HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05211991 - 2.9A Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
- - Costa
FROM: HARVEY ]s. BRAGDONCounty
-'
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: May 15, 1991
SUBJECT: SECOND CONSOLIDATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 1991
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the CEQA findings for the Foskett and Vasco Road
General Plan amendments.
2 . Adopt the second consolidated General Plan amendment to the
County General Plan for 1991.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This consolidated amendment covers the Countrywood, Foskett, Vasco
Road, and Gertrude Avenue General Plan amendments pursuant to
previously given Board direction. CEQA findings were adopted for
the Countrywood General Plan Amendment on January 22, 1991.
Proposed CEQA findings for the Foskett and Vasco Road General Plan
Amendments are Attachments A and B respectively. Staff recommends
that these be adopted consistent with previous Board direction.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
_= RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND TION OF O D COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER Q
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD Ori May 21, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendation lis APPROVED. -uiianimously; ani- .
2 is APPROVED, and Resolution 91/331 is ADOPTED with Supervisor McPeak voting
no on Part II of the Rdsolution, Pleasant Hill area.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS (see above)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 21, 1991
cc:: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AN COUN Y ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
1jwc1/cm/cnso1-gp.bos
I /
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE FOSRETT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
t
a �
t
I. INTRODUCTION
These findings are made by this Board of Supervisors ("Board")
of Contra Costa County ("County") pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the County regulations
promulgated thereunder. The following statements summarize the
potential environmental impacts identified in the Final Environ-
mental Impart Report ("FEIR") as certified for the Foskett General
Plan Amendment ("Amendment") along with the mitigation measures
adopted or :rejected and other facts and considerations affecting
the approval of the Amendment. In making the following findings,
the Board considered the information contained in the FEIR and the
testimony presented at the hearings, and all relevant information
contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan and its FEIR.
The significant cumulative impacts are discussed separately
and analyzed under each individual environmental topic. Growth-
inducing impacts, and long-term impacts in addition to any
significant irreversible environmental changes are addressed
separately.
II. THE PROJECT
The project site is located in the Alamo area of Central
Contra Costa County, approximately 1,500 feet east of. Interstate
680 (I-680) south of Livorna Road and east of Vernal Drive. The
area is known as the "Vernal Area" and is primarily residential
with a mixture of development from older ranch-style homes, vacant
parcels and open pasture for livestock, to newer larger residences
with extensive landscaping. Livorna Road serves as the major
arterial to the east of I-680 providing access to the Anderson and
Suppe parcels and to Vernal Drive which provides access to the
Foskett parcel.
Densities in the area vary from a minimum lot size of 10, 000
square feet in the incorporated areas of Walnut Creek immediately
north of Livorna Road, to less than one residence per acre on some
of the parcels in the unincorporated area south of Livorna Road
including the Vernal Area. Immediately north of Livorna Road
unincorporated areas have a General Plan designation of "Low
Density Single-Family Residential District" and are zoned R-20
(minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet) . The project site has a
General Plan designation of "Country Estates" and is zoned R-40
Single-Family Residential District (minimum lot size 40, 000 square
feet) . The General Plan Amendment changes the General Plan
designation of the project site from "Country Estates" to Low
Density Single Family Residential, allowing for smaller lots
through P-1 zoning.
The project site consists of four parcels with a total area
of 11. 61 acres. Two parcels are owned by the Fosketts, one parcel
is owned by the Andersons and one parcel is owned by the Suppes.
2
t
r
Development for the Anderson and Foskett parcels consists of 16
single-family residential parcels ranging from 20, 000 to 26, 000
square feet in size. These parcels must obtain rezoning from R-40
to P-1 and subdivision map approval before the project area can be
developed. The "proposed project" consists of the Foskett General
Plan Amendment, and the associated zoning, subdivision, and related
actions. Actual lot configuration, size, number and grading con-
sistent with the General Plan will be determined through the zoning
and subdivision process. Future development on the Suppe parcel
as proposed would not require a general plan amendment or rezoning
but has been included in this Amendment to provide continuity of
land uses for the development of the neighboring parcels.
No further environmental review will be required, provided
that none of the factors set forth in Public Resource Code (PRC)
Section 211.66 are present. Further environmental review of
subsequent development proposals that are consistent with this
Amendment, shall be limited to the environmental effects which are
peculiar tc the parcel or to the project and which were not
previously addressed as significant effects in the FEIR. (See PRC
Section 21803 . 3 and CEQA Guideline Section 15183) .
A. LAND USE
Impact: Development of the proposed project would change the
existing semi-rural character of the area to include a higher
density of newer homes with a more conventional lot pattern of
large level building pads and grading on the Foskett and Anderson
parcels, that does not take the existing topography of the area
into account. Roadway improvements are consistent with current
County standards which are different from the established pattern
of narrow private roads. The project would remove the existing
single-family residences and surrounding mature landscape and trees
on the Foskett and Anderson parcels. Livestock and other animals
kept on adjacent parcels may be a nuisance to, or conflict with
future residents.
Cumulative Impacts: This project could lead to future growth
in the Country Estates area and could result in additional requests
for amendment, rezoning and subdivision, changing the area from
Country Estates to Low Density Single Family Residential. Poten-
tial growth would create an unavoidable adverse impact relating
primarily to the preservation of the existing residential character
of the area., minimizing the disturbance to established land use
patterns and the existing topography.
Mitigation: The FEIR at page 4-9 identifies the following
summarized mitigation measures:
• A-1 The density of the Anderson and Foskett sub-
division should be reduced to provide greater
continuity between the proposed and established
3
land use patterns allowing for greater flexibility
in creating lot lines which conform to the
existing topography, reducing the extent of
disturbance to existing residents.
• A-2 Grading plans should be modified to reflect the
existing topography to avoid the use of large
level building pads and the creation of angular
cut and fill slopes. Grading_ should appear
natural and contiguous with undisturbed slopes in
adjacent properties.
• A--3 A narrow or private access road to the Foskett
subdivision with a curving alignment should be
considered.
Facts: Steps will be taken at the development stage to
consider the topography of the area. Mitigation Measure A-1 is
adopted as modified because no specific development project is
presently before the Board and no justifiable reason for reducing
the density has been presented.
The Foskett parcel proposes five lots adjacent to three lots
on Stephanie Lane, which does not necessarily affect the character
of the neighborhood when there are six lots previously developed
with R-20 setback standards across the street on Stephanie Lane.
Because there is no specific project application at this time, it
is premature to review the site design, architectural design and
details. (FEIR page 4-7) .
Although any future development on the Country Estates area
south of Livorna Road will change the semi-rural character of the
area, residential development is permitted on these parcels under
the current land use designations, regardless of the approval of
this project. There is no direct evidence to indicate that the
approval of this project would change the use of surrounding
parcels to the south of Livorna Road. Any future proposals to
develop must go through the planning process and be subject to
review by the County.
The project site is consistent with the General Plan because
it borders along Livorna Road a major arterial to I-680. This in-
fill development in the transportation corridor will serve as a
transitional buffer between property designated R-10 on the north
side of Livorna and the R-40 Country Estates area. The increased
density on the project site alone will not be so obvious or
inviting for future growth of the entire Country Estates area. The
Board recognizes the present development proposals of the property
owners in the general plan amendment area. At public hearing,
neighboring property owners with larger parcels under the Country
Estates designation expressed their intention to retain their
larger parcels as Country Estates, even after changing the area to
4
R-20. The community's fear of future development is mere
speculation and does not justify an environmental determination at
this time.
Further development on the Suppe property has already been
approved and does not require a general plan amendment or rezoning
approval. The Suppe development, by itself, will affect the
character of the neighborhood. Under this General Plan Amendment,
conditions of approval consistent with the adopted mitigation
measures will be imposed upon specific development projects at the
project approval stage to further reduce the identified impacts.
Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-1 and A-2
as modified,. The Board may consider these measures later in the
conditions of approval for actual project applications. The Board
adopts Mitigation Measure A-3 as stated above and adds Mitigation
Measure A-4. The Foskett project has already reduced the density
of the development in compliance with A-1 by proposing only 10
residential sites instead of the 11 sites they would otherwise be
entitled to under a P-1, R-20 zoning designation. Mitigation
Measure A-1 is modified to add the following language, "unless site
design, setbacks, landscaping, architectural design, building
location and view corridors can be arranged in a manner that
provides continuity and minimizes disturbance to existing
residents.ff
Mitigation Measure A-2 is also modified by adding the
following sentence to the end of the measure: "Alternatively,
graded level building pads will be permitted to provide access to
the back portion of the Foskett property, consistent with the
proposed access road and where necessary to install drainage
improvements that are visually consistent with the area,
eliminating the need to install unsightly B-58 ditches."
The Board finds Mitigation Measures A-1 and A-2 provide no
valid reason for. reducing density under the law which is otherwise
permitted under the P-1 zoning, because no specific subdivision
proposal is before the Board at this time. Grading shall be
performed in a manner that is consistent with other subdivisions
in the surrounding area. A minimal hillside grading restriction
would likely result in an inconsistent architectural design in the
Foskett subdivision. No grading plans for a specific project
application have been submitted at this time; therefore, it cannot
be determined whether compatibility with the surrounding area will
require minimal hillside grading techniques. The necessity for
further action under Mitigation Measures A-1 and A-2 is to be
further determined at the development stage.
Mitigation Measure A-4 is hereby added to read, "Grading shall
be performed in a manner, consistent with other subdivisions in the
surrounding area, and grading designs should include rounding and
retaining walls where necessary to soften angular cut and fill
5
slopes. Grading on the Foskett property should provide sufficient
useable outdoor living space to prevent unauthorized, piecemeal
grading in the future by subsequent residents." The amount of flat
pad grading on the Foskett parcel as opposed to sloped pad grading
is not significant given the topography of the site, with the
exception of grading the front knoll to provide access to the back
of the parcel. The Board finds that the cumulative impact
resulting from future growth is an unavoidable impact of the
proposed project.
B. GEOLOGY
Impact: The grading of large level building pads proposed
for the existing topography on the Anderson and Foskett parcels is
angular, and lacks continuity between the two subdivisions or
adjacent properties. Modification of the knoll for the private
access road on the Foskett property would create a cut slope with
a height of up to 30 feet and length of 400 feet. Active mass
waste (rill erosion, soil creep and sloughing) may occur along this
slope unless an aggressive biotechnical slope stabilization program
is initiated. The property location is subject to high magnitude
earthquakes„
Cumulative Impacts: Geologic and soils impacts associated
with development are site-specific and no significant adverse
cumulative impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation: The FEIR at pages 4-16 and 4-17 identifies the
following summarized mitigation measures:
• B--1 A detailed soils investigation which should
include adequate borehole and test pit data to
characterize subsurface conditions, and provide
specific criteria and standards to guide site
grading, drainage and foundation design should be
conducted for each subdivision prior to issuing
building or grading permits.
• B-2 The grading plans for the three subdivisions
should be integrated to coordinate slopes at
parcel boundaries reducing the extent of the
proposed grading to retain the rolling topography
characteristic of the site. A minimum grading
setback distance of three feet should be required
at the top of larger cut slopes and brow ditches
should be provided along the top of these slopes.
• B-3 Detailed erosion control plans should be prepared
prior to issuance of a grading permit and should
include use of sedimentation catch bins, detailed
measures to control erosion of stockpiled earth
6
J
and exposed, soils, as specified and include
information to monitor the plans, effectiveness.
• B--4 The risk of earthquake damage can be minimized by
using grading, design and construction practices
that are conservative with respect to safety.
Geotechnical engineers and architects should
consider probable high lateral forces in building
design.
Facts: Geologic conditions are summarized in the FEIR. The
U.S. Geologic Survey (Nilsen 1975) shows no suspected landslide
activity, visible scarps or slumping in or adjacent to the site.
The site and surrounding area was designated generally stable to
marginally stable. Western Geological Consultants report for the
Foskett parcels discusses geologic hazards and determines that the
site is suitable for the proposed development. Conditions of
approval consistent with the adopted mitigation measures will be
imposed on specific development projects to further reduce the
identified impacts. Earthquake damage from ground shaking can be
expected and therefore constitutes an unavoidable impact in a
region of high seismicity.
Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures B-1, B-2 (as
modified) B--3 and B-4 as stated in the FEIR. The Board finds that
the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures, along with
the conditions of approval to be imposed on each subdivision
approval at the development stage, will adequately mitigate the
impacts described above, to an insignificant level, other than
those impacts that may occur from earthquakes.
Because it is infeasible to integrate grading plans for
separate projects which may develop at different times and that are
under different ownership, at the general plan stage Mitigation
Measure B-2 is modified to read as follows and is hereby adopted:
"The grading plans for the three subdivisions should provide for
compatible slopes at the property boundaries. Level building pads
will be graded consistent with grading the access road to the rear
portion of the Foskett parcel."
The Board finds that the impacts resulting from the earthquake
impacts are unavoidable. Earthquake impacts will be mitigated to
the extent feasible by adopting Mitigation Measure B-4, but will
still be an unavoidable impact. Geology impacts are otherwise
substantially mitigated to an insignificant level by these
mitigation measures as revised.
C. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
Impact: Impervious surfaces created by the development of
structures and roadways would increase the volume of water runoff
generated from the site during severe storms. The proposed
7
development site would increase runoff volumes discharged into
Miranda Creek and San Ramon Creek, contributing to peak flows and
aggravating the potential flood and erosion hazards along these
water courses.
Cumulative Impacts: The installation of drainage improvements
could set a precedent for other development projects in the Miranda
Creek Watershed area, contributing to the increase of impervious
surfaces and storm water runoff. Hydrology information on the
watershed and drainage easements must be obtained and privately
funded prior to the installation of the needed drainage
improvements.
Mitigation: The FEIR at page 4-24 identifies the following
summarized mitigation measures:
• C-1 Developers shall be required to make necessary
drainage improvements between the site and the
downstream 52-inch culvert immediately north of
Jennifer Court and shall acquire a drainage
easement along the alignment between the existing
culvert and site. A detailed hydrologic study may
be required. A financing mechanism should be
established to contribute to the cost of necessary
improvements.
