Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 04071987 - 87-209 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on April 7, 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Schroder, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: In the matter of the RESOLUTION NO. 87/209 Alamo Villa General Plan Amendment The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Resolved that: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 1-87 (SR) adopted by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission proposing an amendment to the County General Plan in the Alamo area along Danville Boulevard. The Commission approval for the amendment area called for a change to Office for the Swedberg property only. On March 24, 1987, the Board held a hearing on said amendment. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the matter as required by law. The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter and numerous persons spoke both in favor and in opposition to the amendment and to the congregate care component of that proposed plan. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and continued the item until April 7, 1987 for a decision. On March 31,1987 the Director of Community Development submitted recommen- dations outlining the options available to the Board and responding to other concerns raised at public hearing. The Board discussed the plan amendment and approved the plan as discussed in the aforementioned recommendations. Super- visor Schroder moved and Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion which especially included adding the Senior Citizen: Congregate Care general plan category into this plan amendment. The Board further directed this resolution to be prepared which outlines the Board decision on this matter. The revised plan map and text are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Board hereby further finds that the proposed amendment will have a significant impact on the environment. and that an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the County's Environmental Impact Guidelines. The Board hereby adopts the findings included in Exhibit B with respect to the Alamo Villa General Plan Amendment and CEQA findings on the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR and the statements of overriding considerations. The Board further directs the County Community Development Department to incorporate this amendment into a combined amendment to the General Plan which this Board will consider for adoption during the 1987 calendar year as one of the four permitted amendments to the mandatory elements of the County General Plan. JWC:e d I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the cc: Community Development Department Board of Supe rrl rs on a date shown. County Counsel � _� County Administrator ATTESTED: County Public Works PHIL BATC LOR,Clerk of the Board A I A of Supervisors and County Administrator Merle mall Associates (I c J + Deputy By 4b/87-209.jc V Exhibit A MERLE HALL INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I . INTRODUCTION This amendment pertains to the Land Use and Recreation Element of the County General Plan. The amendment area consists of approximately four acres of land east of Danville Boulevard between Jackson Way and the Stone Valley Shopping Center. II . LAND USE ELEMENT This amendment changes the land use designation from Single Family Resi- dential Low Density to Senior Citizen: Congregate Care, Single Family Residential Low Density and Office. The land use designations in this plan amendment are defined as follows and shown on Map A: Senior Citizen: Congregate Care This category allows for the development of .a senior. citi.zens. congregate care housing project. Congregate care living` is''--a'•'h,outi'ng--,arrangement which provides support services as part of housing for the elderly. Congregate housing programs include t least one meal per day. Other typical support services include cleaning, laundry, transportation, recreation, education and counseling. Congregate living is designed to serve those elderly who are at a high risk of institutionalization and are no longer able to live along. To foster independence and self respect, congregate facilities provide each resident with a small private .unit including a kitchenette. Large common areas for lounging, dining, administrative, vending, health or personal services and acti- vity areas, foster a home atmosphere and draw residents out into healthy social activities. If senior housing is not constructed, the property will be limited to 1 to 3 Single Family Residential units per net acre as allowed by the pre-existing General Plan on the site. The maximum. number of units for this senior citizens facility will be limited to 118. The area desig- nated for congregate care will be developed through the Planned Unit Development process for the entire area in this designation. Single Family Residential Low Density This land use category provides for housing at 1 to 3 units per net acre. The land covers the parcel which will continue to be designated for single family use and is presently zoned R-20. .A11 r. Page'2 ` r Office The category allows for general office uses. The site to be designated Office is already zoned 0-1 and such designation will eliminate a zoning/General Plan inconsistency. III . RECREATION ELEMENT The downtown park will be created within this amendment area. It will serve both the general public and the residents of the adjacent senior housing project and will be integrated into the design scheme for appli- cations received under this plan amendment. The exact size; location along Danville Boulevard; responsibility for capital , operation and maintenance costs; and required amenities will be resolved at the time of application review. IV. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Development occurring under this amendment will need to be reviewed to insure that extensive landscaping buffers are maintained and enhanced between the senior project and adjacent single family residences. The historic structures which exist on site should be either integrated into the project design or moved to other locations :within the Alamo community if feasible. The project building on this site will be limited to two stories in height; one story features shall be incorporated into the building de- sign at various locations along Jackson Way. V. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY This plan amendment clarifies certain wording found on Pages 19, 20 and 31 of the San Ramon Valley General Plan. Page 20 of that document limits the expansion of commercial uses along Danville Blvd. to the established designated commercial areas. While there is a commercial component to a congregate care project, it is a residential project. This amendment is consistent with that wording on Page 20 of the plan; the congregate care project is not a transitional commercial or office use but a compatible residential use. On Page 19 of the aforementioned plan it states that Multiple Family Residential Medium Density is the highest residential density considered appropriate for the planning area. It is not reasonable to judge con- gregate care facilities against conventional density measurements due to the specialized nature of the housing. The creation of the Congregate Care category together with its density cap of 118 units creates confor- mity between these plan provisions. Page 3: Page 31 of the plan states specialized housing for the elderly should be encourage and be of small scale. Since congregate care facilities typically range from 100 to 300 units per facility and this site will be limited to 118 units this project is to be considered a small scale project. Any other provision of the County General Plan which might be construed as contrary to this amendment is overruled for this project location by this plan amendment. JWC:ed JWC-2/merlegpa.jc MAp ........................... .................................... ............. .................... .................................. :::.::.. ......................................................... ............................... ...............:. .......... :::::::::::: ..... _................. ills OEM! NINE Tom .................................... !Hill iii ui�wm ......................................... ............. .... ii Me AWN will 11 - ................... .....-.-.. o. Q ....................................... ................. NINE Emil will mapsmi; IMM!" low Mill mom ...... ............................... .................................. .............. .o:o:.....o.:.: o.. ?'E EiiEEEEEi="E'sii:"SEEcn "'?EE5?Nil E EEEEEEi e : nt', m peno d m 1 a n A 40 NO , bounda Y y ;.. ....... Residential - Low to Single Family Sing ate Care to office Congregate Residential-Low o � lot Hale family 1_Low to Single f ami l y do 0 00.0 0 0 . S� Res i dents a 1AN? A o Family Single Re tial~Law den si 0 D owntown EXHIBIT B FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALAMO VILLA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I . GENERAL FINDINGS A. Senior Housing Needs in County. z 1. Facts . As indicated in the Staff Report, the County General Plan housing element recognizes the substantial needs in the County for senior housing . In 1980 9 .3% or 61, 043 persons within the County were 65 years of age or older . The County General Plan housing element states that by 1990 it is projected that 12 .3% or 92, 574 persons within the County will be 65 years or older. This represents an increase of 31, 531 persons from 1980 . Approximately 27% of the over-65 population live in single person households . Many of these over-65 individuals are in need of special housing with small, easy to care for dwelling units . As indicated in the EIR, in Contra Costa County the over-65 group increased from 7% of the population in 1970 to 10 . 7% in 1985 . The EIR also refers to projections which indicate that the elderly (over-65) portion of the population will increase by 50% during the next 15 years and will comprise 13 . 5% of all County residents . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that the General Plan amendment applicable to the Project Site will serve the goals and objectives to provide senior housing as set forth in the County' s General Plan. The General Plan Amendment to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care is in furtherance of, and 1 1, �'� Q ' t consistent with the General Plan objective of offering a range of housing densities in order to provide for a variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups . In particular, this Board finds that the need for senior housing in the County is growing at a substantial rate and that the General Plan Amendment is a step towards implementing the housing element of the County General Plan. B. Senior Housing Needs in Alamo . 1. Facts . The Staff Report states that in 1980 the Alamo population of over-65 individuals was 5 . 8%. This figure for Alamo is 38% less than the county-wide percentage of over-65 residents as of 1980 . In addition, the median age in Alamo was 36. 3 in 1984, whereas the median age is 31. 5 for the entire County. The EIR indicates that although many other Contra Costa County planning areas contain MFH designations allowing densities of up to 29 dwellings per acre, the highest residential density indicated by the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan is 21 dwellings per unit acre. Written evidence prepared by Majors Engineering and submitted to the Board indicates that 99 . 1% of the total acres within Alamo (as defined by the application for incorporation on file with LAFCO) is allocated to residential use and that the Alamo Villa parcel would represent only . 