes . Access will be
provided via Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road, with gates
at each entrance restricting vehicle access to the Project
Site. The development also includes construction of on-site
roadways and other infrastructure, plus widening and other
improvements to Ridgewood Road.
Development of the Alamo Summit Project requires
approval of the matters now before this hoard and will require
future development approvals as well . The applications before
this Board at this time are for rezoning from General
Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1 ) (the
"Rezoning" ) , and for approval of a preliminary development plan
pursuant to County Code Chapter 84-66 for a 37-lot residential
1
development with a minimum 1-acre parcel size (the "Preliminary
Development Plan" ) . The Rezoning and the Preliminary
Development Plan may be collectively referred to in these
findings as the "Current Approvals . "
The Alamo Summit Project cannot be developed until the
County has approved a final development plan pursuant to the
regulations for the P-1 zoning district as well as a
subdivision map. The development of the Alamo Summit Project
and the issuance by the County of development approvals may be
collectively referred to herein as the "Project . " The
applicant also must obtain certain regulatory and service
agency approvals , including expansion of the spheres of
influence for the East Bay Municipal Utility District
U EBMUD" ) , Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District
( "CCCCSD" ) , and County Service Area R7A ( "R7V ) , which each
must be approved by the County Local Agency Formation
Commission ( "LAFCO'' ) , plus annexation to the EBML'D and R7A
service areas to serve the Project .
B . The Environmental Impact Report .
The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) , as
amended, and the State CEQA Guidelines require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" ) for certain public
and private sector projects requiring discretionary actions by
California ' s governments . The discretionary power to approve
the Project resides with the County, and the County is the Lead
Agency pursuant to CEQA for approval of the Project .
The County prepared an initial study dated May 9 ,
1988, on this Project . The initial study concluded that the
Project may have a significant effect on the environment .
Accordingly, the County as Lead Agency determined that an EIR
was required for this Project and, on .May 13 , 1988 , issued a
Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse and to various
public agencies , organizations and individuals . The County
received comments on the Notice of Preparation through June 13 ,
1988 . The Notice of Preparation and initial study on the
Project are included in the EIR.
In December 1988, the Draft EIR for this Project was
published by the County and on December 20 , 1988, was
circulated for comment to the State Clearinghouse , concerned
citizens, and other agencies . The County published a Notice of
Completion announcing that the Draft EIR would be available for
review at the County Community Development Department and that
comments would be received from December 20 , 1988, through
February 5 , 1989 .
2
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (the
` "Commission" ) conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR on
February 1 , 1989 . At the end of that hearing, the Commission
voted to reject the Draft EIR and directed that the document be
revised and recirculated . On April 25 , 1989 , this Board
conducted a public hearing on the matter of the Commission ' s
rejection of the Draft EIR. This Board voted to find the Draft
EIR acceptable for purposes of public review, and directed the
Commission to complete the process of public review and
preparation of the Final EIR. The Commission conducted a
second public hearing on the Draft EIR on May 17 , 1989 . The
public review period ended on May 19 , 1989 . In September 1989 ,
the Final EIR for the Project was published, consisting of the
Draft EIR revised to incorporate the substance of responses to
the comments made upon the Draft EIR, the public comments that
were submitted, either in writing or at public hearings , and
the particular responses to those comments , which were
published together as one single document .
On October 4 , 1989 , the Commission held a public
meeting to consider the adequacy of the Final EIR for the
Project . The Commission on that date certified the Final EIR
as adequate under CEQA and voted to recommend that the Board
certify the Final EIR.
The Commission conducted a public hearing regarding
the Project on December 13 , 1989 , which was continued to
January 17 , 1990 , and then continued further to January 31 ,
1990 , on which date the public hearing was closed. Following
closure of the hearing, on January 31 , 1990 the Commission by
motion directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending to
this Board certification of the Final EIR and approval of the
Current Approvals .
On March 7 , 1990 , the Commission adopted a resolution
certifying that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR for
the Project in making its recommendation to the Board,
certifying that the Final EIR was prepared and processed in
compliance with CEQA and State and County Guidelines , and
certifying that the EIR is adequate and complete . In adopting
this resolution, the Commission also found that the Current
Approvals are consistent with the County General Plan, and
recommended that the Board approve the Current Approvals..
On March 20 , 1990 , this Board held a public hearing on
the Project and the EIR. At that meeting the hearing was
closed and the matter was continued until April 17 , 1990 . 'I're
Board accepted written comments until March 27 , 1990 . At the
Board' s regularly scheduled meeting on April 17, 1990, this
Board stated its intent to certify the Final EIR as adequate
and to approve the Current Approvals . This Board instructed
3
County staff to prepare conditions of approval and to prepare
these findings .
The County, as the Lead Agency, has determined that a
written finding shall be prepared for each potentially
significant impact identified in the EIR. In addition, as
required by Public Resources Code section 21081 . 6 , this Board
adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for this
Project , as set forth below in these findings .
For purposes of these findings , the EIR for the
Current Approvals consists of : the Draft EIR; the Final EIR;
the written and oral public comments and recommendations
received on the Draft EIR during the public review process ; the
lists of persons , organizations and public agencies consulted
during preparation of the EIR or commenting on the Draft EIR;
the responses of the County to the significant environmental
points raised during that public review and consultation
process; the initial study for the Project ; any and all
documents incorporated into the EIR ( including all appendices) ;
all notices of preparation, completion, and other notices
relating to the EIR and to the Project . The EIR for the
Current Approvals may be collectively referred to in these
findings as the "EIR" or the "Final EIR. "
C. Certification Of The EIR .
In adopting these findings , 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 Current Approvals . In so
certifying, this Board recognizes that there may be
"differences" among and between the information and opinions
offered in the documents and testimony that make up the Final
EIR and the administrative record. Therefore, by these
findings , this Board ratifies , clarifies and/or modifies the
EIR as set forth in these findings , and determines that these
findings shall control and that the Final EIR shall be deemed
to be certified subject to the determinations reached by this
Board in these findings , which are based on substantial
evidence in the administrative record.
D. Mitigation Measures - General Findings .
These findings contain numerous specific findings
based upon mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. With
respect to each finding relating to mitigation measures ,
incorporation of mitigation measures into this Project , or
imposition of mitigation measures as conditions of approval ,
this Board makes the following additional findings :
4
1 . The EIR recommends mitigation measures for
the overall Project , including the Current Approvals . The
Project consists in part of these Current Approvals . The
Project also consists of further development approvals , which
may include a final development plan and a subdivision map.
Many of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are
designed to be incorporated into final development plans for
the Project .
2 . As the EIR points out , the Current Approvals
are only intended to signify consent to the general preliminary
development concept for the Project Site . The Current
Approvals do not include any specific authorization to develop
the Property. It therefore is appropriate to defer submission
of more detailed develcpment plans and technical studies
addressing characteristics of the Project Site and impacts of
the Project related to geotechnical factors , specific =mpacts
on vegetation and wildlife, specific aspects of design and
Project visibility, and other aspects of development that will
be necessary to evaluate specific Project design. ;his
information is not required at this time to provide an adecrraate
analysis off the Current Approvals , The Final Development Plan
eventually proposed for the Project will be subjected to
rigorous site-specific evaluation in accordance with recognized
routine County procedures based on the technical information
submitted at that time . Deferring submission of this
information does not create any risk that significant impacts
of the Project will not be avoided or adequately mitigated . As
a result of the technical information to be submitted with
subsequent development applications , design revisions will be
required or specific conditions of approvals imposed to avoid
any new impacts .
3 . In some instances , the EIR 'oresents
alternative mitigation measures addressing particular
identified impacts . It is premature at this time to select
between alternative measures relating specific design aspects
of the Project to on-site conditions . Those decisions are
deferred until the time of preparation and review of the Final
Development Plan, in order to allow maximum design flexibility
for the Project while minimizing impacts .
4 . Except where specifically stated to the
contrary in these findings , all of the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR have been incorporated into the Project
by inclusion in the conditions of approval attached as an
exhibit to this order (the "Conditions of Approval" ) . Although
the Conditions of Approval may not use the exact wording of the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such
instance, the adopted Condition of Approval is deemed to be
identical to or substantially similar to the recommended
5
R
mitigation measure . Unless specifically stated to the
contrary, all such measures are, and are intended to be,
equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified
impact as are the mitigation measures as worded in the EIR. In
each instance where this Board finds that one or more
mitigation measures are adopted, this Board means that such
measures or their substantial equivalents are adopted.
5 . In some instances , recommended mitigation
measures may be within the jurisdiction of other agencies . In
each such case where mitigation measures are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency, and not this
County, such changes either have been adopted by the other
agency as a part of its regulations or other enactments , or can
and should be adopted by such other agency in passing upon
approvals required for this Project .
6 . None of the recommended mitigation measures
themselves give rise to any significant environmental impacts ,
unless such an impact is identified in the EIR. The EIR does
not identify any significant environmental impacts of the
mitigation measures , except for impacts related to widening and
reconstruction of Ridgewood Road. With respect to the
mitigation measures , this Board finds , as did the EIR, that
these measures themselves will not result in significant
adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated, except
for temporary unavoidable noise impacts associated with
construction on Ridgewood Road .
7 . The status of implementation of the
mitigation measures which are incorporated into or imposed upon
this Project and the Current Approvals shall be included in the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program as set forth in
Section VII , below. Compliance with these mitigation measures
is subject to the continuing control of the County.
8 . In adopting these findings , this Board
intends to adopt complete and thorough findings with respect to
all matters discussed in the EIR. This Board hereby
incorporates into these findings , and adopts as its own
findings and conclusions, the findings and conclusions set
forth in the EIR; except that this incorporation of the EIR' s
findings and conclusions shall not apply in any case where the
EIR' s findings and conclusions are contradicted by a finding or
statement in these findings .
9 . This Board intends to adopt all mitigation
measures recommended by the EIR unless such measures have been
rejected or modified by these findings . If a measure which has
not been so rejected or modified has through error been omitted
6
from the Conditions of Approval or from these findings , it
shall be deemed to be adopted or approved by these findings .
10 . In adopting mitigation measures for the
Current Approvals and for subsequent development approvals for
the Project , this Board is subject to Public Resources Code
section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c) , which
require that this Board not reduce the proposed number of
housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that
there is any other feasible mitigation measure available that
will provide a comparable level of mitigation.
F . Description Of The Record.
The record before this Board relating to this Project
includes , without limitation, the following :
I . The applications for the Current Approvals ,
together with all documents , files and reports on the Project
maintained by the County Community Development Department ;
2 . All staff reports on the Project ;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by the Commission and this Board before and during
the public hearings on this Project and the EIR;
4 . The Final EIR on this Project , including all
notices relating to the EIR and all documents and reports
incorporated by reference into the EIR;
5 . All matters of common knowledge and all
official enactments and acts of the County, such as ( a) the
County General Plan, including the San Ramon Valley Area
General Plan, (b) the County Code, (c) other County policies
and regulations , and (d) applicable state and Federal laws ,
rules , and regulations .
The foregoing listing of items included in the record
is not necessarily exhaustive. This Board intends that the
items set forth in the foregoing listing are included in the
record, but the record before this Board may include other
documents and information in addition to those listed above.
G. General Matters .
The discussions and findings which follow for each
category of possible environmental impact recite some of the
background information relating to this Project . All findings
made by this Board herein are each based on all of the facts in
the entire record before this Board, including without
7
the discussion
limitation the information which is recited in
in each particular category of these findings .
This Board intends that any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
to be made if it appears in any portion of this document or
elsewhere in any Board order , resolution or ordinance pursuant
to which these findings are prepared or to which these findings
are attached, and that 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 the effect that this Board .is makincr a
finding . r
The discussions of facts in the categories set forth
below may be primarily or entirely based upon the EIR in some
instances , but this Board intends that each finding herein is
based on the entire record, including without limitation all
written and oral testimony to the Commission and to 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 .