• C-2 Drainage improvement fees of $0. 10 per square foot
of impervious surface created, will be required
for improvements to the Miranda Creek and larger
San Ramon Creek watersheds.
• C-3 A consolidated plan for drainage improvements
shall be prepared to adequately convey site
runoff. Detailed drainage improvement should be
specified, particularly in the Anderson
subdivision as specified.
Facts: The above Mitigation Measures, C-1 through C-3, shall
be adopted and implemented through the development stage of each
project. Drainage improvement fees will provide funding for
necessary drainage improvements. Off-site drainage improvements
must be installed as part of the approval process. Drainage
easements must be obtained from private property owners and all
construction and improvements must be privately funded and
maintained.
Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures C-1 through
C-3 as stated in the FEIR for the reasons stated above. The Board
finds that the implementation of these proposed mitigation measures
along with any conditions of approval imposed upon each subdivision
approval at the development stage consistent therewith, will ade-
quately mitigate the above-described impacts to an insignificant
8
level through engineering and design. If drainage impacts are
adequately mitigated, there will be no contribution to cumulative
drainage impacts by this project. Future drainage needs and
requirements resulting from future development projects will have
to be addressed at that time, upon consideration of those projects.
D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Impacts: The three proposed subdivisions would generate a
total of approximately 230 daily 2-way vehicle trips, contributing
to the existing traffic flow conditions during commute periods.
Increased traffic would marginally raise safety concerns for bike
riders along sections of Livorna Road and Trotter Way near Alamo
School. Traffic may slightly increase the left-hand turns made
from the I-680 southbound off-ramp to Livorna Road.
Cumulative Impacts: Both Interstate 680 ramps and all local
roads and intersections along Livorna Road would experience
increased traffic associated with cumulative traffic from existing
developments and future growth. Other developments in Alamo and
south Walnut Creek would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts
near the project. As stated on page 438 of the FEIR, future
development is uncertain. If all potential development identified
is fully built-out, there will be a cumulative significant increase
in traffic on Livorna Road, Vernal Drive, and Trotter Way, local
intersections, and I-680 access ramps.
Mitigation: The FEIR at pages 4-38 and 4-40 identifies the
following summarized mitigation measure:
• D--1 Traffic fees shall be collected for the Alamo Area
Benefit Fund to stripe left turn lanes on Livorna
Road for I-680 north and southbound on-ramps, and
to signalize the Livorna/Danville Boulevard
intersection as described.
Proiect Improvements:
1. An off-site traffic improvement mitigation fee
shall be required for all units in the proposed
subdivisions.
2 . Consider a joint access drive for the Suppe and
Anderson subdivisions to eliminate the disruption
of through traffic flow caused by turning vehicles
on Livorna Road.
3 . The County should consider providing necessary
funding to widen the north side of Livorna Road
adjacent to Alamo School. A paved pathway should
be provided along the entire Livorna Road
frontages of the site.
9
4 . A paved pathway should be constructed along the
Vernal Drive frontage of the site adjacent to the
Foskett subdivision.
5. The proposed roadway in the Foskett subdivision
shall conform to the existing topography to create
a curvilinear alignment, or at a minimum, contain
at least two sets of landscaped chokers to promote
slowed driving speeds.
Cumulative Mitigation Considerations: The FEIR at page 4-43
identifies the following summarized mitigation measures:
1. Signalize the Livorna Road and I-680 north and
southbound ramp intersections when warranted
during both A.M. and P.M. peak traffic hours.
These improvements will be funded by the areawide
traffic mitigation fee.
2. Widen Livorna Road east of I-680 where needed to
contain single travel lanes in each direction,
bicycle lanes and a continuous turn lane (or
formalized turn lanes at intersections) .
3 . Widen Vernal Drive from Livorna Road to just south
of Stephanie Lane to provide a 36-foot wide
roadway should the area develop with R-20
densities.
Facts: Livorna Road is a well paved two-lane arterial road
with speeds ranging from 35 to 50 mph. Vernal Drive is a 20-foot
wide paved cul-de-sac roadway extending from a stop sign controlled
"TEE" intersection with Livorna Road. Vernal Drive provides access
to the Foskett property and to approximately 65 homes. It is 20%
private roadway and 80% public roadway in front of the Foskett
parcel. The widening of Vernal Drive along the frontage of the
site could create a more significant growth-inducing impact.
The proposed access location of the Foskett Drive access road
off of Vernal Drive should be acceptable given the existing and
predicted traffic volume levels. The Anderson access drive in the
site plan includes the widening of Livorna Road. The widening of
Livorna Road would allow for a left turn lane for Wilson Road and
Trotter Way, alleviating traffic congestion caused by turning
vehicles. The County can use the off-site traffic improvement fees
to widen either Livorna Road or Vernal Drive or both to mitigate
these impacts as they determine appropriate. The above mitigation
measures shall be considered with each individual subdivision
application at the development stage and will be implemented where
feasible. Fees or costs needed to remedy traffic increases caused
by existing traffic and other future growth, unrelated to this
10
project, cannot be specifically attributed to or charged to these
General Plan Amendment properties alone.
Findings: The Board adopts the above Mitigation Measure D-1
and Improvements 1, 3 (as modified) , 4 and 5 (as modified) ,
rejecting the joint driveway requirement as stated in Improvement
Number 2 . Improvement Number 2 is hereby rejected because the
Suppe property is already developed with a private driveway to a
large single family residence and further development is under
consideration as presented, therefore it is not feasible to
accommodate through traffic for any future development on the
Anderson property. Improvement Number 3 shall be adopted with the
addition of the following sentence: "Such improvements can be
funded by the off-site traffic improvement mitigation fee."
Improvement Number 5 shall be adopted as modified to read, "The
proposed roadway in the Foskett subdivision should take into
consideration the existing topography and create a curvilinear
alignment where feasible, except where grading is needed to install
the access roadway to the back of the Foskett parcel or at a
minimum, contain at least two sets of landscaped chokers to promote
slowed driving speeds."
The Board finds it is unduly burdensome to require that the
cumulative mitigations be adopted for the implementation of this
project alone, but adopts the cumulative mitigations as considera-
tions for future use of the off-site traffic mitigation fees. The
Board adopts Cumulative Mitigation Considerations 1 and 2 as stated
above, and 3 as modified to be considered at the implementation
stage and with the approval of future additional development
proposals when determining how off-site mitigation fees will be
expended. Cumulative Mitigation Consideration 3 is modified to add
the following sentence: "The existing 50-foot right-of-way for the
Foskett property should be sufficient to accommodate the proposed
development and anticipated future development under R-20 zoning."
This project's contribution to the cumulative traffic impact
is insignificant and is mitigated by the regional traffic fee
imposed by the County on all new residential development in the
Alamo area. The project-specific fees or assessments charged for
road widening and other improvements must be directly related to
the impacts caused by a specific proposed project and should be
determined at the development stage. The Board finds that the
adopted mitigation measures will reduce or substantially lessen the
identified .impacts to a less than significant level.
E. NOISE
Impacts: The project, through human and traffic activity,
will potentially create noise impacts to neighboring properties and
residences. Noise from project construction activities will create
a short-term unavoidable impact on existing residents.
11
Cumulative Impacts: Anticipated noise levels along Livorna
Road will increase by less than 3 dB as a result of cumulative
growth, and even less for areas located a further distance or
shielded from traffic flow. This would not be a significant noise
impact to existing residents.
Mitigation: The FEIR at pages 4-47 and 4-49 identifies the
following summarized mitigation measures:
• E-1 The following measures will reduce noise in yards
fronting Livorna Road: (1) provide adequate
setbacks for the rear and side yards of a minimum
of 150 feet from the center line of Livorna Road,
(2) construct a noise barrier along Livorna Road
to shield noise generated by traffic, and (3)
where setbacks or noise barriers are not possible,
such as the Suppe property, residences shall be
designed to shield excessive noise levels from
portions of the outdoor environment.
• E-2 Interior noise levels should not exceed an indoor
CNEL of 45 dB, and residences located within 150
feet of the center line of Livorna Road should be
reviewed by an acoustical engineer for noise
control treatment to be incorporated into the
structure. An acoustical report should be
prepared and submitted along with building plans
upon request for a building permit for the
residences along Livorna Road.
• E-3 Short-term construction noise can be alleviated
by the following:
a) Noise-generating construction equipment should
be limited to weekday, daytime hours from 8: 00
A.M. to 5: 00 P.M. and shall not be permitted
on holidays.
b) Stationary noise-generating construction
equipment and engines should be located as far
as practical from existing residences and
should be acoustically shielded or muffled when
possible. Quiet construction equipment should
be selected whenever possible.
c) Telephone numbers of contractors for each
subdivision should be conspicuously posted and
individual contractors shall remain responsible
for responding to complaints about construction
noise.
12
Facts: Local vehicle traffic is'the primary noise factor for
properties adjacent to Livorna Road and Vernal Drive. The noise
created by human activity would increase, but it is insignificant
and these activities would be no more intrusive than those
presently generated by existing residents.
Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure E-1 as modified
and adopts Mitigation Measures E-2 through E-3 as stated in the
FEIR. E-1 (1) is infeasible at this time because no specific
application is before the Board and the 150 foot setback require-
ment is excessive. This setback would require a substantial
reduction in density without justification, contrary to state law,
and would conflict with existing R-20 setback requirements for each
parcel. The setback requirements suggested in E-1(1) are different
than other residential developments in the surrounding area and
would change the aesthetics and uniformity of the area. In the
alternative, homes can be designed to reduce noise impacts.
The Board finds that a noise wall as recommended in E-1(2) at
Livorna Road creates an undesirable visual impact and would not be
in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. There
are no other sound walls on Livorna Road at this time. Mitigation
Measure E-1 is modified and hereby adopted to read as follows:
"Residences shall be designed to shield excessive noise levels from
portions of their outdoor environment." E-2 and E-3 are adopted
as stated above.
The application of these mitigation measures will adequately
mitigate the cumulative noise impacts of the project to an
insignificant level, with the exception of short-term construction
noises. Short term noise from construction will be alleviated to
the extent possible with the implementation of the suggested
mitigation measures. The Board further finds that no feasible
measure exists to completely mitigate or avoid construction noise
and determines this impact to be unavoidable.
F. VISUAL QUALITY AND AESTHETICS
Impacts: The proposed half acre lots and single-family homes
will replace large parcels with one existing home per parcel,
changing the rural character of the area. Substantially all of the
existing vegetative cover would be removed along Vernal Drive. All
areas of extensive grading would create highly angular surfaces.
Residential structures would be highly visible and privacy of
adjacent residences to the east and south may be compromised.
Cumulative Impacts: Potential future development will alter
the character of the area. Although development is presently being
proposed for the Post property it will alter the visual character
of Livorna Road and Miranda Avenue at that location. Future
development in the Country Estates area to the south of the project
site would continue the trend of large homes on one acre lots with
13
new architecturally distinct residences and extensive landscaping.
If further amendments and rezoning requests are approved,
development could take on a haphazard poorly planned appearance.
Mitigation: The FEIR at pages 4-56 and 4-57 identifies the
following summarized mitigation measures:
• F-1 Proposed grading plans should be modified to
reflect the existing topography. Grading should
appear natural with undisturbed slopes and
contiguous with adjacent properties.
• F-2 Vegetation surrounding the existing Foskett
residence should be preserved to protect views to
the east of Vernal Drive. Grading and driveways
should be designed to preserve mature trees to the
extent possible.
• F-3 Landscaping plans should be prepared as part of
the Foskett and Anderson subdivisions.
• F-4 Consider reducing the width of the private access
road in the Foskett subdivision to reflect the
topography of the site and the character of the
existing roadways in the Country Estates area.
Facts: The identified cumulative impact is highly speculative
since there is no indication of future development south of the
project at this time. Grading shall be contiguous and consistent
with other residential developments in the area. Project appli-
cants will be required to submit a landscape plan at the project
development stage which will review the need for the preservation
of mature trees and existing vegetation in relation to the need for
visual aesthetics and consistency with existing development in the
area, while attempting to protect the view for all property owners.
Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures F-1 as
modified, and adopts F-3 as stated in the FEIR. Mitigation Measure
F-2, as stated above, is rejected for the reasons set forth in
Section A above (Land Use) for Mitigation Measure A-2. Mitigation
F-4 is rejected as inconsistent with County traffic and safety
regulations. For the same reasons as A-1 and A-2 above, Mitigation
Measure F-1 is modified to read as follows: "Proposed grading
plans should consider the existing topography and should provide
for compatible slopes at the property boundaries. " Substantial
grading of the knoll and removal of the vegetation surrounding the
existing Foskett residence is necessary to provide access to the
remainder of the parcel.
The Board rejects Mitigation Measure F-2 as stated in the FEIR
as infeasible because it is inconsistent with the landscaping
needed to reduce noise and protect the privacy of adjacent
14
properties. In addition, F-2 as stated above would be inconsistent
with the aesthetic appearance of other subdivisions in the
surrounding area.
The Board adopts a new mitigation measure which reads:
"Landscape plans should be designed to protect views where
feasible."
Further, Mitigation Measure F-4 is rejected because reducing
the road width is inconsistent with County transportation and
safety regulations that require a 32 foot right-of-way to allow
for parking cars on both sides of the street. The private access
road proposed for the Foskett property complies with the County
Public Works public safety specifications and requirements,
therefore, Mitigation F-4 is infeasible. The Board finds that the
implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1, the new measure, and F-3
described above will mitigate the project impacts to the extent
feasible.
The Board further finds that it is speculative to determine
whether the proposed project will impact privacy or impair the
visual quality or aesthetics for residences to the south since no
project applications or landscape plans have been submitted and
there are no reasonably foreseeable projects to the south at this
time. Grading of the knoll and removal of surrounding vegetation
for the installation of the Foskett access road is an unavoidable
impact, which is not significant.
G. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would result
in the removal of annual grassland and ornamental vegetation. This
removal will reduce prey items available to predatory mammals and
raptors. Larger wildlife species currently frequenting the area
would most likely forge in the proposed subdivisions and would
occupy proposed residences and gardens. Drainage improvements may
effect the 200-foot corridor of vegetation at 110 Fairdale Way.
Cumulative Impact: Impacts on biotic resources related to
future development are site-specific and no significant adverse
cumulative impacts are anticipated. Future development would
impact unmanaged grassland cover and wildlife foraging habitat.
Mitigation: The FEIR at pages 4-60 and 4-61 identifies the
following summarized mitigation measures:
• G-1 Annual grassland or other forms of vegetation
should be re-established on portions of the site
where the existing cover is removed by grading
activities.
15
• G-2 Future landscape should emphasize the use of
drought-tolerant native plant species wherever
possible.
• G-3 Dense riparian vegetation at 110 Fairdale Way
(adjacent property) should be retained with
drainage located to the west.
Facts: The above measures shall be considered at the
development stage. To the extent riparian vegetation is recognized
as a wetland feature, any modification would require review and
approval by the California Department of Fish & Game and possibly
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project applicant will
propose a landscape plan at the project development stage, similar
to adjacent housing developments and subdivisions in the area, that
will include water conserving plants. This will reduce resulting
impacts to an insignificant level.
Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures G-1 as
modified, G-2 and G-3 as modified. Mitigation Measure G-1 is
modified to read as follows, "Vegetation should be re-established,
according to approved landscape design plans, on portions of the
site where the existing vegetation is removed by grading
activities." The Board finds that any impacts on biotic resources
will be adequately mitigated with the consideration and
implementation of these measures at the development stage of the
process. The suggested mitigation in Measure G-3 exceeds the
boundaries of the project area considered by this general plan
amendment and is modified to read as follows: "It is recognized
that the dense riparian vegetation at 110 Fairdale Way is beyond
the control of the applicants under this General Plan Amendment.
Riparian vegetation at 110 Fairdale should not be substantially
removed as part of any drainage improvements for the project, to
the extent consistent with engineering requirements."
H. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Impact: Development of the proposed project development would
generate 12 new students at full buildout.
Cumulative Impact: Development would contribute to a
cumulative increase in the number of students enrolled in public
schools.
Mitigation: The FEIR at pages 4-63 and 4-64 identifies the
following summarized mitigation measure:
• H-1 Development fees would be required for each
subdivision in the project.
Facts: Adequate facilities are available although elementary
students would be diverted to Rancho Romero if Alamo School is at
16
capacity. No capacity problems are. anticipated at middle or high
school levels. The Mitigation Measure suggested above shall be
implemented during development of the project. School development
fees will be paid as required by state law. Schools in the Alamo
area generally operate below capacity.
Findings: The Board adopts the above mitigation measure and
finds that this measure will adequately mitigate the identified
impact given the limited number of students generated and the
project location in the Alamo area.
I. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
Impact: Although adequate sanitary sewer service capacity is
available, downgradient facilities may not have sufficient capacity
to convey flow levels for future development in the area.
Mitigation: The FEIR at page 4-65 identifies the following
summarized mitigation measure:
• I-1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District should
review and approve any construction plans prior
to the application for a building permit. Fees
should be paid upon connection to the sewer
system.
Facts: The mitigation measure suggested above shall be
implemented during development of the project.
Findings: The Board adopts the above mitigation measure and
finds that this measure will adequately mitigate the identified
impact.
III. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Impacts: This project could potentially lead to future growth
in the Country Estates area and could result in future requests for
general plan amendments, rezoning and subdivision. Additional
school aged children may affect the capacity of local schools as
discussed above in Section H. Potential growth would create an
unavoidable adverse impact which would affect the existing
character of the area.
Mitigation: No specific mitigation is identified in the FEIR.
Facts: The project would have short-term beneficial effects
on employment in the engineering and construction fields, but only
a nominal effect on long-term growth in Alamo or Contra Costa
County. There is no extension of utilities to the site or to
neighboring parcels which is not already available in this area.
Police and fire services will not be adversely impacted and have
confirmed that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the
17
project. The proposed development project matches the surrounding
suburban setting and provides a transition between R-10 zoning on
the other side of Livorna Road to R-20 zoning for this project, to
R-40 zoning in the Country Estates area, providing a contiguous
land use pattern.
Furthermore, additional development will require further
infrastructural improvements which may have the affect of
discouraging development. Future projects will be required to
provide the necessary funding for infrastructure and transportation
improvements prior to preceding with new development thereby
eliminating the property owners' willingness or ability to develop
in the future.
Findings: The Board finds that by adopting the mitigation
measures discussed above, the proposed project partially mitigates
the growth-inducing impact, however, this impact remains an
unavoidable significant impact. In considering other projects
proposed or under construction in the Alamo area, as described on
pages 3-7 to 3-9 of the FEIR, there is no factual basis to indicate
that this project is likely to create any greater growth inducing
impact than any other recently adopted project. This project is
in-fill development located approximately 1, 500 feet from I-680
bringing density to the transportation corridors, consistent with
the terms of the County General Plan, compared to other proposals
for development of the same density at the end of Livorna Road,
several miles away from I-680.
Even if this project was not developed, residential use is
permitted in this area and resulting impacts from residential
development in the area at the present density will continue
without the proposed infrastructure improvements, benefits, and
additional contribution to the housing goals of the County General
Plan. The Suppe Project as approved will continue to be built
under the present land use designation, changing the character of
the area, with many of the impacts discussed above. The Board
finds that complete mitigation would not be feasible.
IV. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
Impacts: Chapter 5 of the FEIR identifies the significant
unavoidable adverse impacts of the project as currently proposed,
assuming that the mitigation measures recommended in Chapter 4 are
implemented and the subdivision design is modified accordingly.
1. The first unavoidable impact, the growth-inducing impact,
suggests that the approval of this Amendment would establish a
precedent for other parcels to bring general plan amendments and
subdivision requests, resulting in a cumulative impact altering the
development patterns and rural character of the Country Estates
area. No effective mitigation appears to be available to mitigate
the consequences associated with the proposed land use change. The
18
fact that this development could lead to future growth in this area
is a significant unavoidable adverse impact of the project.
2 . The development of the proposed project site would
represent a significant adverse impact upon the character of the
area. Although the property is already designated for residential
use in the County General Plan the proposed project would be
different from the character of the Country Estates neighborhood.
Therefore, the change in character creates a significant adverse
impact.
3 . Large level building pads will be graded and the knoll
and surrounding vegetation on the Foskett parcel will be graded
unless otherwise modified at the development stage and will not
conform to the existing topography, resulting in an unavoidable
impact.
4 . Because the temporary noise generated by construction
activities would exceed the acceptable standards at times, this
impact is a significant unavoidable adverse impact to the residents
adjacent to the project site throughout the duration of construc-
tion. Mitigation measures will alleviate the impact of excessive
construction-generated noise to some degree but will not reduce
this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, con-
struction noise remains an unavoidable adverse impact.
5. The damage and impacts that result from earthquakes are
unavoidable.
Mitigation: There are no mitigation measures that can reduce
the environmental significance of these impacts to a less than
significant level. However, the adopted mitigation measures
discussed above (see also Exhibit "A" attached hereto) can be
implemented to help alleviate some of the impacts.
Findings: See Statement of overriding Considerations in
Section VIII.
V. SHORT TERM VERSUS LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Impacts: Single-family residential use of the property will
preclude any future proposed agricultural use or production.
Findings: Residential development is an acceptable use of
the site, as indicated by the residential designations in the
County General Plan and zoning ordinance. The proposed project
would increase the supply of available housing, contributing to the
commercial base of the Alamo area. The project site represents in-
fill development because residential use is predominant in the area
and the access to open space for horses and other agricultural uses
has diminished and moved farther east down Livorna Road.
19
VI. ALTERNATIVES
The FEIR evaluated various reasonable alternatives in
comparison to the proposed project. These alternatives include the
"No-Project Alternative," "Modified Project Alternative-Increased
Density" and "Modified Project Alternative-Reduced Density,"
"Current Land Use Designation Alternative, " "Alternative Project
Sites," and "Environmentally Superior Alternative" and are
described and fully analyzed at pages 6-1 and 6-7 of the FEIR
(incorporated herein by reference) .
A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Impacts• None
Facts: Under this alternative no development would occur on
the property. The proposed project would not be constructed,
therefore, no precedent would be set for subsequent amendment and
rezoning requests and the character of the site would not be
altered at this time. Likewise drainage improvements would not be
installed, off-site traffic impact fees and school fees would not
be contributed.
Findings: The "No-Project Alternative" is unacceptable and
is hereby rejected by the Board. The Board finds that this
alternative does not preclude development in the future under the
present land use designation and fails to address the impacts of
inevitable piecemeal growth in the surrounding planning area.
Pressure to develop the parcel will continue under the existing
Country Estates designation and the R-40 zoning. The two
additional residences on the Suppe parcel are likely to be built-
out, contributing to the cumulative growth impacts without the
benefit of an integrated development plan. By rejecting the
proposed project, the community is deprived from the additional
drainage, noise, traffic, and other infrastructure improvements
that will otherwise be provided for the benefit of all residents.
B. MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE-INCREASED DENSITY
Impacts: Impacts would be identical or similar to the
project as currently proposed with the increase caused by one
additional parcel.
Facts: Like the proposed project this alternative will amend
the General Plan designation of the site from Country Estates to
low density, and would rezone the parcels from R-40 to R-20. Under
the increased density alternative, development is proposed to
maximize the density permitted under the R-20 zoning including a
reduction in the width of the private access road for the Foskett
subdivision to allow for one additional lot at the end of the cul-
de-sac (a net lot size of 20, 000 square feet) .
20
Findings: Although .the impacts. .under this alternative are
similar to the proposed project impact's, the Board finds that this
alternative would result in slightly greater cumulative impact on
the character of the neighborhood, grading, schools, traffic,
visual appearance, and other impacts as analyzed above because of
the additional lot proposed. This alternative would increase the
significance of the environmental impacts previously described.
For these reasons, the Board finds that this alternative is
unacceptable.
C. MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE-REDUCED DENSITY
Facts: Under the Reduced Density alternative the project
would be modified to reflect the environmental issues identified
in Chapter 4, including the need to reduce grading to conform to
the existing topography, reduction of the density of development
on the steeper portions of the site, and minimal disturbance to
mature vegetation. Larger lots would be provided in the south-
western portion of the Anderson subdivision surrounding the
existing residents to provide greater flexibility in siting
residences around mature trees.
Findings: The minimal grading of the knoll and preservation
of vegetation reduces the density or number of homes without legal
justification, creating an inconsistent housing pattern, and the
proposed narrower access road is inconsistent with existing county
traffic safety standards: This alternative would have many impacts
and would change the consistent character of the neighborhood
without the continuity of a comprehensive plan as proposed by the
present project, and would differ from other subdivisions in the
area.
This alternative does not provide the same social, economic
and infrastructure benefits as the proposed project. Therefore,
the Board rejects this alternative and finds that the proposed
project provides a more uniform development pattern, providing a
transition between the R-10 and R-20 density of development north
of Livorna Road and the Country Estates R-40 densities south of
Livorna.
D. CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVE
Facts: This alternative would propose development under the
current Country Estates land use designation and R-40 zoning
requirements. (See FEIR Figure 25 at page 6-5) The proposed
access road would be a maximum of 20 feet in width and would
conform to the existing topography as recommended in the reduced
density alternative, inconsistent with the County traffic and
safety requirements. Lots would be a minimum of one acre in size
with larger lots in the western and southern portions of the
Foskett parcels. The total number of new residences would range
21
from 9 to 10 units (net) ., Future . development can continue
consistent with R-40 zoning 'regulations.
Findings: However, this alternative would change the
character of the site with larger homes on larger parcels
inconsistent with the suburban characteristic of the adjoining
areas along Livorna Road. The property is designated for
residential use and this development would continue existing
agricultural uses under the present land use designation. Many of
the impacts would be similar to the proposed project yet the
social, economic and other infrastructure benefits discussed above
would not be addressed. The Board of Supervisors find that this
alternative does not completely eliminate the environmental
concerns that are otherwise mitigated under the proposed project.
Therefore, the Board rejects this alternative and adopts the
proposed project for a more uniform development pattern.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Facts: The FEIR has determined that the No-Project
Alternative avoids potential adverse impacts and is considered to
be the Environmentally Superior Alternative ("ESA") . CEQA
Guideline Section 15126 (d) provides that a second ESA must be
identified when the No-Project Alternative is identified as the
ESA. The FEIR has determined that the Current Land Use Designation
Alternative, allowing development consistent with the Country
Estates General Plan designation and the R-40 zoning requirements,
would be the second ESA because it protects the character of the
area and minimizes the need for extensive grading and removal of
vegetation.
Findings: (See the findings discussed above under each
alternative) . Other large one-acre lot subdivisions are proposed
for the area with large residences under R-40, creating an even
greater impact upon agricultural uses in the surrounding Livorna
neighborhoods, without providing transition or continuity of
development. The proposed project satisfies the increased demand
for suburban housing by providing more houses in accordance with
the emerging land use pattern of the area. R-20 is consistent with
other developments in the area that have been approved along
Livorna Road, including areas outside the transportation corridor.
F. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SITES
Facts: In analyzing alternative sites in the Alamo area for
the proposed development it has been determined that similar
environmental impacts may occur and raising the same concerns as
this project, dependent upon the proposed project design and the
existing conditions and resources inherent to a particular
alternative site. The "Post property" and "Moore General Plan
Amendment" sites were considered as alternatives to this project.
22
The Post property development„ would consist of 140 units.
This is a much larger development than the proposed project,
involving a more extensive impact analysis and additional
mitigations.
The proposed Moore General Plan Amendment would permit
development of up to 45 single-family residences on the property.
The area is currently designated general open space. Therefore,
development would require conversion of open space area to
residential use which is a significant unavoidable adverse impact.
This alternative requires more developed area than the project
proposed by the applicants.