037% of the land within Alamo . The Board has received evidence that the Applicant ' s proposed project for a congregate care facility falls within the average density range for congregate care projects . The Laventhol & 2 ��SU�O �� LD Horwath Market Study for a Proposed Adult Congregate Living Facility in Alamo, California, dated December 1986 stated as follows : "The Project ' s density of 42 units per acre will be reduced to approximately 36 units per acre with the addition of the Conrad property. This density is considered average among the competitive properties, and is not excessive for a unit structure of this type. " 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the disproportionately low proportion of Alamo over-65 residents indicates that senior citizens within Alamo are having to relocate from the Alamo community to other areas of the County at such time as either their special health needs require specialized care or they are unable to care for their residences . The Board finds that the fact that the median age is higher for Alamo residents indicates that a substantial portion of Alamo ' s residents will fall within the elderly category in the near future in comparison with other areas of the County. The Board finds that the General Plan Amendment represents an effort to comply with the updated housing element of the County which was adopted by the Board on April 23 , 1985 . In particular, the Board finds that the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policy objective set forth in the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan housing element which provides that specialized housing for the elderly should be encouraged. 3 3 . Swedberg Parcel General Plan Amendment . (a) Facts . As indicated in the Staff Report and the EIR, the Swedberg Parcel is currently zoned limited office (0-1) . However, the current General Plan designation is for SFL. The Swedberg Parcel is currently improved with a four-tenant office building containing dental services, real estate and other office space in a structure converted from a single family residence. Since there are no current plans for the removal of the structure on the Swedberg Parcel, the General Plan Amendment can eliminate the inconsistency between the zoning for the parcel and the SFL designation in the General Plan. (b) Findings . This Board, in accordance with state law, is obligated to eliminate inconsistencies between its General Plan and zoning and finds that the General Plan Amendment designation for office will bring the zoning and general plan into conformance. This Board adopts the recommendation of the staff that the General Plan Amendment is an opportunity to eliminate the zoning-general plan inconsistency. 4 . General Findings . (a) For the reasons set forth in the Planning Department 's Staff Report dated December 17, 1486, the General Plan Amendment is consistent with, and will further many of the goals and objectives of the County General Plan and the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. 4 r r 'V (b) The General Plan Amendment is only the first of the number of discretionary approvals that must be obtained by Applicant prior to commencement of any development project on the Project Site. Subsequent approvals that must be obtained include rezoning of the Alamo Villa Parcel from R-20 to P-1 and for a preliminary and final development plan for the Alamo Villa site. (c) The General Plan Amendment by itself will not directly result in any significant effects on the environment . The EIR, prepared at the time of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning request, addressed impacts which may be attributable to the development of the Project Site as has been proposed by Applicant in preliminary plans for Alamo Villa, a proposed Senior Housing Congregate Care facility. Further environmental review and consideration, including the implementation of any appropriate mitigation measures or project alternatives, will necessarily occur during the approvals process for any development plan for the site which may subsequently be submitted. . To the extent that any of the impacts identified in the EIR may be indirectly attributable to the General Plan Amendment, an explanation of mitigation measures and a statement of overriding considerations with respect to those impacts are set forth in Section III below. 5 DENT o II. CEQA FINDINGS ON THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Significant Impact - Community Character And Land Use. The EIR indicates that the increase in residential units and population resulting from the MFH designation would represent a significant change in the neighborhood character . 1. Facts . The General Plan Amendment designation for the Project Site has been changed to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care from the MFH designation considered in the EIR. The change in the General Plan Amendment to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care mitigates many impacts on the community or environment which otherwise could result from the MFH designation for the Project Site. The Staff Report cites the General Plan housing element statement that the intensity of land use is generally less for senior housing projects than multi-family housing projects and that communities may facilitate the production of additional elderly housing by adjusting parking requirements, density and fees and exactions in recognition of these differences . The General Plan Amendment designation to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care provides that the actual number of units will be determined on a case-by-case basis upon review of each specific development application. The proposed General Plan Amendment described in the EIR included the Lindemann Parcel in order to provide an opportunity to create a larger 6 congregate care facility. This General Plan Amendment has excluded the Lindemann Parcel . The Staff Report indicates that the area surrounding the Project Site consists of both residential and commercial land uses . The residential areas situated to the east and north of the Project Site ,are characterized by. large lot single .family ranch-style homes, whereas commercial uses exist to the west and south of the Project Site. The Staff Report indicates that directly west of the Project Site, across Danville Boulevard, is a mixed use office, banking, restaurant and retail shopping center .development known as Alamo Plaza. To the south, on the Swedberg Parcel, (.which is within the Amendment Area) , is a four-tenant office structure having various medical and commercial uses . In addition, the Staff Report indicates that beyond the Swedberg Parcel is the Stone Valley Center which is an older shopping center . The Staff Report further indicates that during prior General Plan Amendment hearings in 1984 affecting this property, members of the Staff, the community, and the Planning Commission suggested that the property would be appropriate. for a senior multiple family use designation. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the Senior Citizen-Congregate Care designation will substantially mitigate impacts related to a MFH designation. By restricting the General Plan designation for the Project Site to senior housing/congregate care, the Board finds that many of the impacts on a community generally associated with higher density 7 projects (i .e. , apartments) are not applicable. The Board further finds that any potential impact on the community and land use by the General Plan Amendment could be substantially mitigated during the project design and review stage with mitigation measures suggested in the EIR, or upon further =environmental review. The Board further finds that the impact on the community and neighborhood character resulting from the General Plan Amendment is less significant when viewed in the context of the mixed retail, commercial and residential uses surrounding the Project Site. In addition, the Board finds that the potential impact on the community and land use has already been mitigated by the exclusion of the Lindemann Parcel from the Amendment Area and the redesignation to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care, as were mitigation measures identified in the EIR. To the extent that any such -impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds that such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III . The Board finds that additional means of mitigating the significant impacts will also be analyzed at the time the Development Plan Applications for the site are reviewed. B. Significant Impact-Traffic, Circulation And Transportation-Vehicular Traffic . The EIR indicates a minimum impact arising as a result of the total trips projected from a congregate care facility 8 � �,�1 and the resulting contribution to the traffic volumes on a surrounding street network. The EIR further indicates that the construction of a congregate care facility on the Project Site would make any future widening of Danville Boulevard between Orchard Court and Jackson Way less feasible. 1 . Facts . The General Plan Amendment will allow development to occur which will result in a minimum impact on the traffic circulation system. The EIR indicated that the widening of Danville Boulevard is "not justified" by the traffic impacts resulting from a congregate care facility on the Project Site. Insofar as the traffic generated from such a facility is concerned, the Staff Report states that the traffic impact of senior citizen housing facilities are often characterized by low auto ownership. The EIR estimates that the proposed congregate care facility would add only one to two percent to the current traffic volumes . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the minimal impact on traffic can be mitigated during project design and review with mitigation measures as suggested in the EIR, including the allocation of a portion of the traffic mitigation fee toward the installation of a traffic signal at the Danville Boulevard and Livorna Road intersection, the requirement that the developer construct frontage improvements on Danville Boulevard, (including streetlights) and the annexation of the Project Site to County Service Area L-42 . The Board further adopts the finding of the EIR that the widening of Danville 9 FAQ R117 12-11 Boulevard may not be justified by the traffic impacts of the currently proposed senior housing facility; however, at the time of project review it can be determined whether to retain the option for such widening, in which case the applicant could be required to dedicate sufficient land so as to permit a 100-foot right of way along Danville Boulevard. To the extent any such traffic impacts attributable to the General Plan Amendment remain unmitigated, this Board finds that such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in Section III below. C. Significant Impact-Traffic, Circulation and Transportation-Pedestrian Traffic. The General Plan Amendment will allow the development of a congregate care facility which may result in additional pedestrian traffic. The EIR indicates the potential impact on traffic flow resulting from the efforts of elderly persons with limited mobility to cross Danville Boulevard. 1. Facts . The Staff Report indicates that additional pedestrian traffic may result in the area, partially as a result of the convenient shopping, medical and banking services which will be proximate to the Project Site. 2 . Findina. The Board finds that the impacts on increased pedestrian traffic and on traffic flow can be mitigated during the project design and review stage with the mitigation measures as suggested in the EIR, including 10 MEW I channelization of left turn movements with traffic islands to mitigate potential safety hazards . Applicant has also proposed providing shuttle transportation to mitigate impacts on pedestrian safety and heighten access to shopping areas . The Board further finds that this impact identified in the EIR is not a significant impact on the environment . To the extent additional pedestrian traffic will. have any impact on the environment, the Board finds that it will be mitigated by the conditions set forth in the EIR or other mitigation measures imposed at the project review stage. To the extent any such impact remains unmitigated, this board finds such impact is acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III , below. D. Significant Effect-Traffic, Circulation and Transportion-Parking . The EIR identifies the impact of a senior housing facility on the need for on-site parking spaces . The General Plan Amendment would allow development of a senior housing congregate care facility, while the on-site parking can be mitigated during the project design and review stage. 1. Facts . The EIR furnishes an analysis of parking demand data for several existing senior housing congregate care facilities in the Bay Area . The study set forth in the EIR indicates that most senior housing residents will not own cars and that a parking ratio of approximately .35 parking spaces per unit would provide sufficient capacity. 