For convenience, these findings refer to pages of the initial
discussion of each category of impact in the EIR, but
additional discussion of many impacts is contained in the
comments and responses . The Board has reviewed these comments
. and responses .
In certain instances , this Board adopts findings in
the alternative regarding mitigation measures , Project
alternatives , or other matters . In each such case, this Board
is adopting such findings in the alternative because there are
one or more grounds for the particular finding, or one or more
findings to support this Board ' s action, and each of the
alternative findings is supported by substantial evidence in
the record. I£ any finding is rejected by a reviewing court
for any reason, this Board intends that all other findings on
the particular subject matter shall remain as the findings of
this Board on the particular matter . This Board intends that
any alternative findings in this document are independent of
each other .
II . FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
This Board adopts and makes the following findings
regarding those potential environmental impacts of the Project
which were determined in the initial study or in the EIR not to
be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts .
8
A. Facts .
1 . The EIR concludes that no significant land
use compatibility impacts on surrounding uses have been
identified from the low-density residential development
proposed for the Project .
2 . The proposed Project would contain a maximum
of 37 units , which can be expected to add a maximum of 148
people to the County. The EIR concludes that the Project ' s
impacts relating to population and housing growth are not in
and of themselves significantly adverse, and thus do not
warrant mitigation .
3 . While the Project may produce significant
relative increases in traffic volume on Ridgewcod Road and
Castle Crest Road, Project-related traffic increases will not
exceed roadway design capacity limits for these two routes and
all other road segments evaluated by the EIR. In addition,
Project traffic alone will not produce any measurable change in
Levels of Service at any of the nine intersections near the
Project analyzed in the EIR. Addition of Project traffic alone
will not cause traffic at any intersections to reach signal
warrant criteria volume levels .
4 . The EIR evaluates the "perceived" increase
in traffic along residential streets near the Project .
Although the EIR concludes that one or more street segments may
experience an increase in traffic described as "significantly
noticeable, '' Response to Comment No . 22 . 29 in the EIR concludes
that "Project traffic impacts on nearby residential
environments . . . are not significant to the extent that they
require mitigation . While the percentage increase in traffic
may be high, total traffic on nearby neighborhood streets would
still be typical of a two-lane residential street environment . "
5 . There is very little undeveloped or
uncommitted land in the Project Site vicinity. Expansion of
the spheres of influence and annexation by the three service
agencies are considered to be only procedural housecleaning and
infill of their service area boundaries , and will not directly
result in any significant growth-inducing impacts .
6 . The Project will not have any significant
impact on the local water delivery system, as existing and
already-planned facilities are designed to serve this area and
can easily handle the Project ' s water flow demands . The
existing sewer collection system and treatment facilities have
adequate capacity to accommodate projected flows from the
Project without significant impact .
9
7 . Project traffic increases will raise noise
levels on local roadways from one to three decibels , which is
considered to be a "just noticeable" difference and will not
cause a significant impact .
B . No significant natural , agricultural , or
extractive resources are known to exist on the Project Site .
Therefore, the impacts of the Project on the potential use,
extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource are
insignificant (beyond the open space, visual and biotic
resources addressed elsewhere in these findings ) .
9 . There is no significant risk of explosion,
release of hazardous substances , or other danger to public
health and safety arising from development of the Project , in
that residential land use typically does not involve
significant use or storage of explosives or hazardous
substances . This conclusion also relates to transportation or
other handling of hazardous materials or hazardous waste . . In
addition, no activities related to the handling of hazardous
materia_s has occurred or is expected to occur near the Project
Site .
10 . The Project is not expected to induce
significant additional growth, because it is the last large
undeveloped hillside parcel of substantial size in the Alamo
area . The Project Site is surrounded by existing subdivisions
and the Rossmoor development , and is near the Las Trampas
Regional Wilderness Area . The Holly Reservoir will be
constructed with or without approval of the Project .
B. Findings .
This Board finds that :
1 . With respect to the categories of impacts
set forth above, the Current Approvals and the Project will not
have a potentially significant adverse impact on the
environment .
2 . Because these impacts were determined to be
insignificant , no mitigation measures are required to be
adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to these impacts, no analysis
of these impacts is required beyond that included in the EIR,
and no finding is required regarding these impacts .
3 . To the extent that these impacts might be
characterized as significant by persons disagreeing with the
Board' s findings , this Board finds that the environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and
override any such purported significant impact , as more fully
10
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI below) .
III . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED
OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED BY ADOPTION OR INCORPORATION
OF MITIGATION MEASURES
This Section III includes the findings of this Board
relating to the impacts of the Project that are potentially
significant and can be avoided or mitigated to a
less-than-significant level . The Final EIR states on pages 1-2
that all impacts which are identified in the EIR as possibly
significant , but which are not listed as "unavoidable" in
Section VI .B, have been determined to be capable of mitigation
to a point of insignificance by imposition of the recommended
Mitigation measures . This Board finds that all potentia
impacts of this Project which are not listed in Section VI . B of
the EIR or otherwise listed as unavoidable in Section ATV of
these findings can and will be mitigated to insignificance or
avoided, notwithstanding rejection or modification of any
mitigation measure in these findings . This Board finds that
all categories of potential significant impact have been
satisfactorily addressed by the EIR. The specific findings of
this Board for each category of potentially significant but
avoidable impacts are set forth below in this Section III .
The findings of this Board regarding unavoidable
impacts of the Project are set forth in Section IV (findings
regarding avoidable impacts) and in Section VI (the Statement
of Overriding Considerations) of these findings .
A. Transportation and Circulation.
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on transportation and circulation at pages 69 through
103 . The only impacts of the Project or, transportation and
circulation which are listed as unavoidable are the effect of
perceived increases in traffic on neighboring streets ,
contribution to cumulative impacts on left turns from Ridgewood
Road onto Danville Boulevard, contribution to cumulative
increases in traffic volume in the region, cumulative
contribution to an existing safety problem regarding left turns
from Danville Boulevard onto Ridgewood Road, and an increase in
existing safety concerns along the steep segment of Castle
Crest Road, which are =ddressed in Section IV of these
findings . (The visual , grading and construction period noise
impacts of the proposed improvements on Ridgewood Road are
discussed elsewhere in the EIR and in these findings . )
11
(b) The EIR discusses mitigation measures
proposed by the applicant already incorporated as part of the
Project , and recommends various additional mitigation measures
relating to traffic and circulation impacts of the Project at
pages 100 through 103 . The mitigation measures which are
already incorporated in the Project include limiting use of
Castle Crest Road as an access to the Project to residents and
emergency purposes; widening, repaving and restriping Ridgewood
Road and installing guardrails where warranted; and paying the
general traffic impact fee to be imposed by the County for the
Alamo benefit subarea . The Project will provide several new
alternative routes for emergency access by public safety
personnel to reach both the Project itself and the Ridgewood
Road and Castle Crest Road neighborhoods .
(c) The mitigation measures recommended by
the EIR include both mitiaation for this Project , and
mitigations to address existing problems or recognized
=,mulative impacts which will occur with or without the
Project . The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR
include providing queuing space for at least three cars at the
main Ridgewood Road entry gate; maximizing the safety of entry
gates ; improving emergency access into the Project and to
surrounding neighborhoods ; widening Project roadways at
locations with limited visibility and restricting on-street
parking as appropriate; taking actions to minimize the impact
of construction-period traffic on Ridgewood Road, including the
improvement of Ridgewood Road as the first phase of Project
construction; and installing stop signs and warning signs at
appropriate locations on routes leading to the Project .
Several improvements are recommended to address cumulative
impacts , for which the Project ` s contribution would be payment
of the County traffic impact fee .
(d) The EIR discusses the possibility of
alternative primary access routes to the Project on
pages 98-99 . The EIR concludes that all four suggested
alternate routes would be strongly opposed by residents of
areas that might be affected, in some cases would involve steep
slopes and potential adverse environmental impacts , and might
encounter legal obstacles as well . These alternative routes
are not incorporated into this Project or imposed as conditions
of approval .
(e) The EIR includes as a mitigation
measure the requirement that in addition to the anticipated
three enclosed garage spaces per unit, off-street parking for a
minimum of six cars should be provided for each home either
within the individual parcel or in off-street parking bays, in
order to reduce the possibility that parking along Project
roadways during social gatherings may interfere with emergency
12
access . The requirement of nine parking spaces per home may be
excessive to address the identified impact and serve the
purpose stated in the EIR. This measure is incorporated into
the Project modified as described in the findings below, with
selection of the appropriate amount of visitor parking deferred
until later development applications .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) All of the mitigation measures relating
to transportation and circulation have been incorporated into
or imposed upon the Project , excepting only the measure
relating to alternative primary access which is rejected as set
forth below. The mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project by the applicant already are a part of the Project .
The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are imposed on
the Project either by inclusion in these findings or by the
Conditions of Approval .
(b) The mitigation measures proposing
consideration of alternative pr=mary access are rejected as
infeasible and undesirable . These measures are not
incorporated into the Project or imposed as conditions of
approval . These measures are infeasible and undesirable
because the four alternate routes proposed in the EIR would
face substantial opposition from affected populations as well
as possible legal obstacles . In addition, one or more of the
alternatives themselves would require substantial grading and
cause significant impacts , as described in the EIR. This Board
finds that the widening and other improvements to Ridgewood
Road, tocrether with the restriction on use of the Castle Crest
Road entry to the Project , and together with other mitigation
measures incorporated into or imposed on the Project are
adequate to address concerns about planned access to the
Project .
(c) The mitigation measure regarding
off-street parking requirements in the Project may be too rigid
a standard, and is not incorporated into. the Project or imposed
as a Condition of Approval in the form contained in the EIR.
This measure may require excessive off-street parking to serve
the intended purpose of protecting emergency access . Providing
that much required parking may entail substantial grading,
paving and removal of vegetation. This Board hereby adopts the
following modified mitigation measure regarding off-street
parking within the Project , which this Board finds is adequate
to avoid the potential significant impact on emergency access .
This Board finds that it is appropriate. to defer selecting the
13
required amount of visitor parking until a detailed development
application is submitted:
"Determination of the number of visitor parking spaces
required for each Lot in the project shall be made at
the time of Final Development Plan approval . The
Final Development Plan map shall identify those
segments of the roadway system in the project where
roadside parking should be prohibited. Visitor
parking may be located along those sections of roadway
where such parking is determined not to interfere with
emergency vehicle access or tight curves . The plan
shall indicate the location of each proposed roadside
parking space.
A study shall be prepared to determine the appropriate
number of visitor parking spaces ( in addition to .
garage parking) to be required per parcel . Visitor
parking may be provided on the driveway apron of each
parcel or elsewhere on the parcel where parking areas
may be created without excessive grading. No more
than six visitor parking spaces shall be required per
parcel , determined as specified in this condition. In
establishing parking requirements , consideration shall
be given to the goals of minimizing paving and grading
and removal of vegetation.
Where the total number of visitor parking spaces
available to a particular parcel , either on that
parcel or along nearby roadways , is less than
required, construction of additional common parking
areas may be required. For purposes of counting the
spaces available for a particular parcel , each
roadside or common parking space may be shared by and
counted as serving more than one parcel . "
(d) Except as set forth in Section IV
(findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project
relating to traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level .
(e) Any traffic and circulation impacts of
the Project which remain significant , despite the mitigation
measures and notwithstanding the foregoing findings , are
overridden and outweighed by the environmental , economic,
social and other benefits of the Project , as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SeQtion VI
below) .
14
B. visual Factors .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on visual quality at pages 105 through 123 . The EIR
does not list any impacts of the Project relating to visual
quality as unavoidable impacts . The EIR does list a cumulative
change in the character of the hillsides as a result of
development as an unavoidable adverse impact , and this impact
is related to visual quality.