Findings: The Board finds that neither of these two alterna-
tive sites are acceptable because they would result in greater
environmental impacts than the proposed project. Both alternatives
would require a much greater development project than that
presently proposed by the Foskett General Plan Amendment. The
nMoore General Plan Amendment-" site is likewise not a viable
alternative site due to the increased number of significant adverse
impacts created by the conversion of open space to residential use.
The substantial increase in project size and development in these
alterative sites is not practical for these applicants, therefore
the project proposed by the Foskett General Plan Amendment is the
best alternative location.
In light of the above, the Board of Supervisors finds that the
proposed project possesses qualities superior to the above alter-
natives in creating a residential subdivision consistent with the
surrounding suburban residential uses and therefore, approves the
Foskett General Plan Amendment and the FEIR along with these
findings and adopted mitigation measures as set forth above and as
clarified, modified or expanded in Exhibit "A" (excluding those
measures that were rejected as infeasible) .
VII. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
There are no irreversible environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed project.
VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Board finds the project as modified and with the feasible
mitigation measures herein adopted will still have the following
unavoidable cumulative impacts:
1. Development of the project would set a precedent for the
conversion of other parcels in the Country Estates area to resi-
dential use. This continuing development would increase the
density of development resulting in cumulative impacts that will
alter the Country Estates development patterns. Cumulative impacts
resulting from future growth are unavoidable adverse impacts.
23
2 . In addition, many residents in the project vicinity may
contend that any additional development on the site would adversely
affect the character of the area. However, the site is designated
for residential use in the County General Plan, and even if it is
developed in compliance with established land use patterns and
County requirements, this change is permitted as an acceptable use
of the property.
3 . Large level building pads will be graded unless otherwise
modified or altered at the development stage and will not require
contours with the existing topography contiguous with adjacent
parcels. The knoll on the Foskett property and surrounding vege-
tation will require grading for the installation of the access road
to reach the back of the Foskett parcel.
4. Noise levels generated by construction activities would
at times exceed acceptable standards, representing a significant
unavoidable adverse impact to adjacent residents throughout the
duration of construction activities. Detailed mitigation would
alleviate the impact of excessive construction-generated noise to
some degree.
5. Earthquake damage and resulting impacts are unavoidable.
Following a determination that substantial environmental
impacts remain following modification of the project and the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures, project approval must be
accompanied by a Statement of Overriding Considerations. CEQA
requires that the Board balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining
whether to approve the project. The Board of Supervisors has
determined that the benefits of this project outweigh the
unavoidable environmental impacts. The following factors and
public benefits, among others, were considered by the Board and
comprise the Statement of Overriding Considerations for each and
every impact set forth above that cannot be substantially
mitigated.
1. The proposed project reinforces the goals of the Contra
Costa County General Plan by providing additional residential
housing as in-fill development near the I-680 transportation
corridor, providing the opportunity to locate more housing near the
Livorna Road arterial, and provide continuity of development among
the parcels, consistent with the surrounding area.
2 . The trend in the area has been changed from raising
horses and other livestock on the large lots to a more modern,
suburban lifestyle. There are few open space access points
remaining for equestrian and agricultural users in the present site
area. The only residential housing that remains adjacent to open
space access is at the end of Livorna Road which is zoned R-20.
24
This project will provide. a transition .between small R-10 parcels
and larger R-40 parcels while satisfying the increased demand for
suburban housing in accordance with the emerging land use pattern
of the area.
3 . The density adopted by this general plan amendment is
consistent with parcels zoned R-10 and R-20 in the surrounding
area. The Foskett parcel proposes 10 units instead of the 11 units
permitted under the R-20 zoning change, thereby reducing the per-
mitted density. No evidence has been presented to require further
reduction of the density or number of units under the R-20, P-1
zoning. The residential subdivisions in the surrounding area have
graded lots with relatively flat pads. Any development under this
general plan amendment will be consistent with the surrounding
suburban area to maintain visual quality, aesthetics and property
values.
4 . The proposed development will improve the aesthetics of
the area by providing attractive new residential structures and
improved landscaping for the Vernal Area. This landscaping will
mitigate impacts on adjacent neighbors in a manner that is
consistent with surrounding development.
5. The Foskett parcel proposes five lots adjacent to three
residences on Stephanie Lane, less than the existing six lots
across the street. Therefore the proposed project is not
inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The proposed development project will assist road and
traffic improvements for the area by contributing to the road
improvements funds. Although, the access road to the Foskett
parcel is wider than narrow roads that characterize the area, it
complies with County regulations and requirements as outlined by
the Public Works Department for traffic safety.
7 . The proposed development will improve drainage for all
residents in the area by providing an overall drainage plan.
8. The proposed project will increase the assessed valuation
of the area which in turn will create revenue to the County.
9. The proposed development project is necessary to accom-
modate housing demands in the area and does not require additional
expansion of utilities and public services. This project creates
in-fill development encouraged under the General Plan for trans-
portation corridor areas and provides a transitional area for a
comprehensive planning scheme.
IX. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081. 6 of the Public Resources Code requires this
Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA
25
mitigation measures in connection with these findings. This Board
adopts the following program in fulfillment of this requirement:
1. The County Community Development Department shall prepare
an overall plan to implement the mitigation measures adopted in
these findings by incorporating them as policies within the
projects, or by preparing implementing regulations, ordinances,
standards, programs and plans, or by incorporating them into future
development approvals as appropriate to the particular mitigation
measure, and shall take such action as necessary to effectuate the
plan.
2 . The Project Applicant shall file a written report with
the County Community Development Department within 3 months from
the date this project is approved by the Board of Supervisors on
the implementation plan demonstrating his compliance with the
adopted mitigation measures. The County Community Development
Department shall make staff recommendations to the San Ramon Valley
Area Planning Commission. Thereafter, the County Community
Development Department shall report annually to the Planning
Commission on the implementation status of the mitigation measures.
Where appropriate and feasible the report shall also provide a
projected timetable for the implementation of each mitigation
measure.
3 . The Planning Commission shall review the written report
and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay
in, or obstacle to, the implementation of the adopted mitigation
measures which requires further action. If a developer or
interested party requests it, the result of this review will be
provided in writing.
4 . If the Planning Commission determines that such further
action is required, it shall direct staff to consult with the
developers) and they shall together, if possible, agree upon
additional actions to be taken to ensure the implementation of such
mitigation measures. If, and only if, the staff and the devel-
oper s) are unable to agree upon the additional actions to be
taken, then either staff or the developer(s) 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 measure.
26
EXHIBIT "A"
LIST OF ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES
The Board adopts the following Mitigation Measures in
approving the Foskett General Plan Amendment and FEIR:
A. LAND USE
Adopted Mitigation Measures: A-1 and A-2 which are modified
to read as follows:
A-1 The density of the Anderson and Foskett
subdivision should be reduced to provide
greater continuity between the proposed and
established land use patterns allowing for
greater flexibility in creating lot lines which
conform to the existing topography, reducing
the extent of disturbance to existing
residents, unless site design, setbacks,
landscaping, architectural design, building
location and view corridors can be arranged in
a manner that provides continuity and minimizes
disturbance to existing residents.
A-2 Grading plans should be modif ied to ref lect the
existing topography to avoid the use of large
level building pads and the creation of angular
cut and fill slopes. Grading should appear
natural and contiguous with undisturbed slopes
and adjacent properties. Alternatively, graded
level building pads will be permitted to
provide access to the back portion of the
Foskett property, consistent with the proposed
access road and where necessary to install
drainage improvements that are visually
consistent with the area, eliminating the need
to install unsightly B-58 ditches.
Mitigation Measure A-3 is adopted as stated above and Mitigation
Measure A-4 is added to provide as follows:
A-4 Grading shall be performed in a manner
consistent with other subdivisions in the
1
surrounding area, and grading designs should
include rounding and retaining walls where
necessary to soften angular cut and fill
slopes. Grading on the Foskett property should
provide sufficient usable outdoor living space
to prevent unauthorized, piecemeal grading in
the future by subsequent residents.
B. GEOLOGY
Adopted Mitigation Measures: B-1, B-3 and B-4 as stated
above and Mitigation Measure B-2 which is modified to read as
follows:
B-2 The grading plans for the three subdivisions should
provide for compatible slopes at the property
boundaries. Level building pads will be graded
consistent with grading the access road to the rear
portion of the Foskett parcel.
C. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
Adopted Mitigation Measures: C-1 through C-3 .
D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Adopted Mitigation Measures: D-1 and Project Improvement
Numbers 1 and 4 as stated above, 3 and 5 which are modified to read
as follows:
3 . The County should consider providing necessary
funding to widen the north side of Livorna Road
adjacent to Alamo School. A paved pathway should
be provided along the entire Livorna frontages of
the site. Such improvements should be funded by
the off-site traffic improvement mitigation fee.
5. The proposed roadway in the Foskett subdivision
should take into consideration the existing
topography and create a curvilinear alignment where
feasible, except where grading is needed to install
the access roadway to the back of the Foskett
parcel, or at a minimum contain at least two sets
2
1
of landscaped chokers to promote slowed driving
speeds.
Adopted Cumulative Mitigation Considerations: 1 and 2 as stated
above, and 3 which is modified to read as follows:
3. Widen Vernal Drive from Livorna Road to just south
of Stephanie Lane to provide a 34-foot wide roadway
should the area develop with R-20 density. The
existing 50-foot right-of-way for the Foskett
property should be sufficient to accommodate the
proposed development and anticipated future
development under R-20 zoning.
E. NOISE
Adopted Mitigation Measure: E-1 which is modified as follows:
E-1 Residences shall be designed to shield excessive
noise levels from portions of their outdoor
environment.
Mitigation Measures E-2 through E-3 are adopted as stated above.
F. VISUAL QUALITY AND ESTHETICS
Adopted Mitigation Measures: F-1 which is modified to read
as follows:
F-1 Proposed grading plan should consider the existing
topography and grading plans should provide for
compatible slopes at the property boundaries.
Mitigation Measure is rejected F-2 and replaced with the following
new Mitigation Measure:
• Landscape plans should be designed to protect views
where feasible.
Mitigation Measure F-3 is adopted as stated above and Mitigation
Measure F-4 is rejected.
3
G. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Adopted Mitigation Measures: G-1 which is modified as
follows:
G-1 Natural vegetation should be re-established
according to approved landscape design plans on
portions of the site where the existing vegetation
is removed by grading activities.
G-2 is adopted as stated above.
G-3 is modified to read as follows:
G-3 It is recognized that the dense repairing vegetation
at 110 Fairdale Way is beyond the control of the
applicants under this General Plan Amendment.
Repairing vegetation at 110 Fairdale should not be
substantially removed as part of any drainage
improvements for the project, to the extent
consistent with engineering requirements.
H. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Adopted Mitigation Measure: H-1
I. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
Adopted Mitigation Measure: I-1 as stated above.
4
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE
VASCO ROAD RELOCATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND ADOPTION OF THE
VASCO ROAD AND UTILITY RELOCATION PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared by:
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
415/646-2035
With technical assistance from:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2600 V Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95818-1914
916/737-3000
May, 1991
1
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose
The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) is proposing to relocate Vasco Road and
several major utility facilities located in the Kellogg Creek watershed in eastern Contra
Costa County. These relocations, comprising the Vasco Road and Utility Relocation
Project, are required because CCWD plans to construct a reservoir or combination of
reservoirs on Kellogg Creek in southeastern Contra Costa County. Since relocation of
Vasco Road requires amendments to the Contra Costa General Plan, this document
provides the findings necessary to support such action by Contra Costa County.
Construction of a reservoir or reservoirs in the.Kellogg Creek watershed, known as
the Los Vaqueros Project,would require that some or all of Vasco Road and various utility
facilities including three electric transmission lines, three natural gas pipelines, and two
petroleum pipelines, be relocated. Because each of the dam sites being considered would
-lie directly across Vasco Road and the utility facilities, the road and utility facilities would
need to be relocated prior to the beginning of dam construction so that traffic flows and
utility services would not be interrupted.
CCWD has followed a staged approach to its environmental documentation
responsibilities for the Los Vaqueros Project under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as provided for by the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15167). In 1986,
CCWD completed and certified the Stage 1 EIR for the Los Vaqueros Project and adopted
a project concept consisting of a reservoir, or combination of reservoirs, in the Kellogg
Creek watershed and appurtenant facilities that is scheduled to be operational in 1995.
The current schedule for completion of the environmental documentation for the Los
Vaqueros Project would not allow sufficient time between its completion in 1992 and the
start of road and utility relocation,which would also have to occur in 1992, to complete the
engineering design of the relocated Vasco Road and the various utility facilities, and to
obtain necessary approvals from the appropriate agencies, including Contra Costa County.
CCWD has therefore prepared a separate environmental impact report(EIR)for the
Vasco Road and Utility Relocation Project to provide decision makers in state and local
government agencies with information on the environmental consequences of those portions
of the project over which they have discretionary authority. Since decisions regarding the
road and utility relocations affect jurisdictions beyond those directly affected by the overall
Los Vaqueros Project, CCWD prepared a separate EIR for the Vasco Road and Utility
Relocation Project to provide timely information to responsible local and state agencies.
Moreover, an EIR focusing on the impacts of the road and utility relocations is the best
means of facilitating a thorough presentation and analysis of the impacts that would be
understandable to local decision makers.
1
This additional staging of the environmental process will ensure that utility service
is not interrupted,other than during a short tie-in period, and that an acceptable alternative
roadway is in place before.excavation of the foundation for the dam begins.
Amendments to the Contra Costa General Plan to support relocation of Vasco Road
constitute a "project" under the CEQA (Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq.). CCWD has
prepared and certified an EIR that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. This EIR is
expected to be used by Contra Costa County to support the proposed General Plan
amendments associated with relocation of Vasco Road. The EIR prepared by CCWD
identified certain significant environmental impacts that could result from the Vasco Road
and Utility Relocation Project. These impacts are summarized in this document.