11 • L 2 . Finding . The Board adopts the finding of the EIR that parking demand for a senior- housing congregate care facility should be lower on a per unit basis than the demand created by a typical multi-family residential development project. The Board further finds that there is no =evidence that the parking demand will cause a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment . Accordingly, the Board finds that this impact identified in the EIR will not have- a significant effect on the environment . To the extent this impact will have any effect on the environment, the Board finds that it is mitigated by the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, including the adoption of a variance to the county' s parking requirements . To the extent any such impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds such impact is acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III, below. E. Significant Effect-Public Services And Facilities . The EIR indicates that while EBMUD anticipates no difficulty in serving the Project Site with water, the adequacy of the water system to supply the required fire flow should be confirmed. Similarly, the EIR indicates that there are no apparent system capacity problems related to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' s ability to serve the Project Site once it is annexed to the District . The impact on the feasibility of Contra Costa County Flood Control District to 12 serve runoff resulting from development of the Project Site was cited as an issue in the EIR requiring further study. 1. Facts. The General Plan Amendment will enable development to. occur which will result in a need for the basic range of urban services from public utilities . The Staff Report indicates that while further study is required, there are no known service constraints from public utilities resulting from the General Plan Amendment . Any possible significant impact can be identified, and, if necessary mitigated, during the project design and review stage and the mitigation measures suggested in the EIR incorporated into a particular project . Such mitigation measures include the requirement that the Applicant fund an analysis of local water lines and storage capabilities and further fund a drainage study to ascertain the adequacy of the storm water drainage system in the vicinity of the Project Site. In addition, the EIR indicates that the Applicant will be required to meet the connection requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that there is no evidence based on curent studies and information that the potential impact on public services and facilities associated with the Senior Citizen-Congregate Care General Plan designation will cause any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment . Accordingly, subject to obtaining necessary service commitments from the 13 EWE 0 appropriate public utility districts, the Board finds that this impact identified in the EIR is not significant . To the extent this impact will have any effect on the environment, the Board finds that it is, or will be mitigated by the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, or by additional mitigation measures recommended by future studies . To the extent any such impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds that such impact is acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III , below. F. Significant Effect-Park and Historic Resources . The EIR indicates that one impact arising from the Congregate Care Facility proposed by Applicant (and not necessarily resulting from this General Plan Amendment) is that the development project would preclude a . 5 acre downtown park at the corner of Danville Boulevard and Orchard Court as proposed in the Alamo Park, Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Plan (APRP) . 1. Facts . The APRP is not part of the County' s General Plan and has not been adopted by the Board of Supervisors . This General Plan Amendment proposes to amend the Recreation Element of the County General Plan by designating the location of the "downtown park" within the Project Site. The General Plan Amendment would provide that the park will serve the general public and the residents of the senior housing-congregate care facility. To date, the County Service 14 RAW 8 Area (CSA) R7-A which covers Alamo has, according to the Staff Report, taken no steps towards the acquisition of the site. However, in furtherance of the mitigation measures suggested in the EIR, the Applicant has proposed a focused park facility at a location on the project . site. In addition, the Applicant has 'proposed to develop and maintain the focused park facility in satisfaction of one of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. The development of the park site by the Applicant could be imposed as a condition of approval when the project plan and design applications are reviewed. Similarly, the issue concerning the precise location of the park on the Alamo Villa site would be analyzed at the planning stage of any project . The Applicant could be required to contribute an appropriate park and recreation mitigation fee. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that any potential impact on the downtown park contemplated by the APRP could be substantially mitigated during the project design and review stage with the mitigation measures suggested in the EIR including the proposal for development and maintenance of a focused park facility as advanced by Applicant . The Board finds that by amending the recreation element of the General Plan to include a designation for a downtown park which would serve both the general public and residents of the Congregate Care Facility, the potential impact' is substantially mitigated. To the extent any such impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds such impact is acceptable in light of the 15 overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III, below. G. Significant Impact-Parks and Historic Resources-Humburg House. The EIR indicates that the Congregate Care Facility permitted by the General Plan Amendment could potentially impact the Humburg House built in the 1860 ' s . The Humburg House is situated on the Alamo Villa site. 1. Facts . Further review of the historical value of the Humburg House is required. A letter from' the Historical Society describing the history of the house is in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The determination of the status of the Humburg House should properly occur during the project design and review stage. The General Plan Amendment provides that "The historic structures which exist on site should be either integrated into the project design or moved to other locations within the Alamo community if feasible. As indicated in the Staff Report, the Applicant has indicated that this home would probably have to be removed and that it would be difficult to integrate it into the project concept for a Congregate Care Facility. If further studies determine that the historic value of the Humburg House is significant , the Applicant could be required to contribute to the relocation cost of the structure to an appropriate location or to redesign its project . 