Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 09142004 - D3 (2)
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Adopted this Order on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors GIOIA, UILIMA, GREENBERG, DESAt7LNIER AND GLOVER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2004/492 SUBJECT: RESCIND existing Land Conservation ) Contract No. 6-72 for the 81 Acres ) Comprising of APN: 006-220-006 ) AUTHORIZE the Execution of a ) new Land Conservation Contract ) No. 04-0003 with Michael and Marianne Rountree ) For APN: 006-220-006 ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that: On January 18, 1972, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 72/29 which authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute Land Conservation Contract No. 6- 72 with Rosie A. Vargas, et al, covering 570 acres at Collier Canyon Road and Carneal Road (Tassajara area), including the 81.7 acres that make up APN: 006-220-006, and said contract was subsequently executed by the Board Chair, and recorded on February 15, 1972. On May 24, 2004 Michael and Marianne Rountree,the current owners of APN:006- 020-006 filed an application with the Community Development Department requesting to rescind that portion of Land Conservation Contract No. 6-72 affecting APN: 006-020-006 and to enter into a new Land Conservation Contract to reflect the agricultural or compatible uses, and agricultural related structures that the Rountrees intend to pursue on the property. RESOLVED, pursuant to Section 51254 of the California Government Code, the Board of Supervisors RESCINDS Land Conservation Contract No. 6-72 as it affects the acres under APN: 006-220-006, now owned by the Rountrees and AUTHORIZES the Board Chair to execute a new contract, Land Conservation Contract No. 04-0003, with Michael and Marianne Rountree. The Board further DIRECTS the Community Development Department to forward a copy of this resolution and the executed version of the new contract, Land Conservation Contract No. 04-0003, to the California Department of Conservation and the Office-of Count,Assessor. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the Brig. Dept.: Community Development Department minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the Contest: Patrick Roche(9251335-1242) date shown. cc: CA Dept.of Conservation ATTESTED: Office of County Assessor /y J.�+Cy�j�HN�SWEET y}� , Clerk ofthe Boarrd tl:WrkMrr tr MDVNHRNtANOCbNSWrdrrWutlonrawMGap6leutlfulm.rvTaA003 Dae of.Supervisors-and County Administrator RESOLUTION ty RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the HUMPHREY PROPERTY Contra Costa County sCH#2002012029 43 Y Y I YY ` LEAD AGENCY: Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 (925) 335-1242 June 2004 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the HUMPHREY PROPERTY Contra Costa County SCH##2002012029 y+ f t LEAD AGENCY: Centra Costa County 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor,North Wigg Martinez,CA 94553 (925) 335-1242 PREPARED BY: EDAW,Inc. 150 Chestnut Street San Francisca,CA 94111 June 2004 _...... ......... ..... ..... _. .. ... . . .._.... ... ..... ........ ......_.. ............_......... RESPONSEZO COMMENTS/fINAL EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Organization of This Document.................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Responses to Comments from Public Agencies........................................................... 1-2 2.0 List of Organizations and Persons Who Submitted Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report,and Public Meeting Held to Receive Comments...........................................2-1 3.0 Master Responses....................................................................................... ...........................3-1 3.1 Master Response 1: Project-Level Analysis and Subsequent Use of this EIR............ 3-1 3.2 Master Response 2: SRVUSD Component of Project................................................ 3-4 3.3 Master Response 3: Noise...........................................................................................3-5 3.4 Master Response 4: Open Space................................................................................. 3-7 3.5 Master Response 5: Agricultural Use................. ............................... ..................... 3-8 3.6 Master Response 6: Traffic.........................................................................................3-9 3.7 Master Response 7: Alternatives...............................................................................3-10 3.8 Master Response 8: Whipsnake................................................................................ 3-12 4.4 Comments and Responses......................................................................................................4-1 California State Clearinghouse California Department of Transportation Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) San Ramon Valley Unified School District(SRVUSD) Town of Danville Contra Costa County Public Works Department(traffic) Contra Costa County Public Works Department(engineering) California Department of Conservation Contra Costa County Public Works Department(hydrology) East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD) East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD) The Wyro Company Alamo Oaks Homeowners Association Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger LLP Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger LLP(Attachment A) Alamo Improvement Association Monte Sereno Neighborhood Alliance Round Hill Property Owners Association Erwin Durrer Margaret Green&P. Sundararaman Giles Day - I ...................................................................................................................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS RESPONSE To COMMONTSMINAL EIR Kathy S.Levitt Laurence B Levitt,Ph.D Gayle Jones Perry and Ann Teymourian Nanci Dias Steven Creel Rosemary Creel David H.Johnson,member of the Whitegate Homeowners Association Law offices of Thomas C.Nagel 5.0 Draft EIR Revisions................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Text Changes to the Draft EIR..................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring Program .............................................................................................6-1 7.6 Additional Appendices and Figures........................................................................................7-1 Abrams Associates Revised Traffic Data in Response to Comments Contra Costa County Assessor's Office letter stating the current cancellation valuation of the Humphrey property Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors letter regarding the process for this Project DK Associates regarding the Humphrey, Stone Valley Oaks,and Monte Sereno lot sizes EBRPD Letter regarding the 63 acres of open space on the Humphrey property Fehr&Peer Associates;Green Valley Road/Stone Valley Road Traffic Operations Study. Report prepared for the Town of Danville. May 2000. SRVUSD Letter addressing the Town of Danville's suggestion for the Monte Vista High School Parking Lot Town of Danville's Handwritten Comments on the Abrams Associates Traffic Report U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and McCutchen,Doyle,Brown&Enersen,LLP letters detailing the process for draining of the ornamental pond(non-wetland) Valley Crest Tree Company letter regarding transplanting of oak trees Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resources Protection,Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program Questions and Answers Save Mount Diablo,Letter from Seth Adams,Director of Land Programs Re: Humphrey Project Cancellation of Williamson Act Preserve on 23 acres&Williamson Act Exchange. Response Figures(8) 8.0 List of Acronyms Used in This Document.............................................................................8-1 9.0 Preparers of This Document...................................................................................................9-1 ..................... ......... ............ _ _._... ......... ......... ......._. ......... .._...._. ...._... . _......... .... . ..... ... ... ........... ...................._...__........... ......... ......... ........ ....... .......... .........._..... ._......._.......... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Commenters and Public Meeting on the Humphrey Draft EIR......................2-2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A: Stage-Storage Curve for Proposed Detention Basin...................................4-26 Response Figure 1: Current General Plan Land Use Designations Ch.7 Response Figure 2: Revised Project Acreages/Detention Basin Shift Ch.7 Response Figure 3: Grading Plan with Landslide Data Ch.7 Response Figure 4: Current County Zoning Classification Map Ch.7 Response Figure 5: Corrected Jurisdictional Boundaries Ch.7 Response Figure 6: Town of Danville Suggestions for SRVUSD Ch.7 Response Figure 7: Area Contributing to the Proposed Detention Basin Ch.7 Response Figure 8: Build-out of Alamo Ch.7 ni TABLE OF CONTENTS RESPONSE'To COMMENTS/FINAL EIR This page intentionally left blank IV RESPONSE;TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 1;: INTROIDUMON 1.0 INTRODUCTION In March 2003,Contra Costa County distributed to public agencies and the general public the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)for the Humphrey property. The Humphrey EIR analyzes developing the 96.5 acre Humphrey property into a 39'unit residential unit on 24.3 acres (233 acres for residential development, and 1 acre for the detention basin),a 9.6 acre parcel to be purchased'and developed by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District(SRVUSD),and over 63 acres'of property to be permanently devoted as open space. The site is currently in a Williamson Act contract,and therefore the regulations required for early(partial)cancellation were described. Contra Costa County provided the public with 73 days(45 +28 day extension)to review and submit comments on the Draft EIR. This satisfied the California'Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requirement for a 45-day public review period. In addition,one public meeting of the Contra Costa County Zoning'Administrator to receive comments on the Draft EIR was noticed and held in Martinez,'California on May 19,2003. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available to the public and responsible and trustee agencies. The Draft EIR was distributed to all organizations and persons who requested a copy. Comments were received from 28 organizations and individuals. All comments on the Draft EIR and responses thereto are presented in this document. Comments received after the closing date were considered in accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The entire EIR consists of two documents,the Draft Environmental Impact Report and this"Response to Comments/Final EIR"document. Together,these two documents constitute the Final EIR. 1.1 ORGANIZATION OF THIS 'DOCUMENT This"Response to Comments/Final EIR"document is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction gives background information on the program and Draft EIR and describes the organization of the document. Chapter 2: List of Organizations and Persons Who Submitted Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report,and Public Meetings Held to Receive Comments contains an index indicating the number assigned to each comment letter,the commenter/agency that prepared the letter,and the date the comment was made(if the letter was not dated,this reflects the date received). Chapter 3: Master Responses provides"master responses"to address issues that were raised in a number of different comments. Chapter 4:Comments and Responses provide responses to comments dealing with significant environmental issues(as required by State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15 132)as well as to other topics or concerns raised by commenters. Responses are labeled with an alpha-numeric designation consistent with the comment being addressed. I - t C14APTER I. INTRODUCTION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR Chapter 5: Draft EIR Revisions provides any necessary changes to the text of the Draft EIR. The changes are presented in the form of a reproduction of portions of the Draft EIR with text and graphic revisions made either in response to comments or to update the Draft EIR text. Textual deletions are indicated by strikeout(s )and additions are indicated by underlined text underline). Chapter 6:Mitigation Monitoring Program. When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in an EIR, it must also adopt a program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted. Some of the measures included in this monitoring program are the responsibility of the applicant and its