Prior to approving the General Plan Amendments for relocation of Vasco Road,
Contra Costa County required to make written findings explaining how each significant
environmental impact and alternative identified in the EIR have been addressed, in
compliance with the Public Resources Code (Section 21081) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15091). Under those sections, the County must make one of the
following findings for each impact and alternative:
■ that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into the project,
which avoid or substantially lessen the,significant environmental effects identified
in the EIR;
■ that such changes or alterations are within the purview and jurisdiction of another
public agency, and such changes have been or should be adopted by that other
agency; or
■ that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the
administrative record.
This report is divided into five major sections, including this introduction. Section 2
presents findings on project alternatives considered in the EIR. Section 3 presents
significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the EIR,findings for these
impacts, and the reasons for the findings. Section 4 presents significant impacts of
cumulative development in the project area that were identified in the draft EIR and
corresponding findings. Section 5 presents the Statement of Overriding Considerations for
significant impacts or issues related to the project that cannot be mitigated.
The draft EIR and final EIR that were prepared for the project are incorporated into
this document by reference, and the reader is referred to them for detailed information on
the impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. In addition, reference should be made
to a mitigation monitoring plan that has been prepared by CCWD. That plan describes in
detail the mitigation plan and monitoring program that has been adopted by CCWD.
Copies of these documents are available for review at the CCWD.
2
Relationship to Other *Projects"
The County is currently exploring alternative alignments of the Delta Expressway.
A draft EIR for this project is expected to be distributed to the public in fall 1991. It is
proposed that the Delta Expressway be designed to connect to the north end of the Vasco
Road relocation project adopted by CCWD. The Vasco Road and Utility Relocation
Project EIR prepared by CCWD fully considered the potential cumulative impacts of these
two projects. The cumulative traffic analyses conducted for the EIR used future traffic
volumes based on projected traffic volume growth rates and not on current or predicted
future roadway capacity. This method of analysis allowed CCWD to fully address the
cumulative effects of the relocation of Vasco Road. The Vasco Road and Utility Relocation
Project EIR concludes that because the proposed County Line Alignment (modified)would
simply replace the existing Vasco Road, it would not contribute to future increases in traffic
volumes or changes in impacts at any locations.
In addition, the relocation proposed by CCWD would result in the construction of
a road that would not be consistent with the design standards proposed by the County for
the Delta Expressway. The relocation proposed by CCWD involves the construction of a
two lane road using California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) rolling to
mountainous terrain road design standards which could not be easily converted to a four-
lane expressway. CCWD's proposed relocation therefore does not represent a step toward
construction of the southern extension of the Delta Expressway into Alameda County.
With respect to the Mid-State Toll Road proposal, no significant progress has been
made in defining this project. A contract has been developed with the Caltrans, but this
contract does not authorize the construction of the toll road; it only establishes a
relationship whereby Caltrans has agreed not to approve a "competitive",facility within the
same corridor. The proposal currently consists only of feasibility and planning studies for
possible future action. Although the toll road proposal is very speculative at this point, it
calls for the construction of a major freeway-style facility along the corridor. The relocation
of Vasco Road proposed by CCWD is clearly not consistent with this conception of the toll
road proposal in terms of either alignment or design standards, as described above. In
addition, CCWD and the County have adopted formal resolutions declaring the differences
between the projects, and both Caltrans and the consortium backing the toll road have
provided a letter also stating such differences.
3
Section 2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in
the EIR
The EIR prepared for the Vasco Road and Utility Relocation Project considered the
following alternatives to the proposed Vasco Road relocation. The reasons for each
alternative being considered infeasible follows the description of the alternative.
ALTERNATIVE: NO PROJECT
This alternative assumes that Vasco Road would not be relocated.
Finding Infeasible
The County finds that the No-Project Alternative is infeasible for the following
reasons:
■ Delaying or prohibiting the relocation of Vasco Road and the utility facilities
would prevent the Los Vaqueros Project from being constructed on schedule and
would result in substantially greater expenditures by CCWD ratepayers through
increased project and financing costs. Vasco Road and the various utility facilities
must be relocated prior to the beginning of dam construction for the Los .
Vaqueros Project, currently scheduled to begin in 1994. Substantial delays in the
schedule have been estimated by CCWD to increase the cost of the Los Vaqueros
--w- Project by approximately $2 million for each month of delay because of increased
financial costs.
VASCO ROAD RELOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative: Brushy Creek Alignment
This alternative would involve constructing the replacement for Vasco Road along
an alignment that would connect to Interstate-580 (I-580) at the Greenville Road
interchange near the City of Livermore.
4
Finding. Infeasible
The County finds that social and environmental considerations make the Brushy
Creek Alignment infeasible to adopt for the following reasons:
■ this alignment would result in significant unavoidable noise and quality of life
impacts on rural residents along Dyer Road in Alameda County;
■ this alignment would have a greater impact on occupied habitat for the San
Joaquin kit fox, which is protected under both the state and federal Endangered
Species Acts, than would the proposed project; and
_n this,alignment does not offer substantial environmental benefits as compared to
the proposed County Lane Alignment (Modified).
Alternative: Brushy Peak Alignment
This alignment would involve constructing the replacement for Vasco Road along an
alignment east of the existing Vasco Road that would connect to the existing Vasco Road
approximately 3 miles south of the proposed County Lane Alignment (Modified).
Finding. Infeasible
The County finds that environmental and cost considerations make the Brushy Peak
Alignment infeasible to adopt for the following reasons:
■ the Brushy Peak Alignment considered in the EIR would cost substantially more
than CCWD has allocated for replacing Vasco Road in terms of project cost
estimates that were submitted to and approved by CCWD ratepayers in a ballot
measure. The estimated cost provided to CCWD ratepayers for replacing Vasco
Road, included in the 1988 ballot measure,was approximately$45 million in 1993
dollars. The estimated cost of this alignment is $78.9 million in 1993 dollars;
■ this alternative would result in significant impacts for unique cultural resource
sites located along the alignment;
■ this alignment would have a substantially greater impact on occupied habitat for
the San Joaquin kat fox, which is protected under both the state and federal
Endangered Species Acts, than would the proposed Vasco Road relocation
alternative; and
■ this alignment does not offer substantial environmental benefits as compared to
the proposed County Line Alignment (Modified).
5
Alternative: Original County Line Alignment
This alternative would involve constructing the replacement for Vasco Road along
an alignment very similar to the proposed County Line Alignment (Modified).
Finding. Infeasible
The County finds that cost and environmental considerations make this alternative
infeasible to adopt for the following reasons:
■ the original County Line Alignment considered in the EIR would cost substantially
more than CCWD has allocated for replacing Vasco Road in the. project cost
estimates that were submitted to and approved by CCWD ratepayers. The'
estimated cost provided to CCWD ratepayers for replacing Vasco Road, included
in the 1988 ballot measure, was approximately $45 million in 1993 dollars. The
estimated cost of this alignment is $95.4 million in 1993 dollars; and
■ the road design standards used for this alignment would result in substantially
greater impacts for environmentally sensitive wetland habitats than would the
proposed alignment.
Alternative: Mountain House Alignment
The Mountain House Alignment would involve constructing the replacement for
Vasco Road mostly along existing roadways to the east of the project area.
Finding. Infeasible
The County finds that social and environmental considerations make this alternative
infeasible to adopt for the following reasons:
■ this alignment would result in significant and unavoidable increases in travel times
and distances for users of Vasco Road;
■ this alignment would result in significant impacts on air quality because of the
increased travel distances resulting from this alignment;
■ this alignment would result in significant and unavoidable traffic level of service
impacts for approximately 8 miles of I-580,a heavily used freeway, between Grant
Line Road and Greenville Road in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
6
Mitigating these impacts would involve constructing additional freeway lanes in
_ both directions. CCWD considers such mitigation infeasible for both technical
and economic reasons; and
■ this alignment does not offer substantial environmental benefits as compared to
the proposed County Lane Alignment (Modified).
Alternative: East Los Vaqueros Alignment
This alternative would involve constructing the replacement for Vasco Road within
the Kellogg Creek watershed immediately to the east of the Los Vaqueros reservoir site.
It would join the existing Vasco Road at its southern end along the original County Line
Alignment.
Finding: Infeasible
The County finds that cost and environmental considerations make this alternative
infeasible to adopt for the following reasons:
■ the East Los Vaqueros Alignment considered in the EIR would cost substantially
more than CCWD has allocated for replacing Vasco Road, in the project cost
estimates that were submitted to and approved by CCWD ratepayers in a ballot
measure. The estimated cost provided to CC" ratepayers for replacing Vasco
Road,included in the 1988 ballot measure,was approximately$45 million in 1993
dollars. The estimated cost of this alignment is $92.1 million in 1993 dollars;
■ this alignment would have a greater impact on occupied habitat for the San
Joaquin kit fox, which is protected under both the state and federal Endangered
Species Acts, than would the proposed County Lane Alignment (Modified);
• this alternative would preclude consideration of an alternative (Kellogg) reservoir
site in the environmental documentation for the overall Los Vaqueros Project.
CCWD believes that precluding alternatives at this time is inappropriate; and
■ this alignment does not offer substantial environmental benefits as compared to
the proposed County Lane Alignment (Modified).
Alternative: West Kellogg Alignment
This alternative would involve constructing the replacement for Vasco Road within
the Kellogg Creek watershed to the west of the existing Vasco Road and the Kellogg
reservoir site.
7.
` - Finding. Infeasible
The County finds that cost and environmental considerations make this alternative
infeasible to adopt for the following reasons:
■ the West Kellogg Alignment considered in the EIR would cost substantially more
than CCWD has allocated for replacing Vasco Road in the project cost estimates
that were submitted to and approved by CCWD ratepayers. The estimated cost
provided to CCWD ratepayers for replacing Vasco Road, included in the 1988
ballot measure,was approximately$45 million in 1993 dollars. The estimated cost
of this alignment is $64.6 million in 1993 dollars;
■ this alignment would require that the Kellogg reservoir site be developed.
Development of the Kellogg reservoir site would result in substantially greater
impacts on environmentally sensitive wetland habitats than would development of
the Los Vaqueros reservoir site. Recent studies conducted by CCWD indicate
that the Kellogg reservoir site may contain 80-150 acres of wetland habitat,while
the Los Vaqueros reservoir site would affect approximately 12 acres of wetland
habitat;
■ this alternative would preclude consideration of the Los Vaqueros reservoir site
in the environmental documentation for the overall Los Vaqueros Project.
CCWD believes that precluding alternatives at this time is inappropriate; and
■ this alignment does not offer substantial environmental benefits as compared to
the proposed County Line Alignment (Modified).
8
Section 3. Findings-on Significant Impacts of the Proposed
Project Identified mi the EIR
The County hereby makes the following findings for each significant impact of the
proposed project identified in the EIR.
Each mitigation measure described below was identified in the EIR to mitigate
significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Each mitigation measure is numbered
consecutively in this report.
VASCO ROAD RELOCATION .
Soils and Geology
Impacts from Seismic Activity
The County finds that approval of the project could have a significant impact on the
integrity of the road because of the proximity of the active Greenville Fault. Ground
shaking and other seismic hazards could lead to landslides, and differential settling of soils
could result. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 1: Design Road to Meet Standards for Seismic Safety.
Construction-plans for the road should meet established seismic safety standards to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Uniform Building Code seismic zone will be used
for design of the facilities.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts from Slope Instability
The County finds that approval of the project could result in significant impacts on
slope stability as a result of cut-and-fill slopes not suitable for local soil conditions. The
EIR identified the following measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
9
Mitigation Measure 2: Follow Final Geotechnical Recommendations for Stability of
Cut-and-Fill SIopes. Where necessary, particularly where embankments are over 30 feet
high, the alignment design should incorporate final recommendations of geotechnical
engineers, such as use of benches with ditches, into the design plan so that slope stability
is maintained. Slopes should be revegetated soon after construction, if practicable.
Finding; Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 3: Implement Engineering Solutions for Soil Creep and Adverse
Bedrock Layering to Reduce Landslides. Slopes with the possibility of failure should,be
identified, and drainage facilities should be designed and constructed to divert runoff from
those slopes to prevent landslides. In areas where soil creep is possible, project engineers
should design and construct the road to reduce problems potentially caused by soil creep,
where appropriate. Where adverse bedrock layering exists, retaining walls should be
installed along cut slopes where necessary to preserve slope stability. These or other
engineering measures will be more fully developed during design and construction.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CC" has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts from Expansive and Compressible Soils
The County finds that approval of the project could result in significant impacts,
such as unstable cuts and fills, soil creep, and Iandsliding. The EIR identified the following
measures to reduce 'impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4: Use Suitable Roadbed Material. Project engineers should
identify areas with expansive and compressive soils and use appropriate materials for
construction. Roadbed material should be imported where soils are unsuitable.
Alternatively, a preset waiting period could be observed after grading and before road
construction begins.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate: Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts from Increased Erosion and Sedimentation
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for
erosion and sedimentation. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
10
Mitigation Measure S: Provide Adequate Drainage to Cut-and-Fill Slopes and
Revegetate Cleared Areas to Prevent Erosion and Sedimentation. Project engineers should
incorporate drainage facilities into design plans for cut-and-fill slopes, such as lined ditches,
to control surface runoff and reduce erosion. Cleared areas should be revegetated where
practicable.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Hydrology
Impacts from Increased Flood Flows
The County finds that approval of the project could have a significant impact on
downstream flooding because of increased runoff volumes from the roadway entering Brushy
Creek. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant
levels.
Mitigation Measure 6: Provide Onsite Runoff Reduction Measures along Roadway
to Reduce Downstream Flood Flows. Project engineers should identify areas along the
roadway with the potential for causing increased runoff that could contribute to flood flows
in Brushy and Kellogg Creeks. A combination of detention basins,percolation or infiltration
trenches, or vegetated or gravel-lined swales should be designed and constructed, where
necessary, to reduce runoff and flooding to preproject levels in the lower reaches of Brushy
and Kellogg Creeks. The facilities required to achieve this objective should be sized based
on preproject runoff levels and predicted runoff volumes.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on Erosion and Deposition, and Road Embankment Stability
The County finds that approval of the project could lead to significant impacts on
erosion and deposition, and road embankment stability. The EIR identified the following
measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 1: Design and Construct Culverts to Minimize Channel Erosion.