(b) The EIR discusses mitigation measures
already incorporated by the applicant as part of the Project ,
and recommends various mitigation measures relating to the
visual quality impacts of the Project on pages 121 through
123 . The mitigation measures which are already included in the
Project include creation of a scenic easement containing
approximately 60 percent of the Project Site, within which
construction of structures and clearing of vegetation would be
restricted; using existing dirt fire roads as the routes for
proposed Project roadways in order to minimize grading; and a
general design policy that grading be minimized to preserve the
property' s natural features .
(c) The mitigation measures recommended by
the EIR include strengthening and clarifying the protections
and use restrictions within the designated scenic easement
areas , such as stringent restrictions on grading, construction,
tree removal and introduced landscaping in those areas;
protection of heritage trees and restrictions on tree removal
around building sites to maintain a visual screen around
structures , plus a tree removal plan to be approved for each
lot; specific design guidelines and requirements to be imposed
on particular lots within the Project to regulate building
height , grading techniques , roofline designs , colors and
materials and other design aspects of construction, which will
minimize offsite visual impacts by ensuring that structures and
ornamental landscaping are not conspicuously visible above the
natural tree canopy or the top of ridgelines or otherwise
contrast with the natural appearance of the hillsides ;
preparation and approval of landscape plans for each lot; and
restoration of areas graded and cleared for landslide repair
purposes .
(d) The EIR recommends that during
preparation of the Final Development Plan for the Project ,
proposed homesites which may create significant visual impacts
should be considered for relocation to reduce those impacts .
15
(e) The EIR suggests redesign of the
Project into a cluster development to reduce visual impacts; an
alternative to the Project involving clustered design is
discussed on page 202 of the EIR. While such a clustered
design might reduce some visual impacts , the EIR points out on
page 204 that visual impacts on views from Ridgewood Road would
be increased due to the concentration of houses and associated
grading on the east-facing slope of the southwest ridge .
(f) The EIR in its discussion of the entry
gates recommends on page 101 that the illumination to be
provided at each gate be designed to avoid impacts on nearby
residences . This potential impact and mitigation measure are
relevant to visual quality.
2 . ' Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) All the mitigation measures relating to
visual quality have been incorporated into or impcsed upon this
Project except the requirement of a clustered design for the
Project . The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project
by the applicant already are a part of the Project . The
mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are imposed on the
Project either by inclusion in these findings or by the
Conditions of Approval .
(b) The mitigation measure recommending
redesign of the Project in a clustered design is rejected as
proposed as being infeasible and undesirable, and is not
incorporated into the Project or imposed as a Condition of
Approval , for the reasons and findings stated in Section V of
these findings .
(c) It is not feasible or appropriate to
incorporate specific mitigation measures relating to visual
quality into the Current Approvals because the Current
Approvals set forth only a general configuration for
development of the Project Site, and do not constitute approval
of any particular specific development plan . The general
requirement in these mitigation measures that design standards
be established to address the specific impacts of development ,
plus the various studies and design requirements to be imposed
on the Project pursuant to the Conditions of Approval , will
mitigate significant visual quality impacts of the Project .
The County will review particular development plans for the
Project Site and will impose the conditions which are required
at that time.
16
(d) Impacts of the Project relating to
visual quality will be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level , except that the cumulative change in the character of
the hillsides cannot be so mitigated. The findings of this
Board. regarding the cumulative change in character of the
hillsides are set forth in Section IV below.
(e) Any visual impacts of the Project which
remain significant , despite the mitigation measures and
notwithstanding the above findings , are overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , .economic , social and other
benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
C. Trails .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on the local and regional trail system on pages 125
through 130 . The EIR acknowledges that the Project Site
contains fire roads and informal trails which have been used by
local residents , at times without landowner authorization . The
Alamo Park, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Plan
proposes a trail through the Project Site, connecting Castle
Crest Road to the regional trail system. No impact of the
Project relating to trails is listed as unavoidable in the EIR.
(b) The EIR indicates that the applicant is
in the process of negotiating an agreement with County Service
Area R7A to create a pedestrian access easement through the
Project Site along Project roadways . This easement will allow
passage from Castle Crest Road to the southern boundary of the
Project Site, where it would connect to a planned future trail
through neighboring property linking with the regional trail
system, plus connections to other surrounding properties .
(c) An agreement has been reached between
the applicant and R7A which will create pedestrian trail
easements along Project roadways connecting to the Alamo Ridge
and Jones Ranch properties to the south, the EBMUD reservoirs
to the west , Castle Crest Road, and possibly Ridgewood Road.
The trail easement through the Project Site will not be
effective until the link through the neighboring subdivisions
to the regional trail has been secured. This agreement
prohibits equestrian usage, in keeping with the applicant ' s
policy of prohibiting horses and other livestock on the Project
Site to avoid damage to vegetation and erosion often caused by
such animals . (However , the Commission recommended that
equestrian use be allowed because some horses are kept in the
area. ) The agreement also prohibits the creation of a
17
trailhead or parking areas to serve this trail : such
facilities would attract non-area residents , possibly creating
additional impacts on surrounding neighborhoods .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The mitigation measure proposed by the
EIR, that an agreement be reached with R7A to provide public
access through the Project Site to link with the regional trail
system, has been incorporated into the Project by the
applicant . The requirement to provide public access will be
imposed as a Condition of Approval in somewhat modified form
(which does not reduce the mitigation value of the access) .
The potential prohibition on equestrian access , a trailhead and
parking areas , does not amount to a significant impact .
(b) impacts of the Project relating to
trails will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level .
(c) Any trail impacts of the Project which
remain significant, despite the listed mitigation measures and
notwithstanding the foregoing findings , are overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of this Project as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
D . Geotechnical Factors .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on geotechnical factors on pages 131 through 151 . The
only impact of the project related to geology which is listed
as unavoidable is possible damage caused by groundshaking
during an earthquake in the region.
(b) The EIR discusses mitigation measures
already incorporated by the applicant as part of the Project ,
and recommends on pages 148 through 151 various mitigation
measures to geotechnical impacts of the Project . The
mitigation measures which already are included in the Project
include use of existing dirt fire roads as the routes for
proposed internal Project roadways in order to minimize
grading, a proposed development policy to minimize grading for
construction of individual homes , prohibitions on development
on the steeper portions of the Project Site, placement of steep
slopes in permanent scenic easement areas , and a ban on the
keeping of horses and other livestock in the Project due to
their negative effects on hillside vegetation and their
contribution to related erosion impacts .
18
(c) The mitigation measures recommended by
the EIR include further detailed geotechnical engineering
investigations to precisely identify and evaluate fault traces ,
landslides and soil conditions wherever development is
proposed; minimizing grading, avoiding heavy irrigation of
landscaped areas , and retaining needed vegetation within slide
areas; establishing and imposing the specific remedial
engineering techniques required to stabilize intended
homesites; relocating proposed building sites located in slide
areas (or eliminating affected lots if relocation is not
possible) , unless future geotechnical investigation allows
approval ; deed restrictions and CC&R' s regulating grading,
landscaping and tree removal on private lots ; design of the
drainage system to diffuse runoff and avoid erosion; requiring
construction measures beyond the minimum standards set forth in
the Uniform Building Code to reduce potential for damage caused
by earthquake shaking; preparation of detailed grading criteria
for onsite roads , individual onsite lots , and offsite Ridaewood
Road widening following site-specific investigations , which may
lead to requiring additional specific design measures such as
retaining walls , buttress fills , grading revision, realignment
of roads , or reconfiguration of lots ; prohibition of
conventional pad grading on slopes in excess of 26 percent ; an
erosion control pian during construction; and use of proper
foundation systems and subgrade treatments to address the
effects of soil expansion.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) All of the mitigation measures relating
to geotechnical impacts have been incorporated into or imposed
upon the Project . The mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project by the applicant already are a part of the
Project . The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are
imposed on the Project either by inclusion in these findings or
by the Conditions of Approval .
(b) It is appropriate to defer certain
additional geotechnical studies and conduct them later , before
review of the Final Development Plan. These studies are in
addition to those already completed and the geotechnical
analysis contained in the EIR. These additional studies are
not required to be performed at this time to provide an
adequate analysis of the Current Approvals . As the EIR points
out, the Current Approvals are only intended to signify consent
to the general preliminary development concept for the property
and do not constitute approval of any particular development
application. The Final Development Plan eventually proposed
for the Project will be subjected to rigorous site-specific
19
investigation and evaluation in accordance with recognized
routine County procedures .
(c) There is no risk that deferring
additional specific geotechnical analysis will result in the
Project being approved for construction in a manner that
creates significant impacts which will not be avoided or
adequately mitigated. The requirement for specific additional
investigation and related County inspection and verification
procedures prior to Final Development Plan approval and prior
to Project occupancy provide sufficient and satisfactory
assurance that the Project will incorporate the design and
engineering refinements necessary to reduce the degree of
impact to insignificant levels , either by avoiding associated
geotechnical impact areas altogether ( i . e. , basic Project
design changes ) , or by rectifying the impact through recognized
engineering procedures (e. g. , landslide repair , engineered
slope retainment , road and building foundation particulars ) .
(d) Except as set forth below in Section TV
(findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project
relating to geotechnical factors will be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level .
(e) Any geotechnical impacts of the Project
which remain significant , despite the mitigation measures and
. notwithstanding the foregoing findings, are overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
E. Municipal Services .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on municipal services and facilities at pages 153
through 166 . The EIR does not list any impacts of the Project
relating to municipal services as unavoidable impacts , with the
exception of two excessive police response times and cumulative
solid waste disposal . The EIR discusses a variety of municipal
service impacts , including water supply, sewers , fire, police,
parks and recreation, schools , and solid waste.
(b) The EIR discusses mitigation measures
already incorporated by the applicant as part of the Project,
and recommends various mitigation measures relating to these
municipal service impacts of the Project .
(c) The Project Site is outside of but
adjacent to the Sphere of Influence of County Service Area R7A,
20
which provides local parks and recreational services . The site
is located outside of but adjacent to the Sphere of Influence
and the Service Area of the East Bay Municipal Utility District
( "EBMUD" ) , but it is within EBMUD ' s designated "Ultimate
Service Boundary. " The site is within the. service area, but
outside the Sphere of Influence of the Central Contra Costa
County Sanitary District ( "CCCCSD" ) . The Project will require
approval of the individual agency and the Contra Costa County
Local Agency Formation Commission for expansion of the Sphere
of Influence boundaries of R7A, EBMUD, and CCCCSD; and
annexation to the R7A and EBMUD service areas . Expansion of
these boundaries to serve the Project Site do not constitute
significant impact because. surrounding properties are already
urbanized or approved for development , and no major public
service facilities will be required as a result .
(d) Regarding water supply, the Project
will be served by the new Holly Reservoir to be constructed by
EBMUD . This reservoir will be funded largely by the developer
of Rossmoor and was planned independent of approval of the
Project . The reservoir is designed to accommodate development
of the Project and other development in the area . The new
reservoir will allow EBMUD to upgrade water service to the
Castle Crest Road and Ridgewood Road neighborhoods . These
neighborhoods , which will be served by pipelines running
through the Project , will receive a more reliable water service
for both domestic and fire fighting purposes .
(e) As of September 1989 , the publication
date for the ETR, EBMUD had a limit of four new service
. connections in new annexations , due to drought and related
water supply limitations . EBMUD has cancelled the declared
drought emergency, and the limitation on new service
connections no longer is applicable .
.( f ) EBMUD previously obtained an easement
along the Project Site ' s westerly boundary to locate pipelines
connecting the Holly Reservoir with areas to the north within
the Rossmoor development . The applicant has offered to
accommodate EBMUD ' s pipelines within the Project ' s roadway
network . Construction of the pipelines along the original
easement would create significant impacts because of the rugged
terrain to be traversed; routing the pipelines along Project
roadways will avoid those impacts . If the original easement is
not abandoned, it may interfere with the proposed location of a
number of lots in the Project .
(g) The mitigation measures regarding water
supply recommended by the EIR for inclusion in the Project are
use of water-efficient plumbing fixtures and adherence to EBMUD
landscaping and irrigation restrictions . The EBMUD drought
21
emergency has been cancelled, and the restriction on new
service connections related to annexations has been lifted,
allowing service to the Project without impacts related to
drought condition water supply.