16 REM 0 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the General Plan Amendment will substantially mitigate any impact on the Humburg House since it provides that the historic structures will either be integrated into the project design or relocated to an appropriate location, if feasible, within the Alamo =community. The Board further finds that impacts on the historic structures can be mitigated during the project design and review . stage with mitigation measures suggested in the EIR. To the extent any such impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds such impact is acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III , below. H. Significant Impact-Scenic Corridor and Visual . The EIR indicates that the visual character of the Project Site will be changed from a heavily vegetated area with structures of modest scale to a more open setting with comparatively large structures of unified design. 1. Facts . The Staff Report indicates that the Project Site has a "decidedly overgrown appearance. " This Staff Report further notes that, except for one of the existing buildings located along Jackson Way, the structures appear to be in poor condition and the yards exhibit "minimal care" . The EIR states that the area of the building coverage and height proposed by the Congregate Care Project proposed by Applicant does not exceed the limits of R-20 zoning . The 17 EMU General Plan Amendment provides, as a special consideration, that development will "need to be reviewed to insure that extensive landscaping buffers are maintained and enhanced between the senior project and adjacent single family residences . " Additional measures designed to mitigate the =scenic and visual aspect of a senior housing Congregate Care Project can be determined at the project design and review stage. 2 . Findin4s . The Board finds that the General Plan Amendment will allow development to occur which will impact the visual character of the site; however, the General Plan Amendment substantially mitigates any such impact by expressly providing for "extensive landscaping buffers" and other mitigation measures which should be reviewed at the project design and review stage. To the extent any scenic and visual impact attributable to the General Plan Amendment remains unmitigated, this Board finds such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III , below. I . Significant Impact-Noise. The EIR identifies the "negligible impact" to existing noise levels arising from a senior housing facility on the property. The EIR cites the impact of the existing noise levels on occupants of such a facility. 18 EKluflll llllT ff T 1. Facts . The existing noise levels are estimated to exceed 65 dba. The Project Site is located approximately 900 feet west of I-680 and, as indicated in the EIR, expected growth in the San Ramon Valley over the next 20 years will contribute to increased freeway noise levels . jTestimony has been presented that the over 65 population utilizing the senior housing facility creates far less noise than the population otherwise commonly found in a multi-family residential high density project. The impacts on residents of the facility can be mitigated during the project design 'and review stage with mitigation measures suggested in the EIR, including an accoustical analysis and other measures utilized to reduce noise levels . 2 . Findings . This Board finds that there is no evidence that the impact on noise levels associated with a Senior Citizen-Congregate Care Facility will cause any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment . The Board finds that any noise impacts on residents can be mitigated during the project design and review stage with the mitigation measures suggested in the EIR. To the extent any such noise impacts attributable to the General Plan Amendment remain unmitigated, this Board finds such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set for in Section III , below. 19 EERY J. Significant Impact-Growth Inducement . The EIR identifies certain growth inducing impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment. Specifically, the EIR indicates that the then proposed General Plan Amendment Application to MFH would constitute the first approval in the vicinity of the Project Site of a residential density higher than the existing single family residential designation. The EIR indicates that this increase in density may provide a precedent which creates pressure for growth in adjacent areas . 1. Facts . The EIR indicates that the impact on growth could be accelerated if the then proposed MFH General Plan Amendment designation for the Project Site was not limited to the development of a Congregate Care Facility. This General Plan Amendment limits the use of the Project Site to a Senior Citizen-Congregate Care Facility and mandates that if the Project Site is not used for Senior Citizen-Congregate Care, that the property will be limited to single family residential housing . Legal counsel for Applicant submitted to this Board a letter dated April 4 , 1987, outlining additional legal mechanisms providing assurances that the Project Site will be used for Senior. Citizen-Congregate Care. These measures which are agreeable to Applicant include (1) a PA Zoning restriction on the use to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care; (2) recordation of a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions restricing the use of the Property; and (3) a statutory Development Agreement stipulating to the restricted use. In 20 addition, all of the facts referenced in Section II . 