Project engineers should identify areas downstream of culverts where erosion could occur.
Culvert sizing and placement and channel protection should be designed to prevent culvert-
related erosion.
11
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on Natural Drainage Patterns
The County finds that approval of the project could lead to significant impacts for
natural drainage patterns. The EER identified the following measure to reduce impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 8: Design and Construct Culverts and Creek Channel
Realignments with Minimum Effects on Natural Drainage Patterns. Project engineers
should determine whether any seeps or springs will be affected by road embankments. If
they are affected, culverts and ditches should be designed to maintain spring and seep flow
into the drainages. Culvert design and any necessary creek channel realignments should be
sized by project engineers and constructed to comply with requirements of the Contra Costa
and Alameda County Public Works Departments.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Water Quality
Short-Term Impacts on Surface Water Quality
The County finds that approval of the project could have short-term impacts for
surface water quality as a result of construction. The EIR identified the following measure
to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 9: Implement Soil Erosion and Pollutant Control Measures to
Reduce Short-Term Water Quality Degradation from Grading and Construction. The
following mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce short-term water quality
degradation in Brushy and Kellogg Creeks caused by construction activities.
■ Grade spoil sites to minimize surface erosion.
■ Revegetate all cleared areas with native or naturalized plant.species to minimize
erosion and sediment transport into Brushy Creek.
■ Collect and remove possible pollutants from the construction site to minimize
pollutant runoff into drainages.
12
■ Remove riparian or other woody vegetation only when necessary to minimize
sediment transport into Brushy Creek.
■ Dispose of excavated material, and construction and maintenance material, away
from water sources or drainages.
■ Prepare a spill prevention and countermeasure plan prior to project construction.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on Los Vaqueros Project Water Quality
The County finds that approval of the project could result in a significant impact on
the water quality of, the proposed Los Vaqueros Project if a chemical spill should occur
because of an accident on the roadway. The EIR identified the following measures to
reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 10: Design and Implement an Emergency Action Plan for
Chemical Spills within the Watershed. An emergency action plan will be developed for
chemical spills within the Kellogg Creek watershed. Established guidelines already in place
for emergency actions relating to hazardous materials spills in Contra Costa County will be
used as a basis for the plan. The plan will specify the appropriate agencies to contact if a
chemical spill occurs, such as Caltrans and the Chemical Transportation Emergency Center.
The plan will also specify onsite cleanup procedures and assign responsible parties. Copies
of the plan will be distributed to appropriate parties.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 11: Install a Structural Containment System for Possible
Chemical Contamination of the Watershed. Project engineers will design and construct a
storm drain collection system along the portion of the road alignment inside the Kellogg
Creek watershed. This system will consist of a combination of canals, culverts, and
detention basins, as appropriate, that will prevent contaminants (e.g., from road runoff or
hazardous spills) from entering the reservoir. The system will also provide for the removal
of contaminants from the watershed or will detain them in an appropriate manner.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
13
Vegetation
Grading and other construction activities in areas currently defined as jurisdictional
wetlands will require a Section 404 permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Compensatory mitigation is required by the Corps, as a condition of a Section 404
permit, when wetland habitat impacts cannot be avoided and when wetland values are
diminished as a result of a permit. A detailed delineation of the location and extent of
wetlands being affected, as well as a detailed plan for implementation of mitigation,will be
prepared by CCWD as part of the Section 404 application. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and DFG will also be involved in the implementation planning process.
The implementation plan will describe specific procedures, based on mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR, and will be designed to reduce impacts on wetlands to
less-than-significant levels and satisfy conditions of the 404 permit. The implementation
plan will likely use a combination of mitigation measures to achieve this goal. These
measures are described below.
A wetland restoration specialist will be involved in developing and implementing the
mitigation program for.CCWD. This specialist will oversee all facets of the monitoring and
reporting program relating to vegetation mitigation.
Impacts on Alkali Grasslands and Meadows
The County finds that approval of the project could have a significant impact on
approximately 5.5 acres of alkali meadows and grasslands and approximately 1.5 acres of
waters of the United States that have been determined to be wetlands subject to the
jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The precise acreage
of wetlands and waters of the United States affected by the County Line Alignment
(Modified) is subject to some variation because of slight modifications to the alignment that
could occur during final engineering design of the alignment.
Mitigation Measure 12: Avoid, Minimize, or Compensate for Loss of Alkali
Grasslands and Meadows. Alkali grasslands and meadows and waters of the United States
are being mapped by CCWD as part of the wetland delineation required to obtain a permit
under Section 404. The information will be compiled into a wetland delineation report to
be used for the Section 404 permit application. The EIR identified the following measures
to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
12a) Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Alkali Grassland and Meadow Areas by
Rerouting Alignment. Project engineers and CCWD's environmental consultant have
reviewed wetland maps and rerouted the road alignment around wetlands where feasible.
The review is continuing to determine if impacts can be further minimized by making
additional readjustments to the alignment location.
14
12b) Compensate Offsite for Impacts on Alkali Grasslands and Meadows. Where
the implementation plan recommends in-kind compensation for alkali grasslands and
meadows, mitigation will first be attempted on a minor pilot study scale because of the
experimental nature of this type of mitigation. If the results are satisfactory, a full
mitigation program will be undertaken. The mitigation procedures for the full-scale study
will be determined by the pilot study for in-kind compensation.
If the pilot study for in-kind compensation is not successful, mitigation will then
consist of a combination of out-of-kind compensation (i.e., creation of alkali marshes) and
enhancement of degraded alkali grasslands and meadows near the project vicinity.
1) In-Kind Mitigation Program. A mitigation site with topography, watershed,
and soils that mimic, or are suitable for, recreating the hydrologic (patterns and amounts
of surface water runoff) and edaphic conditions at existing wetlands will be identified.
Information on the hydrology, geomorphology, and soils at existing wetlands will be
incorporated into site selection plans, as will the importance and size of the watershed
required to maintain the hydrology and soil alkalinity that characterize these wetlands.
Potentially suitable sites identified in the EIR were in the Kellogg Creek watershed
near Marsh Creek Road and at the southeast portion of the watershed at the mouth of
Kellogg Creek. Several tributaries to Kellogg Creek and a few creek canyon mouths at the
north end of Livermore Valley may also be suitable as mitigation sites.
The pilot study will be conducted on approximately 0.25 acre. The total
compensation area will be identified in conjunction with the Corps in the implementation
plan
Habitat creation will involve the steps described in the rest of the section. Topsoil
will be salvaged from areas to be affected along with seed and live plants from perennial
species such as salt grass. The ecologist will determine the most appropriate species to use
for seed and transplants and the optimal time to collect seed and live plants for replanting.
Salvaged soil will be applied to the mitigation site so that it replicates the topography
and surface hydrology of existing wetlands. Some augmentation of subsurface soil layers
with clay-based material may be necessary to create subsurface soil layers impervious to
water infiltration and with materials that could, if necessary, provide a sourceof alkali
compounds.
Vegetation and plant seeds salvaged from impact areas will be transplanted to the
mitigation area. Several attempts may be required to establish adequate plant cover.
2) Out-of-Kind Mitigation Program. If in-kind compensation is unsuccessful, an
implementation plan specifically for out-of-kind compensation will be prepared and will be
approved by the Corps and EPA. The creation of 2 acres of wetland for each acre affected
will probably be required. Creation of alkali marshes, which has been successful in
California, will be attempted for out-of-kind. compensation. In addition, an equivalent
acreage of degraded alkali grasslands and meadows in,the project vicinity will be enhanced
15
(see below) and permanently preserved in conjunction with the created alkali marsh. The
_ creation program to be followed will be similar to that for creating in-kind alkali grasslands
and meadows.
3) Alkali Grassland and Meadow Enhancement Program. This program will be
required in conjunction with out-of-kind compensation. Enhancement of degraded wetlands
to help recover habitat values will entail procedures similar to creating wetlands; therefore,
the same program that applies to out-of-kind compensation would apply to enhancement.
Enhancement techniques that would be used, if necessary, include fencing, and reducing
grazing in affected areas by regulating livestock numbers, use patterns, or the duration or
seasonality of grazing.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of these measures are within
the purview of CCWD, and such measures have been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted these mitigation measures.
Impacts on Alkali Marshes
The County finds that adoption of the project would have significant impacts for
alkali marsh habitat. The EIR identifies the following measures to reduce impacts to less-
than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 13: Compensate for Loss of Alkali Marshes. The mitigation and
monitoring programs for recreating alkali marshes will be implemented as described in"Out-
of-Kind Compensation" described under mitigation measure 12(b)(2).
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts Resulting from the Potential Hydrologic Modification of Alkali Wetlands
The County finds that the adoption of the project could have significant impacts for
alkali wetlands through the potential for modifications in the hydrologic regime of alkali
wetlands and through alterations in drainage flow patterns. The EIR identified the
following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 14: Prevent the Hydrologic Modification of Alkali Wetlands.
Areas downstream of road crossings requiring surface or subsurface runoff to maintain
wetland characteristics will be identified and mapped by a qualified hydrologist between
November and March (the rainy season). Road design drawings will be reviewed by the
hydrologist to determine whether wetlands will be affected by the road. If important water
sources would be eliminated by road crossings,project engineers will design the placement
or position of culverts, where feasible, to prevent loss of runoff to wetlands. This measure
will be coordinated with appropriate mitigation measures.
16
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Elimination of Entire Special-Status Plant Species Populations
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for
special-status plant species populations by eliminating one population of San Joaquin
spearscale. The EIR identified the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to less-
than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 1S: Compensate for Elimination of Entire Special-Status Plant
Populations by Creating New Populations. A qualified restoration ecologist will be involved
with all aspects of the following mitigation and monitoring programs. The establishment of
new San Joaquin spearscale populations has never been attempted. This mitigation measure
would therefore be considered experimental. A detailed revegetation plan for creating
special-status plant populations will be developed in cooperation with USFWS and DFG.
A pilot study will' be used to evaluate the mitigation approach specified in the
revegetation plan before embarking on a full-scale introduction effort. The full-scale effort
will be determined by the pilot study, which will characterize the vegetation, hydrology,
topography, and other descriptive microhabitat features at the site of the disturbed
populations and at other population sites in the region. This information.will be used to
select a site for reestablishment of the San Joaquin spearscale. Sites occupied by special-
status plants will not be considered viable candidates. The pilot study site will be at least
0.25 acre.
Seed will be salvaged from the disturbed populations and assessed for viability. If
sufficient viable seed cannot be gathered from the disturbed population, an alternative
source will be considered.
The restoration ecologist will consider seed germination requirements of the species
by gathering data on current field and laboratory studies. Seed will be transplanted to the
creation site, using information on germination requirements and microhabitat preferences
of the species to guide the effort.
Land where the special-status plant populations are to be created will be protected
in perpetuity by purchase of fee title or conservation easement, and the sites will be
protected from disturbances such as excessive grading.
If attempts at establishing a new population prove unsuccessful, fee 'title or a
conservation easement to a nearby degraded population of the same species will be
purchased and enhanced (as described under mitigation measure 16).
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of these measures are within
the purview of CCWD, and such measures have been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted these mitigation measures.
17
Impacts Resulting from the Partial Elimination of Special-Status Plant Populations
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for
portions of three San Joaquin spearscale populations. The EIR identified the following
measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 16: Compensate for Partial Loss of Special-Status Plant
Populations by Enhancing and Permanently Protecting Unaffected Portions. Where special-
status plant populations are partially affected,the unaffected portions of the populations will
be enhanced by installing fencing, reducing grazing pressure, and restoring hydrologic
conditions. Permanent protection will also be required.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Wildlife
A detailed plan for implementation of mitigation will be developed in consultation _
with USFWS and DFG. Ongoing consultation with these agencies will continue so that
details for implementing appropriate mitigation can be formulated. The mitigation
measures described below will be components of the implementation plan, which will
provide specific details for implementing these mitigation measures. The implementation
plan will also satisfy requirements of the agencies in complying with federal and state
Endangered Species Acts.
Impacts on the San Joaquin Kit Fox Resulting from Construction Activities
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for the
San Joaquin kit fox during project construction activities through the destruction of
potential, active, or natal kit fox dens. The EIR identified the following measures to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 17: Conduct Site-Specific Preconstruction Den Searches for San
Joaquin Kit Fox. A qualified biologist experienced in identifying San Joaquin kit fox dens
will conduct den searches in suitable habitat along the construction right-of-way to identify
potential kit' fox dens before construction begins. Within the road corridor staked for
construction, only intact grassland habitats, oak savannas, and nearby disturbed areas need
be surveyed. The biologist(s) will determine which areas will need to be surveyed, based
on information on habitat gathered during the EIR process. Other project construction
sites, such as staging areas and access roads, will also be surveyed.
18
If potential active or natal kit fox dens are identified during these searches, the
mitigation measures described immediately below will be implemented.
Any potential kit fox dens will be conspicuously marked with flagging or fencing.
Attempts will be made to determine if the dens are being actively used by kit fox. Details
of these efforts will be specified in the implementation plan developed with USFWS and
DFG.
If destruction of an active den site is unavoidable, and it is not a natal den, the den
can be excavated by hand, with permission from USFWS and DFG, so that the kit fox, if
present, can escape. This step will precede construction.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 18: Undertake Appropriate Precautions during Construction
to Protect Potential Kit Fox Dens. If kit fox dens, or potential kit fox dens, are identified
during preconstruction den searches, they will be marked as part of the mitigation measure
above. After marking, the following program will be undertaken for dens not directly
affected by road construction.
A preconstruction meeting will be held with construction personnel. At the meeting,
construction personnel will be advised as to the location of potential kit fox dens marked
for avoidance. General information about kit foxes, such as photographs, will be provided
to aid personnel in kit fox identification. In addition, the following stipulations will be
agreed to at the time the contract is entered into between CCWD and the construction
company. These measures will be refined with USFWS and DFG input before they are
incorporated into the construction contract. The measures described below will be
implemented in occupied kit fox habitat.