(h) The EIR does not recommend any
mitigation measures regarding sewers . The existing sewer
collection system can accommodate the projected flows from the
Project . The Project will use less than . 15 percent of the
remaining capacity of the sewer treatment plant ; the EIR
recognizes that this contributes in a minor way to a
significant cumulative demand on remaining treatment capacity.
(Note that calculations on page 159 of the EIR of the Project ' s
use of treatment capacity erred by a factor of ten --
12 , 700 gallons equals . 148 percent of 8 . 6 million gallons , not
1 . 3 percent . )
( i) with respect to fire protection, the
mitigation measure already included in the Project by the
applicant includes provision of several alternate emergency
access routes into the Project" Site , which will improve
protection of the Project, and together with Project roadways
will provide better access to hillsides in the event of brush
fires and to surrounding neighborhoods in case primary access
routes are blocked. The improved water supply system both with
the Project Site and in surrounding neighborhoods also will
improve fire protection . The mitigation measures recommended
by the EIR for the Project include a water supply and hydrant
system built to fire district specifications , satisfaction of
roadway and other guidelines for fire vehicle access , provision
for access through project security gates , spark arrestors on
chimneys, approved plans for control and abatement of weeds and
brush to minimize fire fuel buildup, use of fire retardant
roofing and other building materials, and installation of
automatic sprinkler systems in Project homes and garages .
(j ) For law enforcement, the EIR identifies
as a mitigation measure the taxes to be generated per dwelling
unit from the Project, which should be greater than the County
average because Project homes are expected to be larger . This
revenue will fund increased police manpower needs generated by
the cumulative impacts of growth. The EIR recognizes that
excessive police response times , especially during the
graveyard shift , would be an unavoidable significant impact .
(k) The Project will contribute an in—lieu
fee per residential unit as established by the County to
satisfy the Project ' s park dedication obligation and finance
park and recreation facilities in the Alamo area.
22
( 1 ) The Project will be subject to a school
impact fee which will contribute to addressing cumulative
growth in student enrollment and the need for additional school
capacity. This fee will be charged by the San Ramon Valley
School District . The fee is based on square footage of new
development; the Project is likely to generate average or
higher revenues per home for the School District , because
Project homes are expected to be relatively large .
(m) The EIR states that the Project ' s
contribution to the cumulative problem of county-wide lack of
landfill capacity is a significant and largely unavoidable
adverse impact . Voluntary recycling by Project residents will
be encouraged as a minor mitigation measure, and residents will
be required to participate in any mandatory recycling program
that might be implemented in this area .
(n) The impacts of the Project on all of
the various municipal services are not set forth as unavoidable
or irreversible impacts , except for excessive police response
time and contribution to cumulative increased demand for
landfill capacity.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) All of the mitigation measures relating
to municipal services have been incorporated into or imposed
upon the Project . The mitigation measures incorporated into
the Project by the applicant already are a part of the
Project . The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are
imposed on the Project either by inclusion in these findings or
by the Conditions of Approval .
(b) Impacts of the Project relating to
municipal services will be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level , except that excessive police response times and
contribution to cumulative increased demand for landfill
capacity cannot be so mitigated. The findings of this Board
regarding these two unavoidable impacts are set forth in
Section IV below.
(c) Any impacts of the Project relating to
municipal services which remain significant, despite the
mitigation measures and notwithstanding the above findings , are
overridden and outweighed by the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project , as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV
below) .
23
E . Drainage and Water Quality.
I . Facts .
( a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on drainage and water quality on pages 167 through
175 . The EIR does not list any impacts of the Project relating
to drainage or water quality as unavoidable impacts .
(b) The EIR recommends various mitigation
measures relating to the drainage and water quality impacts of
the Project on pages 173 through 175 . The mitigation measures
recommended by the EIR include assuring :hat Street C compiles
with established setback requirements from the adjacent creek;
establishing permanent programs under the responsibility of the
Project homeowners association to maintain the creek channel ,
and to clean and repair streets and other surfaces to minimize
storm runoff pollution; designing Project drainage systems and
constructing improved ditches , channels or storm drains as
necessary to avoid aggravating existing inadequate drainage
systems causing flooding in downstream neighborhoods ; designing
common area and homesite drainage facilities to minimize
erosion and sedimentation impacts ; minimizing landscaping
irrigation and encouraging use of native drought-tolerant
species; payment of required county fees for offsite drainage
improvements planned for Drainage Area 13 ; participation in the
flood mitigation efforts for the San Ramon Creek by way of
either directly removing earth from the creek channel or paying
the established in-lieu mitigation fee; preparing and
implementing an approved construction period erosion control
plan to remain in effect long enough to stabilize the Project
Site; and limiting construction in the central drainage channel
to the period between April 15 and October 1 .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
. ( a) All of the mitigation measures relating
to drainage and water quality recommended by the EIR are
imposed on the Project either by inclusion in these findings or
by the Conditions of Approval .
(b) Impacts of the Project relating to
drainage and water quality will be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level .
(c) Any drainage and water quality impacts
of the Project which remain significant, despite the listed
mitigation measures and notwithstanding the foregoing findings ,
are overridden and outweighed by the environmental , economic ,
24
social and other benefits of this Project as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI
below) .
G. Vegetation and wildlife .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on vegetation and wildlife at pages 177 through 192 .
The only impacts of the Project on vegetation and wildlife
which are listed as unavoidable are contribution to cumulative
regional losses in natural vegetative values such as mature oak
woodlands and grasslands providing general foraging area and
habitat for wildlife, and contribution to cumulative regional
degradation of habitat for raptor and predatory species , and
general declines in wildlife use of the Project Site .
(b) The EIR acknowledges the applicant ' s
stated intention to adopt tree preservation measures for the
Project . The E=R recommends various mitigation measures
relating to vegetation and wildlife, including preserving and
enhancing grassland areas ; designing development of common
areas and individual lots to minimize tree removal (especially
mature oak trees) , preparing tree removal plans for each lot
based on examination by a qualified arborist , and including
tree preservation measures in Project CC&R' s ; undergrounding of
utilities ; enforcement of leash laws ; prohibition of harmful
activities within the scenic easement areas ; use of native
plants and landscaping; general restriction of fencing to allow
animal migration; and protection of wildlife movement
corridors .
(c) Special mitigation measures are
recommended to protect the Alameda whipsnake habitat . These
include creation of a 30-foot buffer area, with both the actual
habitat and the buffer zone included in the scenic easement .
No grading, deposition of soil or other land disturbance will
be allowed in the buffer area or the actual snake habitat .
Grading will be monitored for compliance with protective
restrictions . Grading near the habitat will be limited to the
period of July 1 through the start of the rainy season . The
grading plan will include drainage measures to prevent Project
runoff from entering the habitat area. The habitat and buffer
areas will be treated as an open space preserve, with permanent
restrictions prohibiting any activity. Rototilling within the
buffer zone will both serve as a fire brEKk and. discourage the
whipsnake from leaving its habitat and entering developed areas
of the Project Site.
25
(d) The EIR presents alternative mitigation
measures regarding the riparian willow thicket habitat area .
These involve either preservation and enhancement of the
existing thicket , or creation of replacement riparian habitat
elsewhere on the Project Site to compensate for removal of the
thicket . Both alternative mitigation measures are incorporated
into the Project , with selection of the appropriate mitigation
deferred until later development applications , as discussed in
the findings below
(e) The EIR suggests two alternative
mitigation measures regarding impacts of the proposed
development around Court C on woodland and scrub areas . These
alternative measures are recommended by the EIR to address
possible general declines in wildlife use of the Project Site .
The EIR recommends either using primary homesites on Lots 30
and 31- rather than the designated alternative sites , or
eliminating Court C and eliminating or relocating Lot 32 (the
EIR mistakenly referred .to Lot "36" in this mitigation measure,
but obviously meant Lot 32 at the end of Court C) . A
right-of-way capable of accommodating trucks may be required
similar to the route of Court C, to follow the pipelines
running from the Holly Reservoir to the Castle Crest
Reservoir . Both alternative measures are incorporated into the
Project , with selection of the appropriate mitigation deferred
until later development applications as discussed in the
findings below.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) All of the mitigation measures relating
to vegetation and wildlife have been incorporated into or
imposed upon the Project . The mitigation measures incorporated
into the Project by the applicant already are a part of the
Project . The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are
imposed on the Project either by inclusion in these findings or
by the Conditions of Approval .
(b) It is appropriate to defer selecting
.between the two alternative mitigation measures regarding
preservation of the willow thicket versus creation of
replacement riparian habitat elsewhere on the Project Site.
Both measures are adequate to avoid a potential significant
impact . The general area of the thicket represents a possible
site to relocate lots from other portions of the Project ; this
may be found desirable in order to avoid visual or geotechnical
impacts . This Board desires to retain flexibility in designing
the final plan for the Project and minimizing all impacts . The
County will consider the relative merits of preservation versus
26
replacement , and the best use of that location, at the time of
Final Development Plan review.
(c) It is appropriate to defer selecting
between the two alternative mitigation measures regarding
elimination of Court C versus avoidance of designated
alternative homesites . Both measures are adequate to address
concerns in the EIR about impact to woodland and scrub areas
causing a general decline in wildlife use of the Project Site
and to avoid a potential significant impact . The value of
eliminating Court C may be negated if EBMUD roadway
requirements following its pipelines will result in similar
impacts . The Board desires to retain flexibility in designing
final plans for the Project and minimizing all impacts . The
County will consider the relative merits of the alternatives at
the time of Final Development Plan review.
(d) It is not feasible or appropriate to
incorporate specific mitigation measures relating to vegetation
and wildlife into the Current Approvals because the Current
Approvals set forth only a general configuration for
development of the Project Site, and do not constitute approval
of any particular specific development plan. The general
requirement in these mitigation measures that standards be
established to address the specific impacts of development ,
plus the various studies and design requirements to be imposed
on the Project pursuant to the Conditions of Approval , will
mitigate significant vegetation and wildlife impacts of the
Project . The County will review particular development plans
for the Project Site and will impose the mitigation measures
which are required at that time .
(e) Except as set forth in Section IV
(findings on unavoidable impacts) , impacts of the Project
relating to vegetation and wildlife will be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level .
(f) Any vegetation and wildlife impacts of
the Project which remain significant despite the mitigation
measures and notwithstanding the foregoing findings , are
overridden and outweighed by the environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project , as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV
below) .
H. Archaeology.
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on archaeological resources at pages 197 through 198 .
27
The EIR does not list any archaeological impacts of the Project
as unavoidable impacts .
(b) The EIR states that grading required
for construction of roads , driveways and homesites could
potentially disrupt or destroy archaeological sites on the
Project Site. The EIR recommends as a mitigation measure that
if archaeological deposits are encountered during Project
grading or construction, work in the vicinity will be halted
until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find.
Subsequent mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist
and required by the County will be undertaken prior to
resumption of construction .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) The mitigation measures relating to
archaeological resources recommended by the EIR are imposed on
the Project either by inclusion in these findings or by the
Conditions of Approval .
(b) Impacts of the Project relating to
archaeological resources will be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level .
(c) Any archaeological impacts of the
Project which remain significant , despite the mitigation
measures and notwithstanding the above findings , are overridden
and outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
I . Cumulative Impacts .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR evaluates the cumulative
impacts of the Project as part of the separate discussions of
various impact categories analyzed in the EIR. The EIR
identifies some cumulative impacts as being potentially
significant but capable of being avoided or substantially
lessened by mitigation measures and other actions . Those
impacts and the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are
discussed in Section III of these findings . The EIR identifies
a number of cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable,
even though they may be lessened to some degree by recommended
mitigation measures . These unavoidable impacts and the .
mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are discussed in
Section IV of these findings . Many of the cumulative impacts
28
• identified in the EIR represent existing problems , or future
impacts resulting from cumulative growth which will occur with
or without the Project .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) Cumulative impacts of the Project ,
including those discussed in Section III of these findings ,
generally will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
the adoption of mitigation measures as referenced in these
findings . The cumulative impacts which remain potentially
significant , together with mitigation measures which may lessen
those impacts , are discussed in Section IV below.