contractors;however, until mitigation measures have been completed,Contra Costa County remains responsible for ensuring that the implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this program(CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a)). Chapter 7:List of Submitted Documents identifies all documents submitted to Contra Costa County during the Humphrey Draft EIR public review period. The submitted materials are incorporated by reference and are available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administration Building in Martinez, California. Chapter 8: List of Acronyms Used in This Document identifies the full name or phrase represented by abbreviations used in the document. Chapter 9:Preparers of This Document identifies the preparers of this"Comments,Responses and Revisions"document. The focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues raised in the comments. Some commenters raised issues that are outside the scope of an EIR, such as statements of support for or opposition of the Project,personal opinions/requests,or social and economic issues that are not within the purview of CEQA. Contra Costa County responded to environmental comments,and also responded to other issues and views when doing so was deemed helpful at clarifying important aspects of the Project. No specific response was prepared for comments which did not raise significant environmental issues or address important aspects of the proposed Project. In these cases,the comment was simply noted. Commenters did not identify any new significant environmental impacts that were not addressed in the Draft EIR. While comments on the EIR are restricted to environmental issues, all comments received will be taken into consideration by Contra Costa County when determining what action to take on the Project. Responses to environmental issues raised and other expressed issues and views are provided in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 provides master responses to general issues raised by different commenters. Chapter 4 contains copies of comment letters and public meeting transcripts and includes specific responses to specific comments contained in these documents. 1.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5,Contra Costa County is providing written responses at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR to each public agency which commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of the Response to Comments/Final EIR will be provided to individuals and organizations that requested copies. 1 - 2 ::: ;:.,. ..:. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL'OR CHAPTER 2s COMMENTERS & PUBLIC MEETINGS 2.0 LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND PUBLIC MEETING'S HELD TO RECEIVE COMMENTS Table 2-1 lists all organizations and persons who submitted written comments on the Humphrey Draft EIR and verbally at the public meeting held to receive comments. The table provides the letter or public meetingnumber,commenter,and date of the correspondence(if the letter was not dated,this reflects the date received). The comments are organized into four groups designated by the letters'A through D,as follows: A)Public Agencies;B)Private Organizations;C)'Individuals; D)Public Meeting(Transcript). Each letter and comment has a letter/number designation assigned for cross-referencing purposes. Within each lettered group of comments,the comment letters are numbered sequentially by commenter. The letter-number designations are used as the prefix for individual comments,which are also numbered'sequentially after the prefix. Therefore,comment A2-1 is the first comment of letter 2 in group A(Public Agencies); comment A2-2 is the second comment of the same letter. Not all names were entirely legible on the comment letters;consequently,some misspellings may have occurred and are unintentional. The comment letters and public meeting transcript,along with responses from Contra Costa County,are presented in Chapter 4. 2 - I CHAPTFR 2. COMMENTERS& PUBLIC MEETINGS RESPONSIE TO COMMENTS/FmAL E R TABLE 2-1. COMMENTERS AND PUBLIC'MEETING ON THE HUMPHREY DRAFT EIR Letter Commenter and Agency or Organization Date A. PUBLIC AGENCIES Al California State Clearinghouse May 23,2003 A2 California Department of Transportation May 6,2003 A3 LAFCO May 27 2003 A4 SRVUSD May 22 2003 A5 Town of Danville May 28,2003 A6 Contra Costa County Public Works Department(traffic) May 27,2003 A7 Contra Costa County Public Works Department(engineering) May 28,2003 A8 California Department of Conservation May 12 2003 A9 Contra Costa County Public Works Department(hydrology) May 21,2003 A 10 East Bay Municipal Utility District May 7,2003 All East Bay Regional Park District April 24,2003 B. PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS BI The'Wyro Company May 28,2003 132 Alamo Oaks Homeowners Association May 28,2003 133 Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger LLP May 28,2003 B4 Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger LLP(Attachment A) May 28,2003 B5 Alamo Improvement Association May 28,2003 136 Monte Sereno Neighborhood Alliance May 19,2003 137 Round Hill Property Owners Association May 27,2003 C. INDIVIDUALS CI Erwin Durrer May 28,2003 C2 Margaret Green&P. Sundararaman May 28,2003 C3 Giles Day May 28,2003 C4 Kathy S.Levitt May 27,2003 C5 Laurence B Levitt,Ph.D May 19,2003 C6 Gayle Jones May 27,2003 C7 Perry and Ann Teymourian May 25,2003 C8 Nanci Dias May 27,2003 C9 Steven Creel May 14,2003 CIO Rosemary Creel May 17,2003 CII David H.Johnson,member of the Whitegate Homeowners Association May 26,2003 C12 Law offices of Thomas C.Nagel May 28,2003 D. PUBLIC MEETING(TRANSCRIPT) D1 Martinez,CA(Contra Costa County) May 19,2002 2 - 2 _.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........... .. _......._ .._. ....... ........ ..._........... ........_..._......... ........ ........... ._....._................._.. .._...... ................... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL E3R CHAPTER 3. MASTER RESPONSES 30 MASTER RESPONSES This chapter provides comprehensive master responses to related issues raised by several commenters. These Master Responses are referenced in Chapter 4. The Master Responses are: L PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT USE OF THIS EIR 2. SRVUSD COMPONENT OF PROJECT 3. NOISE 4. OPEN SPACE 5. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 6. TRAFFIC 7. ALTERNATIVES 8. WHIPSNAKE 3.1 MASTER RESPONSE 1 PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT USE OF THIS EIR Three Project Components Are Addressed In This EIR The EIR deals with three Project components which are proposed to occur on the Project site: 1. the construction of 39 residential units on 23 acres,and a 1-acre site for a detention basin; 2. the potential purchase,and subsequent development of approximately 10 acres by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District(SRVUSD); and 3. over 63 acres to remain in their current open space uses, in a permanent conservation easement,potentially in the control of the East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD). All three components are addressed in one EIR to ensure a comprehensive environmental review: I. The residential component was included because it constitutes the specified alternative land use proposal on the 23-acre portion of the Humphrey property that is proposed for early cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. It is a future consequence of the proposed cancellation,and a foreseeable part of the proposed Project. 2. The SRVUSD's purchase and potential development of approximately 10 acres was included because of its relation to the residential component. It is in geographic proximity to the proposed residential development at the Humphrey property. The school district has indicated that the site may be developed for the parking lot and recreational field uses described in the Draft EIR. The SRVUSD component is included:in this EIR also because State Law requires that the County advise the SRVUSD regarding certain aspects of the SRVUSD's project. The County is evaluating the SRVUSD component in this EIR to provide a conservative,inclusive environmental review,and so that the County may suggest to the SRVUSD those measures SRVUSD can and should implement to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts from its project. However,the County has no jurisdiction to determine whether the SRVUSD component will go forward, or on what conditions. For example,there is no petition to cancel the Williamson Contract on the SRVUSD component pending before the County. The SRVUSD is a responsible agency that is expected to use this EIR in deciding whether to carry out the SRVUSD component. More detailed information about this component is provided in Master Response 2. 3 - 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES 3. The open space component was included because the applicants proposed preserving these 63 acres in permanent open space as part of the Project. The East Bay Regional Park District is a responsible agency that is expected to use this EIR in deciding whether to acquire the open space. Project-Level Analysis The EIR provides a project-level analysis of all three Project components. The EIR is intended to support completion of all project components as they are described in this EIR. If any project component were altered to trigger new unmitigated significant impacts, additional environmental review would be required. The EIR addresses the physical attributes of all three components,and evaluates the impacts considering all phases: planning,acquisition,development and operation. (CEQA Guideline 15126) It considers all decisions the County must make on the Project,and is not limited to the partial cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. (CEQA Guidelines 15124(d)(2), 15378(c).) The EIR describes and analyzes the detailed attributes of each Project component: I. Residential Component. The EIR analyzes all details of the residential component that are typically included in a project-level EIR for a residential subdivision, including the location and size of houses,the location of roads, and the location of stormwater management facilities. The residential component includes 39 houses and associated infrastructure clustered on 23 acres of the 96-acre Humphrey property,and a one-acre detention pond site(24 acres total). Early cancellation, if approved,would allow the Williamson Act Contract to expire for these 24 acres once the conditions of tentative cancellation were satisfied,which is projected to occur in 2004 or 2005. The contract on the entire Humphrey property will expire in 2009 as a result of the property owners having given notice of non-renewal,even if the County does not approve the Williamson Act contract early cancellation for the 24 acres, Subsequent approvals for the residential component include a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA)that would refine the land use diagram to better implement General Plan policies for the site. There is no GPA application currently on file,but the applicants have indicated the GPA they are proposing and will pursue if tentative approval of cancellation is granted. Response Figure I depicts current General Plan land use designations(see Chapter 7). The General Plan currently designates approximately 16 acres of the Humphrey property for residential use. The General Plan currently anticipates maximum density of 62 units on the 96-acre Humphrey property(16 acres x 2.9 units/acre+80 acres x 0.2 units/acre). The subsequent GPA the applicants are proposing would shift the residential designation and increase it to approximately 23 acres,to allow 39 units clustered on the 23 acres,as depicted in Figure 3.1-1 in the Draft EIR. That 23-acre area is considered by the applicants to be best suited for housing due to its more level topography and proximity to Stone Valley Road and adjacent development. Shifting the residential portion to this part of the Humphrey property would implement General Plan goals and policies encouraging a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social,environmental and economic needs of the County now and for the future,the preservation of hillsides and ridgelines,locating new housing projects on stable and secure lands,and providing clustered development to reduce conflict between circulation facilities and land uses. The Project would also facilitate General Plan goals for compatible housing in that it proposes a transition between the smaller lots and homes of the Monte Sereno development,to the large lot homes at the Stone Valley Oaks development(See Chapter 4 Response: 135-4). The site of the residential component would also be submitted to subsequent rezoning and other entitlements necessary to construct the residential component,as noted in the DEIR. The entire Project site is currently zoned A-4;Agricultural Preserve District, which is the zoning district established for lands under a Williamson Act contract. The applicants 3 . 