■ Buffers 100 feet wide around potential kit fox dens will be marked with stakes and
flagging to alert construction personnel to avoid these areas.
■ No pets or firearms will be permitted on construction sites to avoid harassment
or killing of kit fox. No overnight camping will be permitted in construction areas
so that foraging animals are not disturbed.
■ All food-related trash will be deposited in closed containers. The construction
contract will specify that this trash is to be removed from the construction site at
the end of each day.
■ Any mortalities or injuries to any animal resembling a kit fox will be reported to
the program manager. Both the USFWS Endangered Species Office in
Sacramento and the DFG Nongame Branch in Sacramento will be notified by the
program manager and recommended actions will be taken to ensure that no"take"
19
of San Joaquin kit fox results as defined under the state and federal Endangered
Species Acts.
■ Construction traffic will only be permitted on designated access roads with parldng
in designated areas. Vehicle traffic, especially at night when kit fox are active,
should not be allowed to exceed 20 mph.
■ The construction contract will specify that excavations deeper than 3 feet will be
either fenced, covered, or filled at the end of each working day, or ramps will be
provided to allow kit fox to escape.
■ The construction contract will specify that all 4-inch-diameter or longer pipes,
culverts, or similar structures stored at construction sites more than 8 hours be
inspected to ensure that no kit fox are present before the pipe is buried, capped,
or moved.
■ Rodenticide and herbicide use will be restricted in construction areas.
Findings: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 19: Allow Construction Activities Only between Late May and
Early.December Where Active Natal San Joaquin Kit Fox Dens Are Located. Active natal
dens will be identified as part of mitigation measure 17. No construction activities will
occur within 500 feet of kit fox dens between early December and late May to ensure that
kit fox are not disturbed when pups may be in or near the dens. A qualified biologist will
determine when pups have left the den and when construction can commence.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on San Joaquin Kit Fox Resulting from Increased Road Mortality Once Road is
Completed
The County finds that approval of the project could result in significant impacts on
regional San Joaquin kit fox populations through increased road mortality. The EIR
identified the following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.,
Mitigation Measure 20: Install Fencing along Roadway and Provide Road
Undercrossings within Occupied San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat to Reduce Road Mortalities
and Facilitate Kit Fox Movement. Culvert undercrossings 4-6 feet in diameter will be
placed approximately every 0.25 mile or.further in occupied kit fox habitat areas where
appropriate. Chain link or other appropriate fencing will be installed on both sides of the
road in these areas to prevent kit fox from crossing the road. The fencing will be buried
20
1 foot underground to deter kit fox from digging underneath. Culverts will be placed only
in areas that are fenced. The implementation plan will specify the details of this mitigation
program, particularly the areas to be fenced and culverts to be installed.
Finding. Impact Feasible-to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat
The County finds that approval of the project could result in a significant permanent
Loss of 63 acres of occupied San Joaquin kit fox habitat and the potential Ioss of additional
acreage during construction. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts
to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 21: Compensate for Loss of San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat due
to Road Placement or Construction Activities. An appropriate amount of occupied San
Joaquin kit fox habitat will be acquired and protected by CCWD. USFWS typically requires
that habitat be acquired in a 3:1 ratio to habitat affected. The implementation plan
developed with USFWS and DFG will detail specific procedures to be followed to reduce
kit fox impacts through loss of habitat to less-than-significant levels.
Several factors that will be considered during development of the implementation
plan are the location of compensation habitat and contiguity to affected habitat. Also, for
example,if some habitat is only temporarily disturbed during construction,a lower compen-
sation ratio may be computed to account for revegetation of the temporarily disturbed
habitat.
21a) Recontour and Revegetate Kit Fox Habitat Temporarily Disturbed by
Construction. Cleared areas will be recontoured and revegetated where fit fox habitat is
temporarily disturbed by construction.
21b) Acquire Kit Fox Habitat to be Permanently Protected. The amount of habitat
to be permanently protected will be determined in consultation with USFWS during
development of the implementation plan. The plan will also determine the degree to which
enhancement or protection and maintenance of habitat will be required.
■ A site evaluation will be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether
important factors are present for kit fox habitat suitability. Consideration will be
given to the number of dens present, the adequacy of the prey base, and whether
current land uses will conflict with kit fox use. The site chosen for habitat
compensation will be selected after the Stage 2 EIR/EIS is completed. Any
compensation required as a result of intruding reservoir facilities will be integrated
with requirements of the road project for maximum effectiveness.
21
■ Goals will be formulated to determine the degree of enhancement desired in
compensation areas.
■ A qualified biologist knowledgeable in kit fox issues will develop a management
plan that will incorporate measures to ensure that land management maintains
high quality habitat by restricting grazing,limiting pesticide use,installing artificial
dens, and enhancing the prey base.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on Active Raptor Cliff Nest Sites during Construction Activities
- The County finds that approval of the project could cause significant impacts for
nearby raptor nest sites during project construction if the sites are being used by golden
eagles or prairie falcons. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts to
less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure 22: Establish Buffer Zones Around Active Raptor Nest Sites
during Construction to Protect Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon during the Breeding
Season. A qualified biologist experienced in raptor identification will identify golden eagle
or prairie falcon nest sites during the breeding season (March-June) before construction.
If nests are identified, construction activity near the nest will be postponed until after the
breeding season. The typical disturbance distance for raptor nest sites is 0.5 mile, but this
distance is affected by the local terrain and by the type of activity being undertaken.
If blasting or road cuts are required within 0.5 mile of an identified nest site, the
biologist will monitor breeding activity and advise whether activities should be limited within
OS mile from breeding areas. .
No-trespassing signs will be posted within 1 mile of rock cliff areas if active nests are
identified.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts from the Permanent Loss of Raptor Cliff Nest Sites
The County finds that the proposed project would result in the placement of a road
within 0.25 mile of a sensitive raptor cliff nest site that has been used historically by golden
eagles and prairie falcons. Because of the typical sensitivity of these species to noise, the
location of the road may result in the permanent loss of this nest site. Although the loss of
this site is not definite, these species do occasionally nest near noise sources, this potential
impact is considered significant.
22
No Mitigation Measure Is Available. No mitigation measures are available to reduce
_ this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Finding. Impact Infeasible to Mitigate. The County finds that no feasible mitigation
measures exist to ensure that the permanent loss of this raptor cliff nest site would not
occur. This impact requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. (See
Section 5.)
Impacts on Active Burrowing Owl Nest Sites
The County finds that approval of the project could result in significant impacts on
burrowing owl nest sites during constriction. The EER identified the following measure to
reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 23: Establish Buffer Zones to Protect Active Burrowing Owl
Nests during Construction. This program is the same as that described above for mitigation
measure 22. The breeding season for burrowing owls, however, is March through
September, so nests should be located during that time by a qualified biologist. A 200-foot-
wide buffer will be used where necessary, to prevent construction activities from disturbing
nesting sites.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts on High-Quality Curve-Footed Hygrotus Diving Beetle Habitat
The County finds that approval of the project could result in significant impacts on
sites supporting high -populations of curve-footed hygrotus diving beetles. The EIR
identified the following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 24: Compensate for Loss of High-Quality Curve-Footed
Hygrotus Diving Beetle Sites by Replacing Affected Wetlands. Any wetlands, particularly
stock ponds supporting high densities of beetles that could be affected, will be replaced.
Information on locations of the diving beetle is presented in the EIR. Impacts on these
water bodies will be mitigated as part of wetlands mitigation, for which a replacement plan
will be prepared. See mitigation measure for the mitigation program.
Finding Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
23
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for
aquatic resources present in Brushy and Kellogg Creeks. The EIR identified the following
measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 25: Prevent Hydrologic Modification of Brushy and Kellogg
Greeks to Protect Aquatic Resources. Project engineers will determine where creek
crossings willbe required for road construction. The following measures will implemented:
■ A DFG 1601-03 permit (Stream or Lake Alteration Agreement) will be obtained
to construct creek crossings. The permit will specify construction conditions to
minimitie impacts and may require in-kind replacement of the linear feet of
stream channel that would be affected.
■ Stream crossings will be designed so that approaches are at right angles to the
stream, to the extent possible.
■ Construction of stream crossings will be restricted to low-flow periods to miinimizp
erosion impacts on aquatic species.
■ Stream crossings will be constructed to minmmi2e changes in the hydrologic regime
and to minimize flow restrictions and high water velocities. Channel bottoms
upstream and downstream of the crossings will be rock lined to reduce erosion.
■ Arch culverts will be used,where feasible,to minimize impacts on aquatic species.
The culvert bottoms will consist of native materials and have the same bottom
width as the native channel. No sudden increase in gradient or water velocity will
occur for at least 100 feet above, below, or at the crossing location.
Other measures related to construction activities near streams will be reviewed with
construction personnel at the preconstruction meeting and made part of construction
contracts. The measures are:
■ The use of water from water bodies for construction-related activities will be
prohibited.
■ Operation of construction equipment in flowing water will be prohibited except
where necessary to construct stream crossings.
■ Construction-related byproducts (e.g., soil, oil, cement) will be prevented from
entering the creeks.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
24
Cultural Resources
Impacts from Destruction, Vandalism, or Alteration of Cultural Context
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for
cultural resources because of destruction,vandalism, or separation of cultural context from
construction activities and increased site access. The.EIR identified the following measures
to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 26. Avoid Cultural Resource Sites by Routing Alignment around
Sites. during design of the final alignment, a qualified archeologist should review design
drawings and determine if any cultural sites would be directly affected. If any sites would
be affected, project engineers should route the alignment, where feasible, to avoid the
cultural sites.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 27. Avoid Cultural Resource Sites during Construction. The
mitigation measures below are related to avoidance of cultural sites during construction
activities.
27a) Restrict Use of Sensitive Archeological Areas during Construction. Areas
containing cultural sites near the alignment right-of-way should be generally marked by a
qualified archeologist for avoidance during construction, including use for borrow,parking,
or storing equipment or materials.
27b) Halt Construction Work and Notify Archeologist if Cultural Resource
Materials are Discovered. Construction crews should be advised during the preconstruction
meeting that if any cultural materials are encountered during construction, such as obsidian
flakes or human remains, all ground-disturbing work within 300 feet of the find should be
halted and shifted to another area. The construction foreman should notify the program
manager, who in turn should notify a qualified archeologist.
If human remains are encountered,or what appears to be human remains, the county
coroner should be notified, as well as a qualified archeologist and representatives of the
Native American community.
27c) Archeologist Should Monitor Construction Work in Sensitive Areas. A
qualified archeologist should review road design drawings to determine whether certain
sensitive areas (i.e., those exhibiting a high potential for retaining buried resources) will
require onsite monitoring during certain construction activities, such as excavation. The
archeologist should conduct a site visit(s), if necessary, to review the area planned for
construction and monitor construction in areas deemed necessary by the archeologist. The
program manager should notify the archeologist if construction plans change or areas of
25
activity change after construction begins so that the new areas can be reviewed and
monitored, if necessary.
Construction crews should be advised by the program manager during the pre-
construction meeting that the archeologist has the authority to stop work if cultural
resources are encountered until an evaluation can be made as to the significance and
disposition of the resource.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 28. Restrict Site Visits to Cultural Resource Areas. Visitors to
archeological sites should be discouraged. Site visitors should include only individuals with
documented professional or scientific interests or who serve as Native American monitors.
Visits related to public education may be acceptable, if properly planned. A policy
regarding site visits should be formulated in consultation with Native Americans.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 29. Establish Physical Barriers to Cultural Resource Sites.
Temporary fencing should be installed where necessary at culturally sensitive locations to
prevent damage by construction crews. Permanent fencing or some other kind of barrier
should be installed where necessary to protect sites from vandalism. This includes fencing
portions of the road, adding berms, establishing trees to obscure views, and posting areas
for prosecution of trespassing.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 30. Purchase Property Where Cultural Resource Sites Are
Located to Protect in Perpetuity. Lands where more significant cultural resources are
difficult to protect may require purchase, especially for the Vasco Caves area. This
mitigation would include providing permanent mechanisms to protect resources after land
acquisition, such as regular security patrols of the area, erecting restrictive barriers, or
providing onsite caretakers. An archeological preserve designation could be considered for
certain sensitive areas.
Fording: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that.agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
26
Mitigation Measure 31. Conduct Archeological Evaluations after Road Design for
_ Sites Determined to Be Adversely Affected. Site evaluation should be conducted by a
qualified archeologist familiar with the region. ,The archeologist will make a determination
of the sites that could be affected by construction activities. Each of these sites should be
evaluated, particularly for prehistoric resources, detailed mapping, and field recording to
determine the extent of each site; testing and laboratory evaluation (some excavation may
be needed), and documentation. For historic resources,evaluation should include historical
research, oral history, additional recording, and preparation of building evaluation forms.
The archeologist should incorporate Native American values regarding the significance of
each site into appropriate evaluations. The type and extent of evaluation for each site
should be determined by the archeologist.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 32. Document or Document and Excavate Cultural Resources
as Part of a Data Recovery Program. If data recovery is recommended as a result of site
evaluation, a detailed research design should be prepared by a qualified archeologist before
documentation is implemented. Specific mitigation should be recommended specific to each
resource, such as photographing, mapping, possibly video recording, and summarizing
important information on appropriate forms. Subsurface excavation of cultural materials
may be required as part of data recovery mitigation. This should include a detailed
recording of cultural features.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 33. Review Future Project Developments. A qualified
archeologist should review project plans for all facilities, including access routes for road
construction and other auxiliary components of construction that are not known at the time
of initial site surveys (e.g., borrow locations). The archeologist should determine whether
site reviews are needed for certain construction areas, for example, access roads for
construction,or whether monitoring during construction will be required(as described under
mitigation measure 27c).
Fording: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
27
Land Use
Impacts from Lass of Grazing and Williamson Act-Contracted Lands
The County finds that approval of the project could have significant impacts for
grazing operations if operations are bisected or fragmented, and possible fragmentation of
Williamson Act-contracted lands. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 34: Provide Livestock Crossing Areas along the Alignment.