(b) To the extent that any cumulative
impacts remain significant , despite the mitigation measures for
all categories of environmental impact as set forth in these
findings , and notwithstanding the foregoing findings , those
cumulative impacts are overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of this
Project , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section. VI below) .
J. Land Use and Open Space; Population and Housing;
Noise .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR discusses the impacts of the
Project on land use and open space at pages 41 through 63 ; on
population and housing at pages 65 through 68; and on noise at
pages 193 through 195 .
(b) All impacts related to these three
categories identified in the EIR are determined in these
findings either not to be significant , and addressed in
Section II above, or to be significant unavoidable or
irreversible impacts, and addressed in Section IV below.
2 . Findings .
Based on all the evidence in the record, this Board
finds that :
(a) All impacts of the Project related to
land use and open space, population and housing, and noise
either are not significant, or are significant unavoidable or
irreversible impacts .
29
(b) All impacts of the Project related to
land use and open space, population and housing, and noise are
adequately addressed elsewhere in these findings .
(c) Any impacts of the Project related to
land use and open space, population and housing, and noise
which are significant, are overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic . social and other benefits of the
Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section IV below) .
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091 this Board
adopts and makes the following findings regarding those certain
environmental impacts of the Current Approvals and the Project
set forth below.
A. Loss Of Open Space .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 62 and page 207
that the Project will result in the loss of 177 acres of open
space . The EIR explains that open space losses would be
unavoidable with any residential development proposal . The EIR
identifies this. as the primary land use impact of the Project .
(b) The applicant has proposed that more
than half the Project Site be placed within a "scenic easement"
as discussed elsewhere in these findings , within which
development will not be allowed and disturbance of the natural
terrain and vegetation will be minimized. Thus , over 100 acres
may be preserved as open space . Design guidelines for the
Project will minimize tree removal and grading. Pedestrian
access through the Project will be allowed via a public trail
easement through the Project Site connecting to trail access to
the south. These and other mitigation measures and Conditions
of Approval will reduce the adverse impact of loss of open
space.
(c) The EIR on page 202 discusses an
alternative to the Project involving clustered design and
permanent open space dedication. The EIR indicates that this
alternative would reduce the degree of open space loss
(although the EIR does not state that the alternative would
avoid the determination that this impact is significant and
unavoidable) . This alternative is rejected as infeasible and
undesirable, for the reasons discussed in Section V below.
30
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) The loss of open space as a result of
the Project is unavoidable . Even with integration of a
permanent scenic easement , plus mitigation measures and other
conditions intended to minimize disturbance of the Project Site
and preserve its rural appearance, and Project density less
than surrounding development , all of which will aid in
maintaining some feeling and appearance of open space ,
nevertheless this impact remains potentially significant .
(b) The impact of the Project relating to
loss of open space is overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
Project , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section VI below) .
B . Character Of H_llside Areas .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR states on page 59 that
development of the Project will contribute to a cumulative
significant change in the character of land use in the hillside
areas above Alamo . she Project will introduce low-density
residential development into a hillside area which currently
provides an open space separation between a portion of the
community of Alamo and the Rossmoor development in the City of
Walnut Creek . The Project will represent development of the
last large parcel of privately owned open space in the hills
above the west side of the San Ramon Valley in the Alamo area.
Recent residential development has occurred on several other
hillside properties in the Project vicinity. Even though the
Project and other hillside development is low density, the EIR
lists this impact as significant .
(b) The EIR does not state specifically
that this cumulative impact is considered unavoidable. This
impact is not listed in Section VI . B of the EIR. However , no
mitigation measures are recommended in the EIR to address this
cumulative impact, which suggests that it cannot be avoided.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(.a) The impact of the Project on the
hillside character in the Alamo area is largely cumulative .
The mitigation measures and other provisions described above
31
•regarding loss of open space will substantially lessen the
apparent change in character of the overall hillside area by
maximizing the rural atmosphere and minimizing the apparent
visible change . Nevertheless , this cumulative impact remains
potentially significant .
(b) The impact of the Project on the
character of hillside areas is overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
Project , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section VI below) .
C. Perceived Traffic Increase .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR evaluates the "perceived"
increase in traffic along residential streets near the
Project . The EIR concludes that one or more street segments
may experience an increase in traffic described as
' significantly noticeable . ''
(b) Despite the conclusion in Response to
Comment No . 22 .29 in the Final EIR that Project traffic impacts
on nearby residential environments are not significant to the
extent that they require mitigation, the EIR Summary on Page 11
includes the perceived traffic increase in its listing of
"significant" impacts , and indicates that these impacts are
unavoidable.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The EIR Summary is not dispositive as
to the significance or unavoidability of impacts .
Nevertheless , the perceived increase in traffic on certain
segments as a result of the Project is unavoidable.
(b) The impact of the Project relating to
perceived traffic increases is overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
Project , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section VI below) .
D. Danville Boulevard./Ridgewood Road Intersection.
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 91 that
cumulative traffic increases during the PM peak hour for the
32
left-turn movement from Ridgewood Road to Danville Boulevard
will change the Level of Service ( ''LOS" ) from D to E, with or
without the project . A change in LOS rating to E or worse is
considered to constitute a significant adverse impact .
(b) The EIR on page 102 states that there
are no mitigation measures which would improve the LOS E rating
for this left turn, so that the significant cumulative impact ,
with or without the project , is unavoidable. Signals are not
warranted at this location, and adding a left-turn lane on the
Ridgewood Road approach would not improve theoretical operation.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The cumulative impact of traffic
increases on the left turn from Ridgewood Road to Danville
Boulevard, with or without the Project , is unavoidable . There
are no mitigation measures which would improve the operation of
this turn.
(b) This cumulative impact is overridden
and outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations . (Section VI below) .
E . Traffic Generation.
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR on page 207 states that the
Project will contribute to cumulative local , subregional , and
regional traffic impacts by generating approximately 375
additional daily vehicle trips . This contribution to
cumulative traffic volume is listed as a significant
unavoidable impact .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The cumulative impact of increases in
local , subregional , and regional traffic, with or without the
Project , is unavoidable . Certain improvements and other
measures will substantially lessen the impact of traffic
increases . Nevertheless , this cumulative impact remains
potentially significant .
(b) This cumulative impact is overridden
and outweighed by the environmental , economic, social and other
33
• benefits of the Project , as fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
F. Danville Boulevard/Ridgewood Road Left Turn.
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR on page 208 indicates that the
increase in traffic turning left from Danville Boulevard onto
Ridgewood Road, increasing the existing significant risk of
accident at this intersection, constitutes a significant
unavoidable impact . The technical analysis in Section IV. 0 of
the EIR does not identify this existing improvement need as an
unavoidable impact .
(b) The EIR on page 81 identifies the need
for a left-turn lane for northbound Danville Boulevard traffic
entering Ridgewood Road under existing conditions even without
the Project . On page 100 of the EIR, this left-turn lane is
included as an existing improvement need which is not related
to the Project . This improvement is not currently designated
for funding by the County, and therefore would not benefit from
the countywide traffic impact fee requirement that will be
imposed on the Project .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) The existing safety concern regarding
. left turns from Danville Boulevard onto Ridgewood Road, and the
Project ' s contribution to that problem, may be substantially
lessened by installing a left-turn lane. However, the County
has not identified this lane as a desired traffic improvement ,
and has not approved funding. In the absence of approval and
funding, this impact is potentially significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
G. Castle Crest Road Safety.
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR on page 208 states that the
Project will add 120 one-way trips per day to Castle Crest Road,
adding proportionally to the significant existing, largely
unmitigable safety hazards on the steepest , 0 .2-mile section of
that route. The EIR notes on page 87 that these 120 daily
34
trips will amount to roughly a 16 percent relative increase in
traffic immediately south of Crest Avenue . This increase will
contribute to existing safety concerns and hazards facing
drivers , pedestrians , joggers , and the home at the foot of the
steep road segment .
(b) The applicant proposes that the Project
entry off of Castle Crest Road be limited to Project residents
and emergency purposes only, and that all non-resident traffic
be required to enter the Project from Ridgewood Road in order
to avoid the safety hazards associated with the steep grade on
Castle Crest Road . This restriction will reduce the adverse
impact of the Project on the existing safety concerns on
Castle Crest Road .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) The Project ' s contribution to the
existing safety concern along the steep segment of Castle Crest
Road may be substantially lessened by prohibiting use of that
entry to the Project by non-residents . Nevertheless , this
impact still is potentially significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
H . Earthquake Damage .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 208 that the
Project will be subject to unavoidable, significant damage to
structures due to earthquake shaking in a seismically active
area such as Central Contra Costa County.
(b) The EIR incorporates a number of
mitigation measures which will reduce the adverse impact and
minimize the potential. for damage from earthquake shaking, by
applying a conservative approach to grading and requiring
higher standards of construction. As recommended by the State
Department of Mines and Geology, the County will require
construction measures beyond the minimum standards set forth in
the Uniform Building Co6e to reduce damage . Home buyers will
be encouraged to purchase earthquake insurance to protect
against catastrophic loss .
35
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The impact on this Project of
earthquake shaking may be substantially lessened by
incorporation of various mitigation measures . Nevertheless ,
this impact still is potentially significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
I . Police Response Times .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 162 that police
response times to the Project will be excessive, especially
during "graveyard shift" periods . The EIR lists this impact in
Section IV.G . 5 as significant and unavoidable . It is possible
that widening and improving Ridgewood Road may serve to reduce
response times slightly. The use of security gates to restrict
unauthorized access may reduce the number of crime-related
calls to police.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The impact of excessive police response
times on the Project is unavoidable and potentially significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
J. Solid Waste.
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on page 208 and page 166
that the Project will add to a cumulative problem of solid
waste disposal and limited County landfill capacity. The EIR
lists this impact as significant and largely unavoidable.
(b) The remedy for this impact can only
reasonably be accomplished on a countywide basis rather than by
the Project . The County is proceeding to develop new landfill
36
• . capacity, which may make this impact only temporary in nature .
New landfill capacity may become available before the Project
is constructed and occupied. The EIR incorporates as a
mitigation measure that the Project encourage voluntary
recycling by residents .
2 . Findinas .
This Board finds that :
(a) The impact of the Project on landfill
capacity is largely cumulative . This Project, like other new
development in the County, will produce solid waste requiring
disposal . This impact may be lessened by encouragement of
recycling efforts both within the Project and on a countywide
basis . Nevertheless , this impact potentially is significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
K . Oak .Woodlands .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR on page 189 and page 208 states
that development of the Project will contribute to cumulative
regional losses in mature oak woodlands . This decline in older
oak communities in the region cannot be avoided even if the
Project is not developed, without a dramatic change in
regionwide urban growth patterns . The EIR identifies this
matter as an unavoidable impact .
(b) The applicant has proposed that more
than half the Project Site be placed within a scenic easement,
within which tree cutting will not be permitted. Design
guidelines for the Project will minimize tree removal , and a
tree removal plan will be required for all construction.
Heritage trees on the Project Site will be protected. These
and other mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval will
reduce the adverse impact of the Project on oak woodlands .
2 . Findings .
(a) The mitigation measures and other
provisions described above regarding loss of oak woodlands on
the Project Site may substantially lessen the impact of the
Project . Nevertheless, this cumulative impact still is
potentially significant .
37
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
L. Grasslands .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR states on pages 189 and 191 ,
and implies on page 208 , that development of the Project will
contribute to cumulative regional losses in grassland habitat ,
with related impacts on raptors and other species . This loss
of grassland in the region cannot be avoided even if the
Project is not developed, without a dramatic change in
regionwide urban growth patterns . The EIR identifies this
matter as an unavoidable impact .