2 . .. __. . ....._... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............. ._.__ __ ..............._..._............_...._... ............_._....... ..._........ ........._............_. ..___....... ......... ...........__..... Respo iSE TO COMMENTS/F[HAL EIR CHAPTER 3- MASTER RESPONSES propose that the subsequent GPAleave an Agricultural land use designations on the sites of the SRVUSD and Open Space components of the Project. The residential component also novo includes the one-acre detention basin site,for a total of 24 acres. The Draft EIR considered the site of the detention basin part of the SRVUSD component. In response to the Draft EIR,the SRVUSD indicated that it had no interest in acquiring title to the portion of the Humphrey property that is proposed as the site of the detention basin. The EIR is accordingly revised to reflect this change in future ownership of the site of the detention'basin. Removing the detention basin from the SRVUSD component and instead including it in the residential component of the Project leaves approximately 3.6 acres to be acquired by the SRVUSD and approximately 24 acres in the residential component,subject to Williamson Act cancellation. This proposed change of ownership does not affect the analysis in the Draft EIR of the impacts that the detention basin will have on the environment. The detention basin would be maintained by a Horne Owners Association. The applicants propose that the subsequent GPA re-designate the one- acre detention basin site from Agricultural to Open Space. The process for pursuing the residential component of the project is anticipated to be as follows, provided the required approvals are granted. This EIR addresses the environmental impacts of all these stages and approvals: 1. Tentative approval for cancellation of a contract(Government Code section 51282)issued by the Board for the portion of the Williamson Act Contract covering the 23 acre residential component and the approximately 1-acre detention basin site. 2. Processing of General Plan Amendment,Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Map,while the applicants are concurrently pursing the Williamson Act Exchange Program(see Master Response 5 regarding Agricultural'issues). 3. Approval of General Plan Amendment,Rezoning to a Planned Unit(P-1)District, Preliminary Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map. 4. Entry into a Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program project agreement pursuant to Government Code section 51256 with the County and the landowner to rescind the portion of the Williamson Act Contract and simultaneously place other land in the County under an agricultural easement(if exchange program is pursued). The Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program(WAEEP)process and its steps are outlined in Master Response 5 and Chapter 7.0,Additional Appendices and Figures. 5. Approval of a Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program project new agreement by the Director of the California Department of Conservation(by delegation from the Secretary of Resources)as provided for in Government Code section'51256.1,which would include approval of the exchange easements(if the exchange program is pursued). The California Department of Conservation, acting under section 5`1256.1,would be a responsible agency. 6. Negotiation and approval of a subdivision improvement agreement and satisfaction of applicable County conditions of approval. 7. County approval and recordation of the Final'Map,and Final Development Plan and continued satisfaction of applicable conditions of approval. 8. Processing and approval of grading and building permits and all permits or approvals required from resource agencies(such as a Stormwater Pollution'Prevention Plan under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and potentially a streabed alteration agreement from the Department of Fish and Game), and continued satisfaction of applicable conditions of approval. 2. SRVUSD Component. The SRVUSD component is described as a conceptual development plan because the SRVUSD has not provided final design plans for the site. However,the EIR 3 - 3 .....................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... ........I......... ... . ............................................... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES studies a specific configuration of the maximum development that the SRVUSD indicated it is considering on the Humphrey property. The SRVUSD component is described more fully in Master Response No.2. The process for the SRVUSD to pursue its component is projected to be as follows,though the process is within the discretion of the SRVUSD: 1. Notification to the California Department of Conservation of consideration of public acquisition of property pursuant to Government Code section 51292. This procedure and steps are described in Appendix B of the DEIR—Responses to Notice of Preparation. 2. Approval from the SRVUSD Board of Trustees to acquire the site and site approval by the California Department of Education. 3. Development of precise plans for the SRVUSD component site,and determination by the SRVUSD whether there have been any changes to the project that would require additional environmental review. 4. Acquisition and development of the SRVUSD component. 3. Open Space Component. The open space component is comprehensively described as a continuation of existing open space uses. (See Master Response 4.) The applicants do not propose any changes in the current Agriculture land use designation and zoning for the open space component. However,should the East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD)acquire the site,the County will likely consider initiating a General Plan Amendment to designate the site Open Space, as a technical amendment that would be made only to reflect the fact that the District would have acquired the property. The applicants also do not propose any early cancellation of the Williamson Act contract for the open space component of the Project. If the EBRPD acquires the property by eminent domain or in lieu of eminent domain pursuant to Government Code sections 51290 et seq., the Williamson Act contract would be deemed null and void by law. The applicants are agreeable to preserving the open space and agricultural uses of the open space component by any feasible means. The applicants are pursuing transfer of the open space component in fee to the EBRPD,or preserving open space uses by whatever means are acceptable to the EBRPD. If involvement of the EBRPD proves infeasible,the applicants propose to transfer the open space component in fee to a private conservation organization such as Save Mt. Diablo,or to preserve open space uses by whatever means are acceptable to the private conservation organization. If involvement of a private conservation organization proves infeasible,the applicants propose voluntarily to convey an open space easement to the County,with the Homeowners' Association holding fee title and responsible for maintenance,and a conservation easement to be entered into between the Association and the County to ensure that the 63 acres will be maintained as agricultural and/or open space land. To further ensure permanent preservation of open space uses of the open space component of the Project,and with the applicants' consent,a mitigation measure is added requiring the applicants to pursue these plans,either by conveying the property to the EBRPD or other organization dedicated to open space preservation,or by offering an open space easement to the County before final map approval. Because there is a plan to transfer the property to the EBRPD, and backup plans to ensure open space uses of the property even if EBRPD decided not to participate in the transaction,uses of the property will be compatible with the Williamson Act Contract through 2009 even if the Contract is not deemed null and void upon the EBRPD's acquisition. It is the position of the Department of Conservation that dedication of an interest in Williamson Act contracted land requires public acquisition notification pursuant to Government Code sections 51290 et seq.because public improvement includes interest in real estate. The process for the EBRPD to acquire the open space component is projected to be as follows, although the process is within the discretion of the EBRPD or whatever entity acquires the site. 3 - 4 _.._.. . ......... ......... ... .....__... .... . _. ..........._............. ......... .............-_........ .............. ................_..._.. ......... ......... ......... ......... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES 1. Notification to the Director of the California Department of Conservation of consideration of acquisition of agricultural preserve land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract pursuant to Government Code sections 51290 et seq. This procedure and steps are described in Appendix B of the DEIR—Responses to Notice of Preparation. 2. Approval of the EBRPD to acquire the site,along with the EBRPD's determination whether additional environmental review is required: 3. Acquisition and construction of the trail for the open space component. The project-level analysis in this EIR extends to cumulative impacts. The Humphrey property is one of the last large undeveloped lots(greater than 10 acres)designated for residential development in the community of Alamo. (Land.Inventory: Vacant and Underutilized Site Analysis,prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department for the Contra Costa County General Plan Housing Element Update,August 2001) After completion of this Project,remaining development in Alamo would essentially be infill development on individual lots of one acre or less. Due to there not being a potential for substantial new development,there would be no cumulativeimpacts to most resources. For the issues where Cumulative impacts could possibly occur(traffic and noise),a cumulative analysis was completed. As explained in Appendix D(Traffic),the Alamo area is essentially nearing buildout.' A study prepared for"Shaping Our Future"estimates 300 homes in the Alamo area and beyond would be built by 2420 in the area and all other land uses are expected to remain unchanged,and infill residential development is expected to occur during this period. These circumstances were conservatively translated to a cumulative traffic increase of approximately 15%over existing traffic,and the EIR evaluates this cumulative impact. As noted'in the Draft EIR,the Project would Have a less than significant air quality impact when measured against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)significance thresholds. The amount of vehicular emissions from trips generated by this Project would equate to a negligible,less than significant,cumulative air quality impact. Because the cumulative growth would be on lands already designated for residential and infill development,and as indicated in the Initial Study included in the Draft EIR,there would be no potentially significant cumulative impacts to other resources resulting'from the Project in combination with the 15%growth. For example,there would be no significant cumulative visual impacts from the development of houses already contemplated by the General Plan and by zoning in existing residential neighborhoods. The 15%growth that is expected would occur on vacant lands that are currently designated as Single Family Low or Single Family Very Low by the General Plan, including the adjacent Stone Valley Oaks project. Currently,there are no pending development applications in the Alamo area that are of equivalent size to the Humphrey property. The Humphrey property is one of the last large undeveloped lots(greater than 10 acres)designated for residential development in the community of Alamo. The Project goals and objectives set forth in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Draft EIR are also stated at a project level of review,and include those of the County as well as the applicants. The County's objectives include discouraging sprawl by providing for development on infill sites close to existing infrastructure at densities compatible with surrounding neighborhoods;maintaining the integrity of the property, its open space feel and existing habitat;clustering development close to existing roadways and away from existing open space;providing for a transition'between neighborhoods;providing for diversity between homes in the Alamo community while maintaining neighborhood characteristics and compatibility;and blending home sites into the existing landscape while using minimal grading. Use of EIR for Subsequent Activities The EIR is intended to be used for all phases and approvals associated with all three components of the Project. If a discretionary decision regarding any component of the Project is before the 3 - 5 ........................ ...................................................................................I.........................................................................................I......-............. RESPONSE TO COHMENTs/FiNAL EiR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES County or any responsible agency(including the SRVUSD,the EBRPD or the Department of Conservation)for decision,then the decision-making agency will consider whether there are (i)substantial changes in the Project,(ii)substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken,or(iii)new information of substantial importance that triggers the need for additional environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163, 3.2 MASTER RESPONSE 2: SRVUSD COMPONENT OF PROJECT SRVUSD Use of This EIR As noted in Master Response No. 1,the proposed development of 9.6 acres of the Humphrey property by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District(SRVUSD)is conceptual in nature, but based on information provided by SRVUSD staff about the intended use. The EIR's approach is conservative in that the Draft EIR assumes a large parking lot development that maybe greater than what the SRVUSD may subsequently decide to carry out. For example,given the development of the high school in Dougherty Valley,it is projected that attendance will drop at Monte Vista High School in the future,resulting in a reduced demand for Monte Vista High School parking. The description of the SRVUSD component of the Project therefore represents a worst- case version of the likely development scenario for that portion of the Humphrey property. Numerous other development proposals could be envisioned to address the SRVUSD's objectives of alleviating parking problems and providing recreational facilities,but there is no indication from SRVUSD that it is likely to pursue any other proposal than the conceptual plan addressed in the EIR. Positing other development plans would involve speculation. If SRVUSD were to change the Project,CEQA would require a determination of whether additional environmental review would be required. The SRVUSD would in that circumstance conduct its own CEQA impact assessment. For example, should the SRVUSD unexpectedly determine not to implement mitigation measures the County recommended,the SRVUSD would determine whether deletion or substitution of those mitigation measures triggered a need for a supplemental or subsequent EIR. A schedule for its development process has not yet been developed by SRVUSD staff. Unless SRVUSD proposes a project that differs substantially from what has been studied in this EIR,it is anticipated that the impacts would be similar in nature and significance to those identified in this EIR. General Plan Designations. The Project studied in this EIR anticipates a General Plan Amendment,to be requested by the applicants,which would leave an Agricultural Lands(AL)designation on the land area to be acquired by SRVUSD. This would be the result of shifting and consolidating the residential designation generally located on the site proposed for SRVUSD acquisition onto the portion of the Humphrey property proposed for residential development. The SRVUSD,as another governmental agency, should conform to the County's General Plan in its planning of school facilities,but it is not legally required to be consistent with the County's General Plan. Therefore,the School District would not be restricted by the AL designation in pursuing its development plan. Following SRVUSD's acquisition of the 9.6 acre site,the County will likely consider initiating a General Plan Amendment to designate the site as Public/Semi-Public(PS),as a technical amendment to conform to the circumstances of the site being under public ownership through the School District. Williamson Act Issues And The SRVUSD Component. 3 - b RESPONSE TO COMMENTs/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3. MASTER REsPONSES The Project does not contemplate County approval of early cancellation;.of the Williamson Act contract for the SRVUSD component. If the SRVUSD were to acquire the 9.6 acre site by eminent domain or in lieu of eminent domain pursuant to Government Code sections 51290 et seq.,the Williamson Act contract for the site of the SRVUSD component would be deemed null and void by law. The SRVUSD could alternatively take the land subject to the contract until the contract expires in 2009 by the non-renewal process currently underway. If SRVUSD were to pursue early cancellation in the interim,it would need to determine whether additional environmental review would be required for the cancellation. If the Williamson Act contract were deemed null and void upon acquisition by the School District by eminent domain or in lieu of eminent domain pursuant to Government Code sections 51290 et seq.,and the land was not used for the District's project,restrictions would apply. Should the District speculatively transfer the property to a private owner,before returning the land to private ownership,the District must give written notice to the State Director of Conservation and the local governing body responsible for the agricultural preserve and the land would have to be re-enrolled in a new contract or encumbered by an enforceable deed restriction with terms at least as restrictive as required under contract. (See Master Response 5.) Should a separate 9.6 acre parcel be created that was still under Williamson Act contract the parcel would be smaller than the sine referenced in Government Code section 51222,which states: "The Legislature further declares that it is in the public interest for local officials and landowners to retain agricultural lands which are subject to contracts entered into pursuant to this act in parcels large enough to sustain agricultural uses permitted under the contracts. For purposes of this section,agricultural land shall be presumed to be in parcels large enough to sustain their agricultural use if the land is(1)at least 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land,or(2)at least 40 acres in size in the case of land which is not prime agricultural land." The parcel would also be smaller than the size referenced in County Code section 810-2.406,which states: 810-2.406 Standards--Minimum parcel. "filo parcel of land of less than forty acres of non-prime agricultural land,or less than ten acres of prime agricultural land, shall be included in an agricultural preserve." If the Williamson Act Contract on the SRVUSD component were still in existence in 2009,the notice of non-renewal given by the owners of the Humphrey Ranch would cause the contract to expire in 2009. Scenario If SRVUSD Does Not Carry Out Its Project. If the SRVUSD does not carry out the SRVUSD component,the 9.6 acre parcel would not be developed into the parking lot and soccer field. The impacts of the SRVUSD component would not occur,similar to the no project alternative. Should the SRVUSD not acquire the 9.6 acre site,the Agricultural Lands(AL)designation would still be in effect,including the applicable uses and limitations within this land use designation. Should the School District speculatively acquire the land,then transfer the land to a private party, development would still be unlikely. As noted,upon the District's acquisition of the site,the County will likely pursue a Public/Semi-Public(PS)designation of the site. Construction of private residences or private commercial uses, and the subdivision of land,would not be considered 3 - 7 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3. MASTER RESPONSES compatible with the PS designation. In addition,it is the position of the Department of Conservation that the requirements of Government Code section 51290 et seq.would be in effect, rendering the land subject to Williamson Act restrictions. As long as the land was enforceably restricted by contract or other encumbrance,no development incompatible with agricultural uses could be allowed. School Impact Fees. State law dictates the amount of school fees or other school-related exactions that may be imposed upon a development project,and provides that these provisions are deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Accordingly,this EIR must deem payment of school fees to be full and complete mitigation. 3.3 MASTER RESPONSE 3: NOISE The EIR analyzes noise impacts associated with the 39 unit residential development,and the SRVUSD conceptual site plan. The open space component of the Project is not projected to cause any noise impacts different from those described in the Environmental Setting(the time of the NOP)presented in the Draft EIR because no changes are proposed for that area. The noise analysis is intended to aid in comprehensive site analysis for the current decision-making process as well as future design considerations associated with future development of the SRVUSD site. The analysis of noise impacts associated with the proposed parking lot addressed single-event,peak hour,and non-peak hour noise levels commonly associated with parking lot facilities. The data and methodologies used in the analysis are based on those developed and recommended for the analysis of parking,facilities obtained from the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment(April 1995)guidelines. Extent of Parking Lot Use The residential component of the Project in its long-term occupancy would not generate overall or single event noise that is substantially different from or greater than that which already is experienced in the adjacent residential area of Monte Sereno,or that will occur at Stone Valley Oaks when it is occupied. Similarly,the open space component would generate minimal noise. Comments on the Draft EIR instead focus on the noise that would begeneratedby SRVUSD's parking lot. The Draft EIR explained that the parking lot would allow cars that currently park on streets near the high school to park in the lot. Some commenters questioned whether the parking lot would trigger more trips,and therefore more noise,by making parking easier for students and others attending school events. SRVUSD staff does not believe this will be the case, as the SRVUSD intends to impose the same carpool restrictions on use of the new lot as the District currently imposes on its existing lots. A mitigation measure has been recommended to implement the carpool restrictions. Therefore,for the majority of events,the parking lot will not be full and the impacts it will trigger involve relocating existing noise sources,not causing new noise. Nonetheless,the EIR evaluated a worst-case scenario of 400 cars and determined that,with mitigation,the increase in average noise levels would be less than significant. 3 - 8 RESPONSE TO Comt4ENTs/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES Single-Event Noise Study Commenters suggested that a single-event noise study is required to evaluate the health risks as was the case in Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Buy Committee v. City of Oakland. That case involved adverse health impacts caused by sleep disturbance caused by jet aircraft on approach.and descent patterns during nighttime sleeping hours. Cars and people in a parking lot would not generate noise similar to jet aircraft and the need for an assessment of health effects is not warranted. The EIR included a reference to the FTA 1995 analysis,explaining that a single event may generate approximately 92 dBA at 50 feet,for brief periods'of time. It should be noted that the FTA 1995 analysis was completed for a semi-truck parking facility,with much higher use(1,000 vehicles entering in the peak hour). Noise events of this magnitude are not projected to occur on the 9.6 acre site;and the loudest noise events would only occur during daytime hours,when the parking lot and school playfields would generally be used. Noise events of this magnitude would not occur during sensitive nighttime hours. Only safety lighting is proposed at the SRVUSD project site and therefore would not be'sufficient to allow soccer field events to continue into nighttime hours.' As no playfield lighting is proposed at the soccer field and night games would not occur,no nighttime noise would be generated by ball games at the field. The EIR further mitigated noise impacts by proposing to limit parking lot use to the time between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. However, SRVUSD staff has indicated that the parking lot will likely be needed for occasional special events during the evening hours, such as open house,back-to-school night,and sporting events. For those events, SRVUSD indicates that the parking lot would allow cars that would otherwise park throughout the residential neighborhoods near Monte Vista High School to be concentrated at the proposed parking lot(Tina Perrault, SRVUSD via 9123703 email). The parking lot