1 of these findings are hereby incorporated into this Section J. 2 . Findings. The Board finds that the restrictions on alternative uses set forth in the General Plan Amendment text together with the mitigation measures set forth -in the .EIR (and as set forth in Section II .A herein) which may be imposed on future project approvals will substantially mitigate the growth inducing impacts associated with this General Plan Amendment . To the extent any such impacts remain unmitigated, this Board finds such impacts acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in Section III , below. III . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION The Board finds that the mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR are infeasible. Such measures and alternatives would impose' limitations and restrictions on the development of the Project Site which would prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the General Plan Amendment which the Board finds , outweigh the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, and which justify approval of the General Plan Amendment . Specifically, the Board finds .that the following social, economic and other considerations warrant approval of 21 the General Plan Amendment notwithstanding any unavoidable or unmitigated adverse effects : The General Plan Amendment to Senior Citizen-Congregate Care is justified by the.. need to increase the housing supply in the County, at a range of density providing for a variety of family sizes, and age groups in order to accommodate the County' s growing elderly population. The Board hereby restates the facts and findings setting forth the specialized housing needs for seniors in the County, and in the Alamo area in particular, as set forth in Section I of the findings made herein. In addition, the proximity of the Congregate Care Facility to commercial shopping areas and services is particularly appropriate for senior citizens, many of whom do not drive. The proximity of the site to commercial and service areas f.or elderly residents will serve to reduce traffic impacts in other portions of the San Ramon Valley area and offer many of our senior .citizens who do not drive the unique opportunity to function in a more independent fashion. In addition, the Congregate Care designation at this particular location willprovide compatibility with mature residential developments adjoining office and commercial uses by serving as a transition from lower density housing to office/commercial uses . Although the General Plan Amendment designation for senior housing is not project specific, the EIR contains a mitigation measure, which has been generally adopted by the current Applicant, for a downtown area park to be developed and 22 maintained on the Project Site as part of the Congregate Care project . Since no acquisition or sources of funding for this park have been forthcoming, the development of such a park could be used by both the public and by senior citizens residing at the Congregate Care Facility and thereby provide 'substantial social benefits to the community. IV. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. No Project Alternative. This alternative would leave the amendment area with a single family residential-low density designation of one to three units per acre. 1. Facts . The EIR, the County General Plan and the Staff Report all identify the special housing needs of elderly citizens within the County. The EIR states that a negative aspect of the no project alternative is that it fails to utilize the Project Site either for the downtown park or to help fulfill demands of the housing element for moderate income housing for seniors, young singles and marrieds . The Staff Report indicates many of the unique features of the Project Site which make it particularly attractive for senior housing . 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the no project alternative is infeasible for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Congregate Care Facility project, or imposed as conditions of approval to such project, will substantially mitigate the 23 environmental effect and thereby diminish or obviate the perceived mitigation benefits of adopting the no project alternative; (b) Housing opportunities would be lost, particularly for elderly persons; (c) Short term prospects for development of a downtown park would .be lost; (d) Employment opportunities would be lost; and the social, economic and other benefits derived from the General Plan Amendment discussed in Section III , above, would not be obtained. B. Reduced Scale Congregate Care Alternative. This alternative would either reduce the density of building coverage on the .Project Site to provide for a General Plan Amendment with designation to MFL (7 to 12 units per net acre) , MFM (12 to 21 units per net acre) , or MFH (22-29 units per net acre) , rather than 44 units per net acre as was requested by Applicant under the submitted Preliminary Development Plan. It should be noted that under the General Plan Amendment for Senior Citizen-Congregate Care the maximum number of units for the Applicant ' s proposed senior citizen facility will be limited to 118, or approximately 38 . 