(b) The applicant has proposed that more
than half the Project Site be placed within a scenic easement .
Some grassland will be included in that area . The EIR
recommends that design of the Project attempt to preserve
grassland, and that perhaps brush and oak forest areas be
converted into grassland . These and other mitigation measures
and Conditions of Approval may reduce the adverse impact of the
Project on grasslands .
2 . Findings .
(a) The mitigation measures and other
provisions described above regarding loss of grassland on the
Project Site may substantially lessen the impact of the
Project . Even so, this cumulative impact still is potentially
significant .
(b) The mitigation measures regarding
preservation and creation of grassland may conflict with goals
to preserve and enhance oak woodland, as discussed above.
Design of the Project to protect oak trees , snake habitat , and
riparian areas , and to avoid steep slopes and other geologic
hazards, may result in placement of development in grass
Any ny program to remove oak trees to create new grassland
must first determine the relative values of each type of
vegetation.
(c) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
38
M. Predators .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR states on page 191 that
development of the Project will contribute to cumulative
regional degradation of habitat for raptor and predatory
species (mainly grasslands) . This loss of predator habitat in
the region cannot be avoided even if the Project is not
developed, without a dramatic change in regionwide urban growth
patterns . The EIR identifies this matter as an unavoidable
impact .
(b) The applicant has proposed that more
than half the Project Site be placed within a scenic easement .
Some predator habitat will be included in that area . The EIR
recommends that design of the Project attempt to preserve
grassland and other areas of high habitat value. These and
other mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval may reduce
the adverse impact of the Project on predators .
2 . Findings .
( a) The mitigation measures and other
provisions described above regarding loss of predator habitat
on the Project Site may substantially lessen the impact of the
Project . Even so, this cumulative impact still is potentially
significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
N. General Wildlife Use .
1 . Facts .
( a) The EIR states on pages 189 through
191 that development of the Project will cause a general
decline in wildlife use of the Project Site . This will result
from a combination of direct loss of habitat and intrusion of
human activity. The EIR identifies this matter as an
unavoidable impact .
(b) The applicant has proposed that more
than half the Project Site be placed within a scenic easement :
This area will protect habitats from disturbance by
construction or activity. The EIR proposes limiting hunting,
wood cutting, off-road vehicles and unauthorized vegetation
clearing from these easement areas . The EIR recommends that
39
design of the Project attempt to protect grasslands , oak
woodlands , scrub areas and other areas of high habitat value .
A special preserve will be designated for the Alameda
whipsnake. The existing willow thicket either will be
preserved or replaced with riparian habitat . The EIR
recommends that utilities be placed underground, leash laws be
enforced, native landscaping be encouraged, fencing be
minimized, and wildlife movement corridors be protected. These
and other mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval may
reduce the adverse impact of the Project on wildlife.
2 . Findings .
(a) The mitigation measures and other
provisions described above regarding general loss of wildlife
on the Project Site may substantially lessen the impact of the
Project . Nevertheless , this impact still is potentially
significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
0. Construction Period Noise .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR on page 194 discusses two
aspects of construction period noise from the Project : noise
generated by trucks driving on Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest
Road; and noise from actual grading and construction activity
related to the Project . This section of the EIR recommends as
mitigation for truck-related noise, that truck movements be
limited to weekday, non-holiday times between 8 A.M. and
5 P.M. In addition, the EIR in its discussion of
transportation impacts suggests prohibiting truck travel on
Castle Crest Road . No mitigations are proposed in the body of
the EIR text regarding noise from construction activity.
(b) The EIR Summary on page 20 identifies
construction-related noise as an unavoidable significant impact
of the Project , and recommends limiting hours of construction
to 8 A.M. through 5 P.M. on non-holiday weekdays .
Truck-related noise is not labelled as unavoidable, although
the EIR consultant has stated that it also should be considered
unavoidable .
40
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The EIR Summary is not dispositive as
to the significance or unavoidability of impacts ; nor are the
unofficial oral comments of consultants . Prohibiting trucks on
Castle Crest Road, and restricting hours of truck movement and
construction activity, will substantially lessen construction
period noise impacts related to the Project . Nevertheless,
these impacts are potentially significant .
(b) This Project impact is overridden and
outweighed by the environmental , economic , social and other
benefits of the Project , as more fully stated in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Section VI below) .
P . Irreversible Impacts .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR does not specifically identify
irreversible impacts of the Project . The EIR states in
Section VI .B that some of the significant unavoidable impacts
identified therein are irreversible as well .
2 . Findings .
Based upon the EIR and the entire record this Board
finds that :
(a) The following impacts identified in the
EIR as significant and unavoidable also are irreversible : loss
of open . space, for that portion of the Project Site not
included in the scenic easement ; cumulative change in the
character of Alamo hillsides ; risk of damage due to earthquake
shaking, despite use of higher construction standards ;
cumulative increase in traffic; cumulative loss of grassland
habitat; and general reduction in wildlife . This Board already
has adopted findings regarding these significant unavoidable
impacts , as set forth above.
(b) Other impacts discussed in the EIR
which are not listed as unavoidable and significant, such as
disturbance of archaeological sties and increases in storm
runoff, as well as other potential impacts related generally to
the introduction of a residential development of 37 homes
containing up to 148 people into the Alamo area, are not
unavoidable significant impacts , but may be irreversible. This
Board already has made findings regarding those impacts
identified in the EIR as not being significant, or as being
41
potentially significant but capable of avoidance or mitigation,
as set forth above.
(c) All of the irreversible impacts of the
Project are overridden and outweighed by the environmental ,
economic , social and other benefits of the Project , as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Section VI below) .
Q. Other Environmental Impacts .
1 . Facts .
(a) The EIR does not list any other impacts
of this Project as unavoidable and significant .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
( a) Except for any impacts of the Project
which are determined to be unavoidable and significant as set
forth above, the other impacts of this Project are either
insignificant , or have been avoided, substantially lessened, or
mitigated to a less-than-significant level .
(b) Any such impacts remaining, despite the
mitigation measures set forth for each category of
environmental impact , are overridden and outweighed by the
environmental , economic , social and other benefits of the
Project , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Section VI below) .
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The EIR evaluates a number of different alternatives
to the Project , including the required no-project alternative,
four alternative design plans for the Project Site, and two
alternative development sites (one of which constitutes a large
area with multiple potential sites) . These alternatives are
discussed in Section D of the EIR Summary and analyzed in
detail in Chapter V of the EIR.
This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable
range of alternatives to the Project . Specifically, this Board
finds that the four design alternatives and the two alternative
sites are adequately discussed and evaluated in the EIR.
This Board adopts the findings set forth below
regarding the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, including
certain findings which apply to all of the alternatives .
42
A. No-Project Alternative .
This Board finds that the no-project alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project , and rejects the
no-project alternative for the following reasons :
1 . Pursuant to this alternative, Ridgewood Road
would remain in its present poorly maintained state . Current
residents would not benefit from proposed improvements .
2 . No new emergency access routes would be
provided to the residential neighborhoods immediately north and
south of the Project Site, and access to each neighborhood
could be cut off if its current single access road is blocked.
3 . If this alternative is adopted, construction
of pipelines for the new EEBMUD reservoir will be significantly
more difficult , costly and time-consuming, and will cause
significant environmental impacts , as EBMUD will have to
construct bridges and tunnels for its pipelines along its
current easement across rugged terrain. Until the pipeline is
complete, water service to Rossmoor and to other Alamo
neighborhoods in the area will continue to be less than
optimal , both for firefighting and domestic purposes .
4 . Adoption of this alternative would eliminate
any short term opportunity to improve emergency fire access to
the Project Site . At present , the County's ability to combat
brush fires is impeded by the lack of roads suitable for
firefighting personnel and equipment and the lack of an on-site
water source .
5 . The Alameda whipsnake, which is listed by
the State as threatened, has been found on the Project Site .
The proposed Project as mitigated includes permanent protection
of the snake ' s habitat . Adoption of the no-project alternative
implies that residents of the adjoining neighborhoods may
continue to trespass on the Project Site for recreational
purposes , and the landowner will use the property. There will
be no permanent protection of the whipsnake habitat from human
incursion or from future use of the property.
6 . Pursuant to this alternative, there would be
no permanent scenic easement to preserve the aesthetic and
habitat value of more than half the Project Site. The County
would lose the opportunity to preserve open space and habitat
without the expenditure of County funds .
7 . As stated elsewhere in these findings , many
of the environmental impacts of the Project have been mitigated
to a less-than-significant level . The Project will provide
43
many benefits , including environmentally sound land use
planning under the P-1 zoning, and resulting environmental ,
public health and safety, natural resource conservation, and
other benefits to the area, as discussed in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations . These benefits would not be
obtained if this alternative is adopted.
B. Minimum Development Under The General Plan
Permitted Density Range .
This Board finds the Minimum Development alternative
is infeasible and less desirable than the Project , and
accordingly rejects this alternative for the following reasons :
1 . The primary benefits of this alternative are
incremental reductions in traffic , noise, public service and
visual impacts relative to the Project . The impacts of the
Project in these categories mostly are either insignificant , or
can be avoided or reduced to insignificance by adopting
appropriate mitigations . Unavoidable Project impacts as
described in Section IV of these findings also would be
unavoidable for the most part under this alternative .
( a) The Project will cause perceived
increases in traffic , but those increases will not be
objectively significant if proposed improvements are
implemented. Local roadways are presently only lightly
traveled. Project build-out will not result in traffic
increases in excess of the roads ' design capacities .
(b) Noise impacts are expected to be
significant only during the construction period. Construction
impacts also would be significant under this alternative .
(c) All direct Project impacts on public
services are mitigable, with the exception of the problem of
emergency police response times . This impact would not be
reduced under this alternative .
(d) The Project ' s visual impacts are
mitigable, and may be avoided entirely by architectural design
and the appropriate use of outdoor lighting, landscaping, and
existing tree cover .
2 . Adoption of this alternative would not
create a scenic easement permanently protecting the majority of
the Project Site from degradation of aesthetic and habitat
values . Instead, this alternative would allow development of a
series of knolls in the northwest corner of the property,
causing new significant adverse visual impacts on surrounding
residential neighborhoods and roadways .
44
3 . This alternative incorporates strict
interpretation of the land use designations in the San Ramon
Valley Area General Plan. Pursuant to this approach, dense
development along some of the steeper hillsides of the property
with smaller parcels than under the Project could result in
significant s"lope stability, erosion and woodland removal
impacts greater than those of the Project .
4 . Development under this alternative may not
achieve many of the benefits expected from the Project ,
including upgrading Ridgewood Road, creating alternative
emergency access routes to surrounding neighborhoods , providing
a preferable route for EBMUD water pipelines and facilitating
upgrading of water service to surrounding neighborhoods .
5 . Development under this alternative may not
be practically or economically feasible . Engineering
considerations and environmental restrictions may preclude
construction on the steeper hillsides where many of the 16
units theoretically would be allowed, or would require overly
expensive mitigations . Some portion of the alternative
ultimately may not be developable .
C. Development Under Current A-2 Zoning.
This Board finds that development under current A-2
zoning is infeasible and less desirable than the Project , and
rejects this development alternative for the following reasons :
1 . Maintaining the current conventional A-2
zoning would limit the County' s ability to regulate development
in a manner sensitive to this specific property. By foregoing
the opportunity to rezone the Project Site to P-1 , the County
would lose design flexibility and the ability to impose
restrictions on tree removal , landscaping, road width, and the
placement , design and height of structures developed. Such
controls only could be achieved through voluntary cooperation
by the developer .
2 . The scenic easement proposed for the
Project , which will protect aesthetic and habitat values , might
not be provided under this alternative . Less flexibility
regarding placement and design of structures may result in
different or greater visual impacts .
3 . The impacts of this alternative are only
slightly less than those expected to result from the Project .
Adoption of the alternative would generate somewhat reduced
. traffic , noise, and public services impacts , would disturb less
of the existing woodland, and would diminish the potential for
accelerated erosion on the site . However , imposition of
45
appropriate mitigations upon the Project will reduce Project
impacts to a similar level , to the extent that the Project
entails significant impacts of these types .