would not provide encouragement for more cars to arrive at or near Monte Vista High School for these special events. The community Noise Guidelines from the World Health Organization(WHO) 1999 state that where noise causes sleep disturbance,the recommended action is to limit(not eliminate)the number of noise events with a LAmax exceeding 45 dB. Here, SRVUSD staff reports,evening activities are expected to occur up to 67 times each school year(18%),and they would not continue past 10:00 pm. To ensure that the parking lot operations do not continue past this time period,and - to ensure that they would not result in sleep disturbances,a mitigation measure has been recommended that the parking lot be gated and closed by 10:00 pm each evening. This mitigation measure would help ensure that use of soccer field and parking lot would not occur at a time when sleep disturbance would be expected for normal night sleeping times. Noise measurements Ambient noise measurements were taken in accordance with standards developed by the American National Standards Institute(ANSI)on Acoustics and the Acoustical Society of America. The purpose of these measurements was to document existing ambient noise conditions. However,the projection of noise to be generated by parking lot activities was not based on this data. As noted in the Draft EIR,page 4.8-18,the analysis of parking lot noise associated with the proposed facility was based on a maximum SEL'of 92 dBA. This reference noise level is based on a parking lot noise associated with transit bus operations at transit facilities,obtained from the Federal Transit Administration(1995),which is anticipated to be substantially higher than that generated by light- duty vehicles of the type associated with the proposed student parking facility. Consequently,the analysis of parking lot noise is based on a reference SEL that is higher than measurements obtained during the ambient noise monitoring conducted;therefore a conservative analysis of operational noise levels associated with the conceptual facility has been presented in the Draft EIR and shows a less than significant impact. 3 - 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EER CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES 3.4 MASTER RESPONSE 4: OPEN SPACE Several commenters asked what assurance there is that the open space component of the Project will remain open space. The continued open space uses of the land are proposed as part of the Project. CEQA requires the EIR to evaluate the impacts that are likely to occur if the Project is approved and implemented,not whether the Project is likely to be approved or developed. The applicants are agreeable to preserving the ope=n space and agricultural uses of the open space component by any feasible means. The transfer of the open space component cannot be fully negotiated or completed prior to project approval. Based on reports from the applicants regarding their negotiations with the EBRPD,this EIR projects that EBRPD will take ownership of the 63 acres of open space on the Humphrey property to add to its Mt.Diablo open space preserve. EBRPD staff has stated that if it takes the 63 acres,it would do so only to ensure preservation of open space,and would put a permanent conservation easement on the land. The policies and process for EBRPD's land tenure program are located in the September 24,2003 letter, in Chapter 7. EBRPD follows a specific process which requires participation of the citizen-based Park Advisory Committee(PAC)that annually reviews undedicated land holdings to determine which may be suitable for dedication in perpetuity as parkland or trail. If EBRPD were to unexpectedly decide to do something different with the property,CEQA would require it to determine whether additional environmental review is required. However,there is no indication that EBRPD would develop the property or make any use of it other than permanent open space,and the suggestion that other development aught take place is based only on speculation. The applicants report that they have also approached Save Mount Diablo and the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation,both of which would take ownership of the property only for the purpose of protecting open space. Accordingly,transfer of the property to one of these entities would ensure its continued use as open space. The applicants are pursuing this possibility as a backup, should EBRPD participation prove infeasible. If involvement of any of these entities proves infeasible,the applicants propose voluntarily to convey an open space easement to the County,with the Homeowners' Association holding fee title and responsible for maintenance,and a conservation easement to be entered into between the Association and the County to ensure that the 63 acres will be maintained as agricultural and/or open space land. To ensure that only the Project studied in this EIR-specifically the open space component—can be approved and developed,a mitigation measure has been added requiring the applicants to provide proof before submittal of the final map that the open space component is under contract with the EBRPD or other organization dedicated to preserving open space uses;and,if there is no such proof,to offer to an open space easement to the County over the 63 acres,with the Homeowners' Association for the proposed residential area to assume responsibility for long term maintenance of the 63 acres of open space. (See Master Response 1.) This EIR provides a primary plan(transfer to EBRPD)and several fall-backs,each of which is a likely scenario. Accordingly, implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible. 3 - 10 RESPONSE To Comt4aNn/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3:>MASTER Rgspot45Es 3.5 MASTER RESPONSE 5 ' AGRICULTURAL'RESOURCES Agricultural value of the site. The Draft EIR evaluated the agricultural value of the site under the more traditional methodology of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program administered by the California Department'of Conservation. The DEIR explained that the site is characterized as Grazing Land, and contains no Prime Farmland and no Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Department of Conservation states that land cannot be considered Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance unless the property"has been used for irrigated agricultural'production at some time during the four years prior to the Important Farmland Map date" (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/ overview/prime_farmland_fm p.htm) The owners of the 96-acre Humphrey Ranch have confirmed that the ranch was not used for irrigated agricultural production within the past decade. CEQA permits,under Public Resources Code section 21095,an agency to perform a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment(LSSA)as an optional methodology of evaluating the agricultural value of land. A LESA analysis was conducted for the entire 96 acres of Humphrey property;and was included in the Draft EIR(in Appendix A—Initial Study;DEIR,pp.4.1-7 et seq.)! This analysis evaluated the physical aspects of loss of agricultural land,and concluded that the entire 96-acre Humphrey property generated a single numeric LESA score of 24.75,which is not considered significant. Furthermore,the only potential agricultural use of the Project site likely would be limited grazing due to the small size,steep slopes,and suburban development surrounding part of the Project site. There is no infrastructure on the Project site that would support more intensive agricultural use. It is not feasible to bring water onto the site without development to fund the associated infrastructure and service costs. As the Draft EIR noted,the residential component would conflict with the Williamson Act contract. However,the Williamson Act provides that contrasts may be cancelled for the purpose of developing property into the alternative use proposed in a cancellation petition(which will be non- agricultural)provided the requirements for cancellation are met. The EIR proposes a mitigation measure requiring that the cancellation requirements be met to ensure that the cancellation is one considered acceptable under the Williamson Act. The cancellation requirements are discussed below. Because the cancellation cannot lawfully go forward if the cancellation requirements are not met,there would be no environmental impacts from cancellation if cancellation findings could not lawfully be adopted. Also,the contract will lapse by 2009 regardless of whether the County approves the current request for early cancellation, The DEIR concludes that because the agricultural value of the land is low,and because early cancellation would allow development only four to five years sooner than it could occur without cancellation(because on non-renewal of the contract),the impacts of canceling the contract early are less than significant. The position of the Department of Conservation,which would be a responsible agency should.the Williamson Act Easement Exchange program be followed to completion,is that cancellation of the Williamson Act contract is considered a significant physical impact on the environment. This EIR evaluates the indirect physical impacts attributed to the partial cancellation by evaluating the impacts of the residential component,since removal of contract restrictions facilitate development of the residential component (23 acres for a 39 lot residential subdivision and 1 acre for a detention basin)sooner than could occur without the cancellation. The Humphrey Ranch Project includes mitigation measures requiring conservation easements or dedication in fee of the 63-acre open space component for open space purposes. (See Master 3 - [1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 35 MASTER RESPONSEs Response 4) The 63-acre open space component is part of the same CEiQA project as the portion that is proposed for Williamson Act contract cancellation. It is located within:some of the same parcels as the contract cancellation site, and has the same agricultural value as the land proposed for removal from Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, if the Department of Conservation's position that early cancellation is a significant impact were adopted,the impact of canceling the contract on 24 acres would be more than offset through conservation of 63 acres of similarly- situated land with similar agricultural value per acre. The result would still be a less than significant,impact. Williamson Act Requirements For Cancellation The Williamson Act allows cancellation on two grounds: cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Act,or cancellation is in the public interest. As explained in the following paragraphs,this EIR concludes that there is substantial evidence to support the findings that must be made for the Humphrey property cancellation to qualify under either ground. Whether the findings will be made is to be determined by the Beard of Supervisors. The findings required by Government Code section 51282 are as follows. According to section 51282(f),the Board"shall not be required to make any findings other than or in addition to those expressly set forth in this section f51282]." 