5 units per net acre. Since the actual number of approved units will be determined pursuant to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process at the time the Development Plan is reviewed, it would 24 be inappropriate for this Board to reject a reduced scale congregate care project alternative at this time. 1. Facts . Although a scaled-down project could reduce the impact on parking, traffic and visual impacts, the EIR indicates that a reduction in density would not resolve the =downtown park issue. In addition, a reduction in project density may not mitigate project impacts in a manner similar to a reduction in density for a multiple family housing project (i .e. , apartment), since senior citizen facilities generate less noise, automobile traffic and parking needs . (See Staff Report and EIR. ) A reduced scale facility would add fewer living units to the San Ramon Valley area housing stock for elderly citizens . As the number of permitted units in the Congregate Care Facility is decreased, the affordability of all levels of senior citizen housing would be lessened. In addition, as the number of permitted units is decreased, the ability to provide a variety of project amenities and personal services severally associated with congregate living facilities would be decreased. Although further study on the economic feasibility of a reduced scale project may be required at the development plan stage, the ability of the Applicant to dedicate or fund attractive mitigation measures such as the development and maintenance of a downtown park, the possible dedication of a portion of the Project Site so as to allow for a 100-foot right-of-way on Danville Boulevard, and the relocation of historic on-site structures of value to the community would 25 ��I LD U g. • 'likely be decreased. As described in the EIR, a project with less building coverage would not reduce the parking impacts, although traffic and visual impacts would be proportionally reduced over a project having greater building coverage on the site. An alternative project excluding construction of any structure on AP #192-071-010 and -011 could provide land for the downtown park, however, if the overall number of units was reduced, the impacts on housing supply and affordability and the ability of the developer to fund attractive mitigation measures could also be reduced. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that a thorough review of a reduced scale alternative should be performed at the Development Plan review stage and not upon the adoption of the General Plan Amendment . Nevertheless, in view of the fact that a Preliminary Development Plan has been submitted by applicant, the Board renders a preliminary finding that this alternative is infeasible for the following reasons : (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the applicant ' s proposal, or imposed as conditions of approval of the congregate care proposal, will substantially mitigate the environmental effects of the project, thereby diminishing the perceived mitigation benefits of adopting this project alternative; (b) A reduction in the number of units would reduce the housing opportunities for senior citizens; 26 • (c) The affordability of the housing units to senior citizens would likely be reduced; (d) The economic feasibility for a developer of the Congregate Care Facility to finance attractive mitigation measures such as dedication and maintenance of a =downtown park, possible dedication of a portion of the Project Site so as to allow for a 100-foot right-of-way .on Danville Boulevard, and a contribution to the relocation of potentially historically significant homes to other suitable locations would likely be reduced; (e) A General Plan Amendment to a MFH designation would not preclude apartment projects occupied by residents typically generating greater environmental impacts than a senior citizen facility; and (f) A reduction in the number of units would result in a degradation in the amenity package for residents of the project (i .e. , recreational facilities, library, convenience store) . C. Multiple Family Residential - No Congregate Care Proiect Alternative. This alternative would not be a Congregate Care Facility, but would consist of apartments, townhouses or garden apartments for lease or purchase. 1. Facts . This multi-family alternative could provide for multiple family residential, low density (7-12 units/net acre) or multiple family residential, medium density 27 . 1 (13-21 units/net acre) . The highest density of this alternative would yield approximately one-half as many units as the project proposed by Applicant . The specialty housing needs of elderly citizens would not be satisfied. This alternative may not have less visual impact than a more intensive =congregate care facility project . However, townhouse or apartment users will have greater parking needs which require more area and landscape screening, although less land will be available for such landscape screening. As indicated in the EIR, the additional requirements for parking space may preclude the development of a downtown park. Also, an apartment or townhouse project would likely have a higher building coverage of the site and greater traffic impacts than congragate care. The alternative will likely have a greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of noise, light, glare, traffic, safety and general activity due to differences in age, facility amenities, and resident activities, as indicated in the EIR. 2 . Findings . The Board finds that the multiple family housing no congregate care alternative should be rejected in favor of the General Plan Amendment for the following reasons: (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Applicant' s proposal, or imposed as conditions of approval of the congregate care proposal, will substantially mitigate the environmental effects of the project, thereby diminishing 28 EKfflD ff . R F . the perceived mitigation benefits of adopting this project alternative; (b) The housing opportunities for senior citizens will be lost; particularly at a location that is ideally situated for senior citizens to have access to nearby commercial and retail areas; (c) The affordable housing opportunities to senior citizens will be lost; (d) The economic feasibility for a developer of a multiple family housing facility to finance attractive mitigation measures such as dedication and maintenance of a downtown park, dedication of a portion of the project site so as to allow for 100-foot right-of-way on Danville Boulevard, and sharing in the relocation of potentially historically significant homes to other suitable locations will be less likely than a senior housing-congregate care project; and (e) A General Plan Amendment to a multiple family residential designation would not preclude apartment projects occupied by residents typically having greater environmental impacts than low impact senior citizen users . DAG:mc/5 0693S/04 . 13 . 7 72053 . 001 29