D. Modified P-1 Development Layout -- Cluster Design.
This Board finds that the modified P-1 cluster design
alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project ,
and rejects this alternative for the following reasons :
1 . Adoption of this alternative would cause
potentially significant impacts that are not anticipated to
result from the Project . Visual impacts on views from
Ridgewood Road could be increased due to the concentration of
proposed houses and associated grading . Clustering on smaller
lots allows less flexibility in locating structures to take
advantage of trees and terrain to provide screening, and to
avoid tree and other vegetation removal .
2 . The increased concentration of residential
lots on or near identified landslide areas under this
alternative could diminish the stability of those lots , with
consequent significant safety impacts . Some of the proposed
lots under this alternative may not be buildable , or may
require overly expensive remedial measures, because of their
proximity to landslides and lack of location flexibility. This
alternative may not be feasible either practically or
economically, because of the ultimate loss of lots or the
excessive per lot mitigation expense .
3 . The traffic , public service, cumulative,
unavoidable and other impacts of this alternative would not be
substantially less than if the Project is approved subject to
appropriate mitigations . The expressed primary benefit of this
alternative, increased containment and insulation from
neighboring development , does not directly address any
significant Project impact identified by the EIR. The Project
will provide adequate trail connections through the R7A
agreement , so the more extensive trails under this alternative
do not address an unmitigated Project impact . Impacts upon the
Alameda whipsnake would be reduced pursuant to this
alternative, but Project impacts on the whipsnake can
satisfactorily be avoided or mitigated to insignificance by
protection of the Chaparrel plant community which is the
whipsnake ' s habitat . This alternative would . reduce impacts
upon an existing willow thicket; however , no rare or endangered
plant or animal species are associated with. this thicket, and
loss of the existing thicket under the Project will be
mitigated by provision of replacement riparian habitat
elsewhere on the Project Site.
46
4 . The EIR indicates that adoption of this
alternative might not allow the attainment of the basic
marketing objectives of the Project . Homesites would not
benefit as greatly from view and other amenities inherent to
the property. This alternative would represent a development
concept different from most residential development in Alamo .
The smaller lots and common open space would represent
different marketing features than those of the existing
proposal , and may not be economically feasible .
5 . The EIR states that clustered development is
occurring on Jones Ranch adjacent to the Project Site . Jones
Ranch contains a large level area capable of safely
accommodating clustered parcels without environmental impact ,
unlike the Project Site. The experience of Jones Ranch is not
applicable to the Project .
E . Maximum Development Under The General Plan
Permitted Density Range .
This Board finds that the maximum development
alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project,
and rejects this alternative for the following reasons :
1 . This alternative would not mitigate any
significant Project impacts .
2 . Adoption .of this alternative would result in
significantly greater impacts in all categories considered in
the EIR, including land use compatibility, traffic , noise,
visual , soil instability, erosion, seismicity, public services
and vegetation and wildlife .
F. Alternative Sites ,
This Board finds that both alternative sites ,
La Gonda Way and the west side of San Ramon, are infeasible and
less desirable than the Project , and rejects both alternative
sites for the following reasons :
1 . Both alternative sites are substantially
similar to the no-project alternative with respect to the
Project Site. The reasons for rejecting the no-project
alternative apply equally to rejection of the two alternative
sites, i . e. , losing the opportunity to : impose a scenic
easement on more than half the Project Site; improve Ridgewood
Road at the developer ' s expense; facilitate improvement of
water service to the adjoining Ridgewood and Castle Crest
neighborhoods for firefighting and domestic purposes; improve
emergency access to surrounding neighborhoods for firefighting
and other purposes; establish an EBMUD pipeline connection
47
• between the new and existing reservoirs without construction
across rugged terrain; and protect the Alameda whipsnake .
2 . The primary advantage of these alternatives
is the temporary maintenance of the Project Site as open space
and the elimination of potential development impacts upon the
habitat of the Alameda whipsnake and upon vegetation. However,
the property can be maintained in its entirety as permanent
open space only at considerable expense to the County.
Currently, no funding sources are available for the Project
Site to be purchased as public open space . Further , the
Project ' s impacts on wildlife and vegetation generally are
mitigable .
3 . Development of either alternate site in the
form proposed for the Project would avoid visual impact on the
Project Site only at the cost of incurring significant visual
impacts at the alternate sites .
4 . Development at La Gonda Way would introduce
development into a more visually vulnerable site, and in an
area that is more geotechnically unstable than the Project
Site. Accordingly, adoption of this development alternative
could entail more severe safety and visual impacts than the
Project .
5 . The La Gonda Way site is subject to a
current application for development . Therefore, it may not be
available for development of the Project, and so may not be a
feasible alternative.
6 . Development in West San Ramon is largely
infeasible until 1995 , when the Williamson Act contracts
covering most of the area will expire. Development under this
alternative could cause greater impacts than development of the
Project Site. Significant cumulative traffic impacts could be
expected, and the area would also require significant expansion
of public utilities and other facilities into an area currently
without water and sewer service. Development planning is
underway for this area; it may not be available for development
of the Project, and so may not be a feasible alternative.
There is no planning process under which San Ramon would take a
transfer of development rights from the County and allow more
dense development on the west side .
7 . Development at either alternative site is
likely to contribute to existing regional problems and future
cumulative impacts similar to the Project .
S . There are no other feasible alternative
sites within this area of the County capable of accommodating
48
the Project , available for development , and not subject to
service restrictions by EBMUD or other agencies .
G. Findings Applicable To All Of The Alternatives .
With respect to all the alternatives evaluated in the
EIR, this Board adopts the following findings as additional
reasons for approving the Project and rejecting the
alternatives to the Project :
1 . Development of the Project Site under P-1
zoning will enable the County to conserve the natural resources
of the property in an environmentally sound manner , without
acquiring it as permanent open space . The approval of the
Project and resultant imposition of P-1 planning requirements
will result in more than half the site being preserved under a
scenic easement , maintaining a substantial quantity of valuable
open space and protecting sensitive habitat .
2 . Approval of the Project will serve public
health, safety and welfare by improving emergency access and
water supply to adjoining residential neighborhoods , improving
Ridgewood Road, and allowing EBMUD to install necessary
pipelines at reduced expense and environmental impact .
3 . Many of the impacts of the Project are
similar to the impacts of any new residential development .
This is an additional reason to approve the Project and reject
the alternatives .
4 . The proposed alternatives will not provide
environmental or other benefits that would justify adopting
them rather than the Project . The environmental , economic ,
social and other benefits of the Project clearly justify its
approval rather than any of the alternatives .
5 . Public Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15092(c) require that this Board not reduce
the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if
it determines that there is any other feasible mitigation
measure available that will provide a comparable level of
mitigation.
VI . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This Board adopts and makes the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable (or
potentially unavoidable) environmental impacts of this Project ,
as discussed above, and the anticipated environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project .
49
A. Generally.
This Board finds that , to the extent that any impacts
( including cumulative impacts ) attributable to this Project are
unavoidable, such impacts are overridden by, and acceptable in
light of , the environmental , social , economic and other
overriding considerations set forth herein because these
benefits outweigh any such impacts of the Project .
Specifically, this Board finds that the following
environmental , social , economic and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any unavoidable
or unmitigated impacts . This Board finds that each of the
matters set forth below is , independent of the other matters ,
an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project .
1 . Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and
Aesthetic and Recreational Resources .
This area of the County has seen progressive
deterioration of scenic open space, native vegetation and
wildlife habitat . Although the Project entails a certain
degree of further loss of these resources , approximately 60
percent of the site will be preserved under a permanent scenic
easement, at no cost to the County. The provisions of this
easement will restrict construction of structures and clearing
of vegetation, particularly the trees in the denser woodland
and forest areas of the Project Site. The design flexibility
and the opportunity for the County to impose additional
restrictions and requirements provided under P-1 zoning
compared to traditional subdivision will allow more sensitive
design and occupancy and greater_ protection to vegetation and
wildlife .
The site provides habitat for the Alameda whipsnake,
which is listed as threatened by the State of California . This
Project will specifically protect the identified habitat of the
Alameda whipsnake.
Finally, the Project will improve recreational
opportunities in the area, by providing pedestrian access
through the site linking to the regional trail system.
2. Public Safety.
The half-mile private segment of Ridgewood Road
between Lunada Lane and the proposed Project entrance is in a
poorly maintained state, and is unsafe in some sections because
of steep dropoffs without barriers and steep uphill embankments
on alternating sides of the road, and narrow paved roadway.
The road is used by current residents of the area on a daily
50
, basis . The Project will improve Ridgewood Road, at no cost to
the County or to area residents , by widening and repaving the
roadway, and installing guardrails , reflectors and lane
markers . It is noted that the Project applicant has proposed
these road improvements , notwithstanding the fact that
Ridgewood Road ' s current design capacity limits will not be
exceeded by Project-related traffic increases .
The two existing residential neighborhoods of
Ridgewood and Castle Crest presently are accessible by only one
roadway into each area . This represents an existing
significant safety problem, if either neighborhood ' s sole
access route is blocked during a fire, earthquake or other
emergency. The Project will create new alternative emergency
access routes to both neighborhoods , from the south through the
Alamo Ridge or the Jones Ranch Development , from Rossmoor via
the two EBMUD reservoir access roads , and directly between
Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road. These new routes will
increase the ability of emergency personnel and equipment to
respond to emergencies in the area, curing an existing safety
hazard at no cost to the County.
The San Ramon Valley is vulnerable to fire hazards
during the summer and fall dry season. Vegetation in the area
is highly flammable during the dry months , and fire is apt to
spread rapidly. At present , emergency response to brush fires
is hampered by lack of adequate road access and water supply.
The Project will substantially ameliorate this problem by
providing emergency access routes for fire fighting personnel
and equipment and fire hydrants . This represents an overriding
benefit notwithstanding that the Project may increase the risk
of fire by increasing human activity in the area .
3 . Water Supply.
Water service in the area of the Project Site
currently is inadequate . The Ridgewood and Castle Crest
neighborhoods rely on limited pressure tank service, an
unreliable source of water for either firefighting or domestic
purposes . A new EBMUD reservoir will be installed upon
property previously provided by the Project applicant . EBMUD
plans to connect both surrounding neighborhoods to that
reservoir via pipelines crossing through the Project , improving
water service to both areas for both fire fighting and domestic
purposes .
4 . Pipeline Impacts .
EBMUD intends to construct a pipeline connection
between the new reservoir and the existing reservoir near the
northwestern corner of the property. This pipeline is needed
51
to serve Rossmoor as well as to improve functioning of EBMUD ' s
system. This Project will allow the necessary pipelines to run
beneath the Project ' s roads , facilitating both original
installation and future maintenance. This roadway route would
.not be created absent the Project . Without the Project , EBMUD
will have to construct extensive tunnels and bridges across
rugged terrain for its pipeline between the. two reservoirs;
this route will cause significant environmental impacts ,
equivalent to or in excess of construction of Project roads .
5 . Housing.
Alamo, like most communities in the Bay Area, is
experiencing growth pressures , which will continue in the
coming decades . The Project will satisfy approximately
2 percent of the projected increase in housing needs in the
Alamo-Blackhawk area by 1995 .
For the reasons set forth above, all of the
unavoidable impacts of the project , such as the impacts
relating to change in land use and character , local and
regional traffic, earthquake damage, police response, landfill
capacity, loss of habitat and wildlife, and construction noise,
all as described in more detail elsewhere in these findings ,
are outweighed and overridden by the benefits of the Project .
B . Other Environmental Impacts .
With respect to any other impacts of the Project ,
which may be (or may be determined to be) unavoidable adverse
impacts , notwithstanding the conclusions in the Final EIR that
other impacts are either insignificant or mitigated to a level
of insignificance, this Board finds that the aforementioned
environmental , economic , social and other considerations
warrant approval of the Project .