1. Cancellation is Consistent With the Purposes of the Act. The requirement of Government Code section(b)(1)is that cancellation is for land on which a notice of non-renewal has been served. The Humphrey family served'a notice of non-renewal of land covering the entire 96 acres of the Humphrey property in August 1999. This notice was recorded with the County Recorders' office on September 30, 1999. A copy of the notice is included in Appendix N of the Draft EIR. The requirement of Government Code section 51282(b)(2)is that cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. Canceling this Williamson Act contract will not have any additional adverse effects on the adjacent lands' availability for agriculture use because the adjacent lands are developed or otherwise not available for agricultural'use. Adjacent lands are either already developed or protected as permanent open space. Included in Chapter 7.0, Additional Appendices and Figures,is an aerial photograph of the Alamo area,showing that itis almost'entirely built out. This photograph can be compared with the regional`diagrams in Figures 3.1-2 3.1-3,3.4-3,4.11-1 and 4.11-2 in the Draft EIR to identify the areas already permanently preserved as open space. This photograph,along with the EIR figures,confirms that the rest of the area is built out. To the east and southwest of the Humphrey property is the Monte Serena residential neighborhood. The Monte Sereno neighborhood is zoned'Single-family, low density, and contained lots ranging from 13,000 to 16,000'square`feet to the east and 9,000 to 12,000 square feet to the southeast. To the south of Humphrey property is the Monte Vista High School. Also to the south of Humphrey property is the Town of`Danville's Oakhill Park. To the west of Humphrey property is the Stone Valley Oaks approved residential development project,which includes forty- seven homes and related open space. To the north of the Humphrey property are private and public open space lands. Some of this land is owned by the East Bay Regional Park District and another portion is the Bryan Ranch Private Open Space,preserved as part of the Bryan Ranch Development. Further to the north,the Bryan Ranch Private Open Space lands adjoin Mt.Diablo State Park: The Project site is the last large undeveloped, but developable,piece of land within the County's Urban Limit Line in the Alamo area of Contra Costa County. The Project fulfills General Plan 3 12 RESPONSE TO CO"MENITS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES policies promoting logical,orderly growth patterns,in already-developed areas such as Alamo, where infrastructure and utilities are already available. (See General Plan policies listed at pages 4.11-5 through 4.11-9 of the Draft EIR.) There are no other developable sites in the Alamo area that meet these;goals. The requirement of Government Code section 5 1282(b)(3)is that final cancellation must be for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. The alternative use for which cancellation is proposed is the residential component of the Humphrey Project. The applicants have already sought permission from the County for study of General Plan Amendment that would accommodate the residential component of the Project. (See letter from Mark Armstrong to the Community Development Director dated February 5,2001, included in Appendix N to the Draft EIR) County staff is recommending that the Board condition its tentative approval of cancellation on a General Plan Amendment with which the residential component would be consistent,which means that final cancellation cannot occur unless and until the cancellation is consistent with the General Plan. The requirement of Government Code section 51282(b)(4)is that cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. The Humphrey Project fills in the last large piece of developable land in the Alamo area, and within the County's Urban Limit Line. See the discussion of section 51282(b)(2)above. The requirement of Government Code section 51282(b)(5)is that there is no proximate non- contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put,or,that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land. As noted,the Humphrey Project fills in the last large piece of developable land in the Alamo area of the County. Because development on this land would be infill, it would be consistent with the contiguous pattern of urban development in the area. It is infill because it is surrounded by residential and public facility development,and lands permanently preserved for open space.(See the discussion of section 51282(b)(2)above. See also Department of Conservation Comment Letter A8,page l) 2. Cancellation is in the Public Interest. The requirement of Government Code section 51282(c)(1)is that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. The SRVUSD has indicated that it is in need of additional property adjacent to the Monte Vista High School for parking needs and physical education or recreational needs. The parking is necessary to alleviate safety and circulation concerns arising from the insufficient parking now existing on the Monte Vista campus. In 2000,the Humphreys entered into a contract with the SRVtJSU to sell it this land for$2 trillion less than the appraised fair market value if the Board approves the tentative partial cancellation;and the development of 39 single family residences. The contract between the Humphreys and the School District expires on March 31,2005. Accordingly,cancellation would be consistent with the interests of the School District and the safety of students at Monte Vista High School Also as part of the project,the applicants are offering to permanently preserve the vast majority of the property, 63 acres, as public or private open space,potentially under the control of EBRPD. (It is the position of the Department of Conservation that this is offered as mitigation for the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on 24 acres of land.) Should the contract not be cancelled,so that development could not occur until the contract expires in 2009,substantial additional costs would be incurred and revenues delayed. These additional costs would likely 3 • 13 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES make it impractical to leave such a large portion of the property undeveloped. Accordingly,the cancellation promotes the public interest in providing public open space and trails. Furthermore,the applicants have been exploring options for placing other land under an agricultural easement under the exchange program, as noted below. The applicants have identified two potential sites,one of which would involve participation by Save Mt. Diablo. The funding required to pursue this possibility is not expectedby Save Mt. Diablo to be available beyond the immediate future. (See letter from Save Mt.Diablo, in Appendix) The exchange program requires that all requirements for early cancellation be met: Tentative approval of early cancellation would allow all these opportunities to be pursued. The opportunity for the School District to purchase the land at two million dollars less than the appraised fair market value,the applicants' offer to preserve 63 acres of permanent open space,and the applicants' pursuit of the exchange program easements would lapse before the notice of non- renewal would otherwise take effect in 2009. Government Code section 51282(c)(2)requires that there is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which the proposed contracted land be put,or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land. As explained in the discussion of section 51282(b)(2)above,there is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for a residential housing development of this size. Exchange Program The applicants are considering participating in the exchange program overseen by the California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection. The program is codified at Government Code sections>51256 et seq.,' If provides a voluntary rescission process for local entities and landowners to rescind a Williamson Act contract and simultaneously dedicate a permanent agricultural conservation easement on other land. A board or council must make specific findings in order to cancel a contract. The easement value on the easement parcel must be equal to or greater than the cancellation fee that would otherwise be required to cancel the contract. In addition,the land to be placed under an easement must be of equal size or larger than the land subject to rescission of the Williamson Act contract. Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP)conservation easement dedications must meet criteria established under the California Farmland Conservancy Program(CFCP),the Department of Conservation's agricultural land conservation easement program. Materials from the Department of Conservation regarding the exchange program are included in Chapter 7.0,Additional Appendices and Figures. These include"Williamson Act Easement Exchange,"an overview of the program;"Williamson Act Easement Exchange,"an excerpt of sections from the Government and Public Resources Codes;"Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program Process,"which describes the process the Department has used to review previous applications;"WAEEP Rescission Part I Application Information Needed on Cancellation Parcel(s),"which describes the information the Department has found to be useful for reviewing whether a local agency's findings that the requirements for early cancellation have been satisfied are supported by substantial evidence;and"Williamson Act Easement Exchange Application Binder for Part II,"which describes the information the Department has found to be useful 2'These code sections are set forth in Chapter 7,in a document obtained from the Department of Conservation entitled "Williamson Act Easement Exchange Code References." 3 - 14 ........_ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........ ......... _ .......... ........... . ......... ......... ............. ......._..... .._....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... RESPONSE,TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTE1t 3 MASTER RESPONSES reviewing the easement exchange. (See Williamson Act Easement Exchange Information, in Appendix) The applicants are not proposing that cancellation be based on implementation of the exchange program,but note that an exchange might be arranged after tentative cancellation. It is the goal of the applicants to find a local property to purchase and place under a permanent agricultural easement,in lieu of paying the cancellation fee,which would be paid to the State of California. The applicants have been working closely with Save Mt.Diablo to locate land appropriate for the program and beneficial to the community desires to preserve agricultural land and open space. The exchange property being considered for participation in the program has been tentatively identified. The property includes two parcels of land located in proximity to Mt. Diablo. One parcel is in the Northgate area,consisting of 34 acres and owned by Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is approximately 3.3 miles from the Humphrey property.The other parcel consists of in excess of 126 acres located on the north side of Mt.Diablo and is owned by Save Mt.Diable. This property is located approximately 6.8 miles from the Humphrey property. Both properties are currently being used for cattle grazing. Placement of a permanent conservation easement on these properties,both of which are undeveloped,will have no effect on their current agricultural use but will ensure their continued use for agricultural and open space purposes. These properties total in excess of 160 acres of land that could be conserved in perpetuity in exchange for the removal of 24 acres of land that is less viable for agricultural use. This would be in addition to the 63 acres the Project proposes to transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, or place in a conservation easement. If implemented,then,the open space component in conjunction with implementation of the exchange program could result in over 222 acres of permanent agricultural/open space,as compared to 24 acres of land are proposed for development into residential and detention basin uses. If an exchange cannot be arranged,the owners would pay the cancellation fee associated with removing 24 acres of the property from the Williamson Act contract four or five years earlier than the contract will otherwise expire. This fee is intended to purchase land in California,to be put into a permanent conservation easement(agricultural use). 'Pursuant to Government Code Section 51283,the Contra Costa County Assessor has provided the Board of Supervisors with the cancellation fee value of$9,256,000 as of September 22,2003. The cancellation fee would equate to 12.5%of the cancellation value,or$1,157,000. See a copy of the memorandum in Chapter 7.0, Additional Appendices and Figures. Williamson Act Restrietions On SRVIISD and Open Space Components. If either the SRVUSD or the EBRPD acquires its respective component by eminent domain or in lieu of eminent domain,'pursuant to Government Code sections 51290 et seq.,then the contract would be deemed null and void'by operation of law. If either agency did not meet the applicable requirements of sections 51290'et seq. 'then the acquired land would remain under Williamson Act Contract until the contract expires in 2009 pursuant to the Notice of Nonrenewal. If either agency acquired the land, but speculatively decided not to pursue its project,then the restrictions of Government Code section 51295 would apply. That section provides that under no circumstances shall land be removed from a contract that is not actually taken for a public improvement,except that when only a portion of the land or less than a fee interest is acquired,the contract may be canceled with respect to the remaining portion or interest pursuant to the Williamson Act cancellation provisions. 3 - 15 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...........--I'll.-,.....11.11....... ......................................... ............................. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/f INAL EIR CHAPTER 3. MASTER RESPONSES If either agency acquired the land,but speculatively transferred the land to a private party,the land may be required to be re-enrolled in a contract. Section 51295 provides: "If,after acquisition,the acquiring public agency determines that it will not for any reason actually locate on that land or any part thereof,the public improvement for which the land was acquired,before returning the land to private ownership,the public agency shall give written notice to the Director of Conservation and the local governing body responsible for the administration of the preserve,and the land shall be re-enrolled in a new contract or encumbered by an enforceable deed restriction with terms at least as restrictive as those provided by this chapter.The duration of the restriction shall be determined by subtracting the length of time the land was held by the acquiring public agency or person from the number of years that remained on the original contract at the time of acquisition." In any of these events,the physical impacts on the environment would be as described in this EIR. If either agency could lawfully,and did,pursue its project component,then the impacts of that component as described in this EIR would occur. If either agency decided not to pursue its project component,or it was precluded by Williamson Act restriction-,from pursuing its project,then the impacts of that component would not occur,similar to the no project alternatives. Should either agency unexpectedly pursue early cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract, it would have to determine whether further environmental review would be required. 3.6 MASTER RESPONSE 6: TRAFFIC Please refer to Master Response I and Master Response 2. As evaluated in the Draft EM,the Project would add a less than significant amount of traffic to the nearby intersections. See Chapter 7 in this document for updated traffic calculations based on new traffic counts. The EIR projected that each of the 39 residential units will generate 13.41 trips per day. This is a high estimate,as explained in Appendix D in the Draft EM For the parking lot;the EIR calculated that the 230 vehicles which currently park on the street would use the lot,therefore generating 460 daily trips. Full parking lot use(400 spaces)is not projected to occur during peak hours,rather it's expected for events such as weekend soccer games and evening Monte Vista High School events. The traffic analysis projects that only those cars currently parking on nearby streets would travel to the parking lot during peak morning hours,yet off-peak afternoon hours. As several commenters;suggested,it is foreseeable that the parking lot would be used by students who are currently dropped off at school by parents. If this were to occur,there would be 800 daily trips associated with the parking lot,of which 340 of them would be by students who are now dropped off. When a student gets dropped off and picked up from school by a parent or other driver,four trips per day are required(parent driving to and from school to drop off;parent driving to and from school to pick up). If the same student were to drive him/her and park in the lot,only two trips would occur per day(student driving to school;student driving from school). Therefore, having students who are currently dropped off instead drive themselves and park in the parking lot would reduce trips below the current baseline. However,the EIR did not base its analysis on this possible trip reduction because of the County's desire to provide a conservative analysis. Several commenters suggested that the parking lot might encourage students who now carpool to instead drive separate cars, increasing trips. The EIR concludes that this is not a supportable speculation because the SRVUSD proposes to place the same carpool restrictions on the new lot as it now places on the existing lot. However,to make this explicit, a mitigation measure is recommended that the carpool restrictions be placed on the new lot and therefore the 400 space 3 - 16 ................................ _.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .11.1.1. ... .. ..._............... RESPONSE TO COMMENTSJF#NAL EIR CHAPTER 3.`MASTER RESPONSES parking let would only have approximately 175-250 cars on an average day. The Draft EIR traffic analysis was conductedassuming that the lot would be full,and impacts were still found to be less than significant. The only times that the lot would be full are for special school events. The purpose of this parking lot is fundamentally to help increase the safety for those students who currently park on the side of Stone Valley Road,not to increase for decrease)vehicle trips. Students currently cross Stone Valley Road with no crosswalk,creating a safety concern. With the Project,a crosswalk would be provided,greatly improving the safety of those parking on the north side of the street. 3.7 MASTER RESPONSE 7: ALTERNATIVES The EIR analyzes the Project and several alternatives,providing for a reasonable range. The fact that other alternatives,or variations of the existing alternatives,have been proposed does not mean that,a reasonable range of alternatives have not been evaluated. Information regarding the impacts of other alternatives can be found in this EIR,by extrapolating information from the analysis of the Project and the alternatives. There could be as many potential alternatives to the Project as there are buildings proposed,for development. In other words,the addition or deletion of a house or spaces in the parking lot,or any combination,could'be called an "alternative"to the proposed Project. The general and site specific impacts of adding or deleting parts of the Project can be extrapolated from this EIR. Some environmental impacts discussed in this EIR are more general to the Project,because they are generated regardless of where specific houses or uses are located. Population., demand for public services and traffic impacts are examples of these general impacts. Other impacts are more site specific,because they result from the location of a particular building. Historical,biological and visual impacts are examples of such site-specific impacts. By reviewing the impact and alternatives analysis contained in this EIR,the reader can determine, for example,how a reduction in the number of houses units may result in an incremental reduction of the general impacts of the Project. For example,eliminating 1 of the 39 residential units would eliminate approximately 1139th of the traffic impacts resulting from the residential component of the Project. Thus,,because this EIR provides information concerning the impacts of the Project and each of the above-described alternatives,an analysis of a numerous other possible Project alternatives can be obtained. However,the elimination of units would only avoid an impact that can be mitigated to a level less than significant through other means. Because the Project proposes to implement General Plan policies regarding the type of development the County has already determined is appropriate for - this site,and to do so with a unit count less than maximum General Plan density,and,pursuant to CEQA Section 21159.26,this EIR does not propose to eliminate residential units as a mitigation measure when those impacts can feasibly be mitigated by tether means. CEQA Section 21159.26 states,"With respect to a project that includes a housing development,a public agency may not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation." 3 . 17 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER'S: MASTER RESPONSES A less dense 23-lot(1 acre lots)concept was considered for the 23-acre residential component during the scoping process for this EIR. This alternative was not pursued further due to some increased environmental impacts and because it would not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts. Because several commenters requested an analysis of such an alternative,a detailed explanation of the reasons for not pursuing this alternative further is set forth here. Under this 23- lot proposal,fewer but larger lots would be developed on the 23 acre residential portion of the Humphrey property. The proposed SRVUSD site and open space lands would be the same as for the proposed Project. A survey of neighborhoods in the Alamo area and a comparison of building permit data and current applications in the area indicate that larger,one-acre, lots typically entail custom-designed homes that are larger than those proposed for the Project. The planning and development experience of the EIR preparers,and knowledge of land uses in the Alamo area, indicate that such large homes often have additional accessory structures(such as second units)and extensive driveways and other paved or hardscaped areas. Accordingly,the amount of grading for each house would be substantially greater than for smaller,more uniform houses,and may require steeper cuts or greater fills to achieve large enough flat areas to support these types of homes. Circulation to all houses would still be required,resulting in roadways that are similar to what is proposed for the Project. The extent of the grading,and the need to alter the natural contours of the slopes would be generally similar to the Project. The result would be grading impacts,drainage impacts,and water quality impacts resulting from drainage similar to those proposed for the Project,but greater visual impacts resulting from large houses,accessory structures, and more hardscape. The visual transition from larger homes to the smaller homes in the adjacent Monte Sereno neighborhood would be abrupt and visually more incompatible. Land use impacts would be slightly greater,as such large homes would not provide'a transitional neighborhood from Monte Sereno to Stone Valley Oaks,and could be considered incompatible with Monte Sereno. The less- than-significant traffic impacts would be slightly reduced,with fewer houses generating trips,but more trips per larger house(we would make this assumption,even though the Stone Valley Oaks EIR did not). Larger houses would result in larger garages,which would equate to more vehicles and therefore more trips per day. The neighboring Stone Valley Oaks development cannot be used for a direct comparison because the Humphrey Project is more conservative in the traffic analysis. In the Humphrey EIR a 3 percent higher trip rate is assumed due to lack of local transit,and limited transportation demand management measures were compensated by 7 percent due to lack of transit usage in Alamo,which wasn't assumed in the Stone Valley Oaks EIR. The less-than-significant noise and other pet-house impacts would be reduced proportionately. In short,there would be fewer homes but greater or equivalent impacts per home in the key issue areas. This proposal was not pursued further because it would not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the Project. This 23-unit would result in larges homes more prominently set on the site,without any transition in density between adjoining neighborhoods;therefore affecting its open space feel. By substantially reducing density,this concept would not fulfill goals to encourage development within residentially-designated lands within the Urban Limit Line. The 23-unit concept accordingly would not achieve Project goals. Offlite alternatives were not pursued for the reasons set forth in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR,and because offsite alternatives could not fulfill most of the County's or the applicants' goals. There are no other sites located in Alamo that could potentially provide for what is proposed in this EIR. The largest potentially developable property in Alamo is a 9.6 acre steeply sloping agricultural site off of Livorna Road. (See Master Response 1.) Use of the Humphrey property as an equestrian facility was not pursued further because(a)the property owners obtained a judgment upheld by the California Court of Appeal adjudicating that they had no obligation to allow the Danville Junior Horsemen continued use of the site for equestrian activities;(b)the owners indicated they will not develop the site for equestrian uses;(c)neither the County nor any other public or private group 3 - 18 _.._..._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........ ......... ....... ....._........................ .........._..........._.. .............. ........... ........................... ......... ......... ......... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3:: MASTER RESPONSES - has expressed interest or availability of funds to purchase or condemn the site for equestrian uses; and(d)the SRVUSD indicated it will not provide equestrian facilities on the SRVUSD portion of the site. The property owners have also indicated no interest in pursuing sale of all or any portion of their property to an alliance of public agencies,and no public agency has indicated interest or funding to condemn any portion of the Humphrey property for equestrian,open space or recreational uses other than as described for the Project components addressed in this EIR.. Neither the EBRPD nor Save Mt. Diablo has indicated an interest in funding additional trails,trailheads,staging areas or other facilities on the Open Space component., For these reasons,equestrian facilities are not pursued further. In addition,the Department of Conservation requested consideration of other,proposals,as follows. 