CCWD should identify grazing operations that would be affected by the road alignment,and
work with landowners on a case-by-case basis to determine where cattle crossings, if
necessary,would be placed. The crossings should consist of tunnels placed under the road,
large enough for cattle to pass through.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Impacts from Change in Rural Character
The County finds that approval of the project would result in a permanent change
to the rural character of the landscape.
No Mitigation Measure is Available. No mitigation measures are available to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Finding: Impact Infeasible to Mitigate. The County finds that no feasible mitigation
measures exist to permanently maintain the rural character of the area. This impact
requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration as a condition of project
approval.
Impacts from Growth-Redirecting and Growth-Inducing Impacts
The County finds that significant secondary impacts could result from development
along the relocated road. The EIR identified the following mitigation measure to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 35: Restrict Access and Regulate Parcel Subdivision along Road
Alignment. Contra Costa and Alameda Counties will own and maintain the new road and
right-of-way, and these agencies have primary control over land uses adjacent to the road
through their regulatory authorities. Therefore, if implemented, this mitigation procedure
would be the responsibility of Contra Costa County and no action would be required by
CCWD.
28
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate and Mitigation is the Responsibility of Another
Agency. The County finds that affected lands within Contra Costa County are designated
as Agricultural lands in the County General Plan,with a maximum allowable density in this
category of one dwelling unit per five acres. This designation will serve to restrict
subdivision activity along the relocated road. Implementation of land use controls in
Alameda County is within the purview of that agency and such a measure has been or
should be adopted by that agency.
Inconsistencies with General Plans
CCWD finds that approval of the project could result in inconsistencies with Contra
Costa County General Plan policies that establish Vasco Road as a scenic route. The EIR
identified the following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 36: Designate Relocated Vasco Road as a Scenic Corridor.
Implementing this mitigation measure would require designation action on the part of
Contra Costa County in its General Plan Scenic Element; therefore, no action would be
required by CCWD.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate and Mitigation is the Responsibility of Another
Agency. The County finds that the relocation meets the goals, policies, and implementation
measures specified in the General Plan for designation as a Scenic Highway. This measure
will be implemented by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Implementation of such
a designation for the relocated road within Alameda County is within the purview of that
agency and such a measure has been or should be adoptedby that agency.
29
Public Services
Impacts on Fire Protection Response Times
The County finds that approval of the project would increase response times for fire
.protection to some areas in the Kellogg Creek watershed currently reached via Vasco Road.
The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 37: Prevent Substantial Increases in Response Times to
Wddland Fires. The program manager, in conjunction with local fire protection agencies,
will review the availability of access roads for fire protection. Minor reorganization and
modification of roads will be undertaken, if necessary, to ensure that response times for fire
protection are adequate.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Socioeconomics
No significant impacts were identified in the EIR for the proposed project;therefore,
no mitigation measures are required.
Transportation
Impacts on Traffic Operation
The County finds that approval of the project could result in the following significant
impacts: 1) unacceptable levels of service at the intersection of Camino Diablo Road and
the relocated Vasco Road, and 2) impeded traffic flow during construction. The EIR
identified the following measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 38: Signalize the Intersection of Relocated Vasco Road and
Camino Diablo Road.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
30
Mitigation Measure 39: Apply Construction-Period Trat'ftc Management Techniques
to Maintain Traffic Flows. Traffic management techniques promulgated by Contra Costa
and Alameda Counties will be used to maintain traffic flow during construction The
techniques include:
■ regulatory, warning, and guide signs;
a barricades; and
a channelization, lighting, and flagging devices.
The construction contractor will determine where these techniques shall be used,for
the most effectiveness.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
Noise
No significant impacts were identified in the EIR for the proposed project;therefore,
no mitigation measures are.required.
Air Quality
Impacts from Construction Dust
The County finds that construction activities generating dust could have a significant
impact on local air quality. The EIR identified the following measure to reduce impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 40: Implement Dust Control Measures during and after
Construction. Construction sites will be watered once or more daily, depending on the air
temperature and winds. Chemical stabilizers or soil binders will be applied to erodible soils
at completed cuts and fills and inactive portions of the construction site, if revegetation is
not practical or would not eliminate potential dust generation.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. Implementation of this measure is within the
purview of-CCWD, and such a measure has been or should be adopted by that, agency.
CCWD has adopted this mitigation measure.
31
Visual Resources
No significant impacts were identified in the EIR for the proposed project;therefore,
no mitigation measures are required.
32
Section 4. Findings on Significant Cumulative Impacts
Identified in the EIR
INTRODUCTION
Cumulative impacts and mitigation measures associated with the relocation of Vasco
Road were identified in the EIR and were based on present and future projects that could
affect similar resources in the project area. These projects include the Los Vaqueros
Project, the Marsh Creek Canyon landfill, the expansion of a relocated Vasco Road, the
construction of the proposed Delta Expressway project,the renovation of Byron Hot Springs,
the expansion of the Byron Airpark, development of the Cowell Foundation property, and
the Mountain House new town proposal. As described in the draft EIR, at the time the
EIR was prepared formal applications had not been approved for these projects. In
addition, for impact topic areas that are more regional in nature (e.g., traffic and air
quality), the EIR considered general growth and development of eastern Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties and the City of Livermore.
Certain impacts of the relocation of Vasco Road would not be regarded as significant
when examined collectively with other possible projects. These impacts include. those
associated with soils and geology, hydrology,water quality, public services, socioeconomics,
noise, and visual resources. While other projects may also affect such resources,the impacts
of the projects discussed above are expected to be localized and would not contribute to
cumulative regional impacts.
The County hereby makes the following findings related to significant cumulative
impacts of relocation of Vasco Road, as identified in the EIR.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VEGETATION
Each of the.projects described above could have significant cumulative impacts on
important natural communities and special-status plant species identified in the EIR. It is
not possible,given the tentative nature of development plans for those projects and the site-
specific nature of these resources, to identify acreages or numbers of plants that might be
affected.
33
Mitigation Measures. Identified in the EIR
In addition to mitigation measures for these resources described above,which could
be applied to these projects where they affect vegetation resources, these impacts could be
avoided or mitigated by implementing and enforcing policies included in the adopted and
draft general plans of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and the City of Livermore; such
policies would discourage development of wetlands, stream channels, riparian vegetation,
and special-status plant species. In addition, protection zones could be established, where
appropriate, and development could be prevented within these zones.
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. The County finds that affected lands within
Contra Costa County are designated as Agricultural Lands in the County General Plan,with
a maximum allowable density in this catagory of one dwelling unit per five acres. In
addition, lands to the east are designated as Agricultural Core, with a maximum permitted
residential density of one unit per 40 acres. These designations will serve to restrict
subdivision activity in the general vicinity of the relocated road. The project area is located
in a significant ecological resource are identified in the Conservation Element of the
General Plan. The Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation
measures to protect vegetation and wildlife resources. These land use directives and
regulations would discourage development of wetlands,stream channels,riparian vegetation,
and special-status plant species and are expected to substantially reduce potentially
significant cumulative impacts on vegetation resources.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
Each of the projects described above could have significant cumulative impacts on
habitats for the special-status wildlife species EIR. It is not possible, given the tentative
nature of development plans for those projects and the site-specific nature of these
resources, to identify acreages or numbers of plants that might be affected.
Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR
In addition to the mitigation measures for impacts on wildlife described above,which
could be applied to other future development projects that would affect wildlife resources,
these potential impacts could be avoided or mitigated by implementing and enforcing
policies contained in the adopted and draft general plans of Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties and the City of Livermore;such policies would discourage development in sensitive
natural areas and promote protection of areas supporting special-status wildlife species. In
addition, a habitat conservation plan identifying resource protection zones could be
identified and established where appropriate, and development could be prevented or
limited within these zones. This measure would be particularly appropriate for mitigating
potential impacts on the San Joaquin kit fox,which requires large, contiguous habitat areas.
34
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. The County finds that affected lands within
Contra Costa County are designated as Agricultural Lands in the County General Plan,with
a maximum allowable density in this catagory of one dwelling unit per five acres. In
addition, lands to the east are designated as Agricultural Core, with a maximum permitted
residential density of one unit per 40 acres. These designations will serve to restrict
subdivision activity in the general vicinity of the relocated road. The project area is located
in a significant ecological resource area identified in the Conservation Element of the
General Plan. The Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation
measures to protect vegetation and wildlife resources. These land use directives and
regulations would discourage development of wetlands,stream channels,riparian vegetation,
and special-status plant species and are expected to substantially reduce potentially
significant cumulative impacts on vegetation resources.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Portions of the project area were used extensively by Native Americans and early
settlers of California. Any development in this area has the potential to affect cultural
resource sites significantly. While development may increase existing knowledge of
prehistoric and historic activities in the area, resulting from archeological findings and
associated mitigation measures, some resources are unique and could be affected by
increased population density and increased access to the sites.
9
Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR
In addition to the mitigation measures described for cultural resources in the
previous section,which could also be applied to future developments in the project area,the
following measures could further reduce potential cumulative impacts.
■ Implement and enforce policies contained in the adopted and draft general plans
of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties that discourage development in areas
containing sensitive cultural resources.
■ Require proponents of future developments to share costs of cultural resource
studies within the project area so that the prehistoric and historic use of the area
could be better understood, sites could be identified, and unique resources could
be protected.
■ Establish archeological districts to protect unique cultural resources in the project
area. These districts could be developed through dedication of lands by project
proponents or by acquisition and management of lands by appropriate public
agencies.
35
Finding. Impact Feasible to Mitigate. The County finds that the project would cross
lands that are designated as extremely sensitive, highly sensitive and of medium
archaeological sensitivity by the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The Open Space
Element contains goals, policies and implementation measures to protect historic and
cultural resources. These guidelines,ordinances and programs would discourage cumulative
damage to identified cultural resources.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LAND USE
Future developments in the project area and surrounding region could have
cumulative impacts on existing land uses, including reducing the capacity of lands in the
project area to support agricultural activities and encouraging the conversion of agricultural
lands to nonagricultural uses.
Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR
Cumulative impacts on land uses could be avoided or mitigated by implementing
policies contained in the adopted general plans of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties that
discourage development in agricultural areas and promote maintenance of agricultural uses.
Finding: Impact Feasible to Mitigate. The County finds that affected lands within
Contra Costa County are designated as Agricultural Lands in the County General Plan,with
a maximum allowable density in this category of one dwelling unit per five acres. In
addition, lands to the east are designated as Agricultural Core, with a maximum permitted
residential density of one unit per 40 acres. These designations will serve to restrict
subdivision activity in the general vicinity of the.relocated road. These designations and
other goals, policies, and implementation measures within the General Plan would
discourage cumulative impacts on existing land uses,including reducing the capacity of lands
in the project area to support agricultural activities and encouraging the conversion of
agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION
New development in the general project vicinity could result in increased population
density and associated increases in traffic volumes. Analyses conducted for the EIR indicate
that future (2010)traffic volumes will exceed the capacity of most of roadways in the project
area,and that these roadways will require substantial improvements to accommodate future
traffic volumes.
36
Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR
The EIR identified numerous improvements that could be implemented to reduce
cumulative impacts associated with increased future-year traffic volumes.
Finding: Cumulative Impact Not Significant
The County finds that because the proposed County Lane Alignment (Modified)
would simply replace the existing Vasco Road, it would not contribute to future increases
in traffic volumes or changes in impacts at any locations.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
New development in the general project vicinity could result in increased traffic
volumes and associated increases in traffic volumes,which in turn would result in increased
vehicular emissions.
Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR
The EIR indicated that future-year vehicular emissions could be mitigated by fully
implementing the Bay Area Air Quality Management Plan.
Finding: Cumulative Impact Not Significant
The County finds that because the proposed County Line Alignment (Modified)
would simply replace the existing Vasco Road and would therefore not contribute to
increased future-year traffic volumes, it would not cause future increases in vehicular
emissions in the project area.
37
Section 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
INTRODUCTION
i
CEQA requires lead agencies to balance the benefits of a project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be
considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA also requires,
however, that where a lead agency decision allows the occurrence of significant effects that
are identified in the EIR and that are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall
support in writing the specific reasons for its action. Such reasons must be based on
substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093[b]). This required statement is referred to as a "Statement of
Overriding Consideration".
The County is proposing to approve the Vasco Road Relocation General Plan
Amendment and has adopted and certified the EIR prepared by CCWD as satisfying the
requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the project are considered to be
significant and unavoidable based on the EIR and the findings described above:
■ permanent loss of raptor cliff nest sites from operation of the proposed County
Line Alignment (Modified), and
■ disruption of the rural landscape character from construction of the proposed
County Line Alignment (Modified).
The County finds that the economic,social,and other considerations described below
outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified above. In making
this finding, the County has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental impacts and has found those risks acceptable.
SOCIAL BENEFITS
■ The proposed project will allow the Los Vaqueros Project to proceed on schedule
and will enable CCWD to provide water quality and system reliability benefits to
its ratepayers (including County residents) within the timeframe expected by
CCWD ratepayers when approving the ballot measure in 1988 that instructed
CCWD to pursue development of the Los Vaqueros Project.
38
■ The proposed project will result in substantial improvements to much of the
Vasco Road corridor by diverting traffic from the existing Vasco Road,which was
constructed prior to the development of modem road design standards, onto a
new roadway that would offer substantial improvements in design including longer
radius turns, flatter grades, wider lanes, and 8-foot-wide paved shoulders.
. The existing Vasco Road is a designated scenic road. While development of the
Los Vaqueros Project would leave the area surrounding the existing Vasco Road
open to public view,the proposed County Lane Alignment(Modified)would open
new scenic areas to public viewing:
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
■ The proposed project will allow the Los Vaqueros Project to proceed on schedule.
Substantial delays in the schedule for completing the Los Vaqueros Project have
been estimated by CCWD to increase the costs of the project by approximately
$2 million for each month of delay because of inflation and increased financing
costs. These costs would be in excess of those presented to CCWD ratepayers
when CCWD was authorized to pursue the Los Vaqueros Project.
39