VII . FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION 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 monitoring and reporting will be done
pursuant to the program described in Chapter VII of the EIR,
which this Board hereby adopts in fulfillment of the CEQA
mitigation or reporting requirement .
The County' s Community Development Department shall be
responsible for monitoring the implementation of each
mitigation measure, according to the schedule described below.
The Community Development Department may, in its discretion,
52
delegate this responsibility with respect to specific
mitigation measures to another County department or agency with
that department or agency ' s consent .
In addition, in order to assure implementation of the
mitigations, the Board will require an annual report, as
follows :
A. The applicant shall file a written report with
the County Community Development Department approximately once
every six months , beginning six months following approval of
this Project by the Board of Supervisors and continuing until
this requirement terminates as set forth below. The written
report shall briefly state the status in implementing each
mitigation measure which is adopted as a Condition of Approval
or which is incorporated into this Project .
B. If any interested party makes a written request ,
the report will be provided to such party.
C. Community Development staff shall review the
written report and determine whether there is any unusual and
substantial delay of over one year in, or obstacle to,
implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures
which requires action by Department staff . If the applicant
requests it, the result of this review will be provided to the
applicant in writing.
D. If the staff determines that action is required,
the staff and the applicant shall consult and, if possible,
agree upon additional actions to be taken to implement the
mitigation measure(s) which is subject to the delay or
obstacle. If and only if the staff and the applicant are
unable to agree upon the additional actions to be taken, then
either staff or the applicant may bring the matter before the
Zoning Administrator for decision whether any action should be
taken and what that action should be . Staff and the Zoning
Administrator shall be limited to imposing reasonable actions
as permitted by law which will implement the existing
mitigation measures . In reviewing the timeliness of the
implementation measures, staff shall consider the project
timetable, subject to reasonable but unanticipated delays due
to weather and the like.
E. This mitigation monitoring shall continue until
two years following complete buildout of the project , unless
County staff determine that one or more mitigation measures
have not been implemented, in which case the monitoring program
shall continue until staff determines that the required
mitigation measures have been implemented.
53
F. This mitigation monitoring may be combined with
any other requirement of annual review by the County which is
imposed upon this Project pursuant to the Conditions of
Approval or pursuant to any other permits which are obtained
for this Project .
VIII . ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. Scope and Adequacy of the EIR.
1 . Facts .
( a) The approvals before this Board are for
rezoning and a preliminary development plan for the Project
Site. The Final EIR was prepared to reflect the nature of
these approvals . The County will consider further
discretionary approvals for this Project , including submission
of a final development plan and one or more maps or vesting
maps pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act .
(b) Representatives of homeowners in Alamo
and in the vicinity of the Project submitted correspondence to
this Board claiming that the EIR and the mitigation measures
are not adequate, because specific details of the Project and
more specific mitigation :measures are not set forth.
(c) Pursuant to CEQA, State CEQA
Guidelines , and interpretive decisions, it is appropriate to
tailor the scope of an EIR and of recommended mitigation
measures to the scope of the particular project approvals
currently before a public agency.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The EIR and the recommended mitigation
measures are adequate. The EIR makes an objective and good
faith effort of full disclosure of the project and its
environmental impacts .
(b) -The recommended mitigation measures and
the Conditions of Approval are adequate. In those cases where
further study or further mitigation is required, in addition to
the analysis contained in the EIR, it is appropriate to defer
such study or the formulation of additional mitigation measures
until the County considers a Final Development Plan and one or
more applications pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act for this
Project . This Board and this County retain full discretion to
approve, deny, or condition such applications , as necessary to
comply with CEQA.
54
B. Recirculation ,
1 . Facts .
( a) It has been suggested that the EIR
should be recirculated, because the Final EIR contained new
information concluding that the Project will not have a
significant impact upon the Alameda whipsnake .
(b) The EIR contains a complete analysis of
the impact of the Project upon the Alameda whipsnake and other
species , and mitigation measures in connection with any
identified impacts will be imposed. These mitigation measures
will reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance .
2 . Findincts .
This Board finds that :
(a) Because the potential impacts upon
Alameda whipsnakes will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by mitigation measures which are imposed upon
this Project , the additional information regarding Alameda
whipsnakes which was included in the Final EIR does not
constitute significant or substantial information requiring
recirculation of the EIR. It is appropriate to add some amount
of detail to an EIR during the public comment and response to
comment process .
(b) Because the impact upon the Alameda
whipsnake is reduced to a level of insignificance, and because
the Draft EIR contained an analysis of the Project ' s impact
upon flora and flauna generally, the inclusion of additional
information regarding the Alameda whipsnake may be
characterized as a minor technical amendment to the EIR, which
may be included as an addendum without recirculation. This
Board accordingly finds , to the extent that recirculation might
otherwise be required, that this additional information
regarding the Alameda whipsnake may be incorporated into the
EIR as an addendum.
C. Submission of Additional Reports .
I . Facts .
(a) It has been suggested that the
submission of additional traffic reports and other reports to
this Board is inappropriate because those reports were not
included in the EIR.
55
(b) It is normal for additional reports to
be submitted to this Board during consideration of a project ,
in addition to the analysis of particular impacts that is
contained in the EIR. The EIR contains a thorough analysis of
traffic impacts .
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The traffic studies and other
additional information submitted to this Board following
completion of the Final EIR constitutes , at least in part ,
evidence which supports the conclusions contained in the EIR.
(b) The submission of these reports does
not constitute significant new information, substantial changes
in the Project , or substantial changes in circumstances under
which the Project will be developed. No new EIR or other
environmental analysis is recruired as a result of these
additional studies , as these are studies supplementing and
supporting the conclusions in the EIR, rather than additional
environmental analysis which is required.
D. Ranae of Alternatives .
1 . Facts .
(a) It has been suggested that the range of
alternatives is inadequate, or that certain alternatives should
have been analyzed differently.
(b) The EIR analyzes a number of
alternatives to the proposed Project , including no-project,
minimum development under the existing General Plan,
development under current A-2 zoning, modified cluster
development , maximum development under the existing General
Plan, as well as alternate sites in Alamo and San Ramon.
(c) It also has been suggested that an
additional alternative, redesignation of the Project Site to
open space, should be analyzed.
2 . Findings .
This Board finds that :
(a) The EIR includes a reasonable range of
alternatives sufficient to allow this Board. to make an informed
decision regarding the Project and possible alternatives . This
Board is not required to consider redesignation to open space,
56
because that alternative would be substantially similar , in
terms of mitigating and avoiding Project impacts , to the no
project alternative . To the extent that designation of the
Project Site as open space is different than the no project
alternative, in that such designation could discourage future
applications , this does not avoid or mitigate impacts of the
Project but rather is designed to avoid or mitigate impacts of
future development applications which are not now before this
Board and which may or may not be submitted to the County.
(b) There is substantial evidence in the
record to support the various statements in the EIR regarding
the alternatives . The EIR ' s application of various general
plan policies is correct .
(c) The A-2 zoning alternative would limit
the County' s ability to regulate various aspects of the Project
compared with the greater regulatory authority and flexibility
provided by Planned District zoning. The suggestion that this
statement is "misleading" contradicts long standing zoning law
and practice .
(d) The analysis of alternatives in the EIR
is adequate. The EIR may evaluate these alternatives in less
detail than the Project , but the alternatives are analyzed in
sufficient depth to provide the basis for an informed decision
by this Board. CEQA does not require or envision that
alternatives must be evaluated to the same level of detail as
the proposed project . Last-minute claims to the contrary do
not reach the basic adequacy of these alternatives .
E. In General .
In general , this Board finds that
1 . No changes have been made to the Project
description subsequent to preparation of the EIR which require
important revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts . Any changes that have been
made in the Project are minor, technical and do not result in
new significant environmental impacts or impacts of increased
severity.
2 . There are no substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken which changes would require important revisions in
the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
impacts .
3 . There is no new information of substantial
importance showing that the Project will have significant
57
a
' 3
impacts not previously analyzed in the EIR, impacts which are
substantially more severe, mitigation measures or alternatives
which are newly determined to be feasible, or additional
mitigation measures or alternatives not previously considered
which substantially lessen one or more significant impacts .
4 . It is appropriate, based on the analysis
contained in the EIR and the nature of the Current Approvals
before this Board, to certify the EIR and approve this Project .
IX. FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE CURRENT APPROVALS
Based on the Final EIR and the entire record, this
Board makes the following general findings and determinations
and intends them to be generally applicable to the Current
Approvals and to all findings and determinations as a whole
contained herein.
A. Findings Pursuant to Contra Costa Code
Section 26-2 . 1806 .
1 . This Board finds that the proposed zoning
change for the Project Site from General Agriculture ( "A-2" ) to
Planned Unit District ( "P-1" ) hereby approved will
substantially comply with the County General Plan, and
specifically with the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan.
Residential land use is allowed under the current General Plan
designation for the Project Site. P-1 zoning allows greater
flexibility in design of development and imposition of
conditions on development not required of landowners under the
A-2 zone, providing assurance that construction of the Project
will be regulated and mitigated to be consistent with the
General Plan, as discussed in the EIR.
2 . This Board finds that the uses authorized or
proposed- in the P-1 district are compatible within the district
and with uses authorized in adjacent districts . Land uses
authorized in the vicinity of the Project include similar
single-family residential development projects of equivalent or
greater density.
3 . This Board finds that community need for the
residential use proposed has been demonstrated. The Final EIR
identifies the need for single-family residential development
in the County in general and in the Alamo-Blackhawk area in
particular .
58
t
B . Findings Pursuant to Contra Costa County Code
Section 84-66 . 1406 .
1 . This Board finds that the applicant intends
to start construction within two and one-half years from the
effective date of the rezoning and preliminary development plan
approval .
2 . This Board finds that the proposed Project
is consistent with the County General Plan . Without limiting
the foregoing finding generally, this Board also makes the
following findings :
(a) The Current Approvals and the Project
are consistent with the General Plan lard use designation for
the Project Site, as discussed above.
(b) The Current Approvals and the Project
are consistent with General Plan policies regarding design,
visibility, open space, geotechnical safety, biological
resources , and other. categories ;_pplicable to the Project .
Mitigation measures , including additional conditions to be
imposed following review of the Final Development Plan, will
require detailed studies and programs that will govern specific
Project design, construction and occupation, all as discussed
in the Final EIR and the CEQA findings above .
(c) The Current Approvals are not required
to be consistent with the proposed amendment and update of the
overall County General Plan, because that overall update has
not been adopted and is not in effect . Nevertheless , this
Project is consistent with the proposed plan.
3 . This Board finds that the Project will
constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability
and stability and will be in harmony with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and community. The design features
and other conditions to the Project promote native landscaping,
complementary architectural style and building materials ,
screening by existing trees, height reductions and other
mitigation measures from the Final EIR, which will make the
Project compatible with the neighborhood.
C. Miscellaneous .
1 . In addition to the foregoing specific
findings, this Board hereby incorporates into these findings by
this reference the applicable portions of the County Staff
reports and studies , oral and written evidence submitted into
the record, the EIR, this Board' s resolutions and the
59
,
+Conditions of Approval , all relating to the Current Approvals
and the Project .
2 . This Board intends that the foregoing
findings and determinations be considered as an integrated
whole and, whether or not any subdivision of these findings
cross-references or incorporates by reference any other
subdivision of these findings, that any finding and/or
determination required or permitted to be made by this Board
with respect to any particular subject matter of the Current
Approvals and the Project shall be deemed made if it appears in
any portion of these findings and determinations or in the EIR,
or in any document incorporated into these findings by
reference. This document in its entirety constitutes findings
and determinations by this Board whether or not any particular
sentence or clause states such.
3 . Each and all of the findings contained
herein are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both
oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to
the Current Approvals and the Project , including, without
limitation, that evidence presented in hearings on the Current
Approvals and the EIR before the Planning Commission and this
Board. The findings and determinations herein 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.
7203U.001
60