1) Non-renewal. If the Williamson Act contract were not cancelled, leaving the non-renewal process in place,the Project would not go forward,resulting in the impacts of the no project alternatives. It is possible that the Project could be resubmitted in 2009,when the non-renewal process will result in expiration of the contract. In that event,the Project would have the same impacts as are discussed in this EIR. However,those impacts occur against a later baseline. That later baseline would include development occurring between 2005 and 2009,which could result in more circumstances in which baseline impacts already exceed thresholds. In that circumstance,the impacts of the Project,in combination with that later baseline,would result in more severe environmental impacts. 2) Cancellation instead of Williamson Act Exchange Process. This EIR already evaluates both cancellation with payment of the cancellation fee, and the potential to engage in the Williamson Act Exchange Program. The only practical difference between these two scenarios would be payment of a cancellation fee to the State of California versus pursuing conservation easements. If the fee were paid,the exchange easements described in the EIR would not be pursued,and the fee would be paid to the State of California. It would be speculative to attempt to determine the particularities of how the State would spend the fee,or what the physical impacts of those expenditures would be. 3) The Proposed Easement Sites. The Department asked for an evaluation whether the proposed easement sites meet Public Resource Code section 10251 and 10252 and Government Code section 51256. The physical impacts on the environment that would result from the easement sites meeting the requirements of these code sections would be that the easements could be pursued,resulting in preservation of those properties for open space and agricultural uses. If the easements did not meet the requirements of these code sections,the easements could not be pursued,and the cancellation fee would instead be paid to the State of California. It would be speculative to attempt to determine the particularities of how the State would spend the fee,or what the physical impacts of these expenditures would be. 4. No SRVUSD Acquisition or Purchase of the SRVUSD Component. If this occurred,the SRVUSD component would not be pursued. The impacts would be those of the no project alternatives. (See also Master Response 2.) 3 - 19 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 3: MASTER RESPONSES 3.8 MASTER RESPONSE 8: WHIPSNAKE A study(May 7, 2003)by Leslie Zander,an expert certified for field studies by the California Department of Fish and Game,can be found in Chapter 7 of this Final EIR. The Zander study concluded that the Alameda Whipsnake is not present on the portions of the property to be developed. The impact of site development on the potential for the snake to travel onto the site at some time in the future is deemed speculative and less than significant. The California Department of Fish and Game did not express any concern about the Alameda Whipsnake in response to the Notice of Preparation or the Draft EIR. This evidence indicates that the impact on the Whipsnake is less than significant. As the impact is determined to be less than significant, and because the Zander study only confirms the Draft EIR's conclusions regarding impacts to biological resources, the information provided by the report does not warrant recirculation. To make sure that the factors addressed in the report from Swaim Biological Consulting,prepared for Zander Associates, (Appendix K)are included when a qualified biologist surveys the site pursuant to mitigation measures Bio-I and Bio-2,a mitigation measure is added requiring"standard take avoidance measures including a monitor during initial clearing of vegetation,an exclusion fence along the northern boundary of the grading,and an education program for contractors working on site." 3 - 20 ................. .............. ............... .. ......._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _....... .......... ....... ..........._.... ..._......_.._......_. ...._.... ...............__...... .......... ......... ................... RssPONSE To CommENTVRNAL EIR CHnrm 4:Cors ANo RESPOMSEs 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The introductory statements in many comment letters summarize the individual points made later in the letter. Responses provided to individual points are intended also to respond to summaries and references to those individual points. Also,many commenters address similar issues from varying viewpoints, and some commenters may have intended to raise issues from a viewpoint - that is not apparent from the language of the comment. All individual and master responses should be reviewed to ensure the reader is apprised of all relevant information. Many commenters assert legal precedents and opinions, and other legal issues. Many commenters also reference the merits of the Project and its various components. Consistent with CEQA,this EIR responds to the significant environmental issues raised in the comments. Some responses include information regarding legal points or the merits of the Project and its components. This information is provided for the readers' information only,and should not be construed as an indication that the issue affects any physical impacts on the environment. The comment letters are reproduced herein. Each comment raising a particular environmental concern has been assigned a number in the right margin. A response to each numbered comment follows each letter. The comment letters are separated into three groups in order to provide easier navigation through this document. The"A"group letters represent public agency comments, while the"W'group letters represent private organizations,and the"C"group letters came from individuals. A =PUBLIC AGENCIES 4-1 .....................................................................A................................................................................................................................................................................................ LEPER STA'fE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gray navhk Tat Fimey Govemor oterifa Director May 23.21W3 Patrick Roche Contra costa'Counq Community Developmont, 651,Fine Street,2nd Floor North Ving Martinez,CA 94553 Subject; Humphrey Property,Specified Alternative Land Use Proposal.Peritiowpartial cancellation of Land CorAract AP4-76 SCS. 2002012, 029 Taw Patrick Roche: The enclosed comment on your Draft IBIRI was(woe)received by the State Clea ringbousa afar the end of the state reviow period,which clowdon'May 7.2003, We-,are forwarding these comments to you because they provide Inkrmation or raise issues that should be addressed In your final environmental documem The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to too comments, However,we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Al-I Please contact the State Clealu&ouse at(916)445.0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question reg"ag the abov4-.named project,please,rear to the ton-digit StV*,CleArin*use number(2002012020)when contacting this office. Sincerely, Senior ftaw,State Clearinghouse Emclosurr's cc. Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.0,80X3044 SACRAMENTOXALIFORNtA 95912-30" (416)445-0613 FAM916021-3018 www,opr.ea.gov 11-<ftl-24 ............. ............. .................................................................... __._. ......... ......... ......._. ._....... ......... _........ ......... ......... .._ . ....... ............_.__..._... ......... ....... ........ ........ ...._......_. ......_..._. ......._. .......... RESPONSE TO COMMENTSMINAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS ANN RESPONSES LETTER Al OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AM l Contra Costa County extended the comment period on the Humphrey Draft EIR by 28 days. Significant environmental issues raised in all comments received by May 28 are addressed in these responses to comments. a-s __. __ ......................................................................A................................................................................................................................................................................................................. DDA '1 OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER P.0.1M 23660 0AMAND4 CA 94 23-0660 - $ 8&-4444 44r 1*)286. A A2 , (5101 2W4464 MD PUM gow" May f,2003 MAY 2 0 2003 CC-6W-RIO.37 CC 680459 er"ax E 9.,1-11,Ntc-,40118, 7, SCSI 2002012029 W Patrick Roche Contra COSta,COUUty Community DeM 654 Pine Strea$=Pkw Worth Wing Marthw.,CA 94553 Dear Mr.Roche: HurAphroy Property-'Draft Eavirvamente hapact Rqgat Thank you for incluft the California Deparonest of Transimtation.in the anvirnnnvatttal review process fbr the proposed projecL The foltowing comment is based on the review of the► Draft Envitonmettal hVad Rqx)tt which is dated Mirch:2003. What impact from project trip generation f" ouwWative + project will there be on the I-W A2-1 *eeway mainline ShoWd you have any qmstio�reprft the leftery please,call Lin Carboni of may staff at (5 10) W2.5491. SAMM Disbict Branch Chief IMC,EQA v.Sm#Morgan{Stela Y REsFoNsg To Ci3t m&4TWFINAL ER CKAPTER 4:Commms ANO REspoNsgs LETTER A2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A2-1 There would be a negligible,impact on the I-680 freeway mainline. During the AM Peak hour the cumulative plus Project(which includes the conceptual/worst case scenario traffic conditions for the conceptual plan for the SRVUSD parcel)would add 28 vehicles(24 Project+ I5%,or 3.6=28)to northbound I-680 traffic and 19 vehicles(16 Project+ I S%n,or 2.4= 19)to southbound I-680 traffic. These numbers would be slightly higher in the PM Peak hour,as 40 vehicles(34 Project+ 15%,or 5.1 =40)would be added to the northbound traffic,while 34 vehicles(29 Project+ 15%,or 4.35 =34)would be added to the southbound traffic. The peak hour traffic figures for northbound and southbound flow on I-680 are 13,400 and 13,200 respectively. The Project would add less than 1 percent to the current traffic conditions(34/13,400= .0025; 1%a= 134 vehicles), and assuming that the traffic on I-680 increases by the same cumulative percentage as assumed by the Project,the cumulative plus Project conditions would have less than'I percent impact(0.26%). If it is assumed conservatively that the cumulative traffic conditions on I-680 are to remain the same as current conditions,the Project would"still'have less than a 1 percent impact on traffic(0.3%). 4-5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGS FORD OM COMMSSION 651 Pkw stre ,ROM lir*'Mw ,ttn sc,CA 94553-TZ 9 dM 646400,-,FAX(9 646-2W C iE NE tB Ac exact!"W OPRC i slE f f r i�tvld tt went. mrd srtice 5apew nr Maaobar INW Membet` Pabdit A�en�Ber ANNAMAIM PE RMIA SIGs C, +prg rr it ;t#.Scbi tdt COY.Member' tad puWks mother s pea d i3 wk-t Af mber � Rsta'9cttt+ode� T `�tsli� pscl t IJtstrlct Alsmdtr CIq Member Adae�rhtr Gi1e lt. LER .�nax�+ta�r.M' lrer i DATE: March 2.7,-2003 cor TO: Patrick Roche_ Community Development Department FROM: .AnnamaT aPerrella SUBJECT. DPIR.—Hunphrey Property Thank you for forwarding the subject document for LAFCO's review and comments. The proposed project is for the partial cancellation;of a. Williamson Act Contract and a proposed 23-sere, 39-tit residential development along with a 10r6-acre school parking lot and soccer field located within the unincorporated community of Alarrno and the County's Urban Limit Line. In reviewing my Janus 14, 002 response to the Noticeof Preparation, note that it appeared that the northerly portion of the subject property may require annexation/S01 amendment to the East Bay Municipal Utility District BM(A. However, DEIR Chapter;3 (3.5) Local A.pproval$, only - lists the annexation of the site to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, While Chapter 4 does discuss the EBMUD annexation,should::it be included in"Local Approvals" as well? It appears that the document will satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CLQ!A),.far this Commission to act as-a responsible agency for a proposed reorganization/S01 aroendnent. If you have any questions or need clarification, please call me. Again, thank you for forwarding the doewnent to L FC0 for comment cc: LAFC Connnissi©ners .............. RESPONSE To CommENTS/FiNAt HR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER A3: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION A3-1 Please see comment A10-2(EBMUD). 4-7 _.... _...... _ _....... _....._ _. _...... _...... _. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ u�JF LO/4rJrJJ i+Gr i:J 7�333L1137a er7PCVE1JLl r!•1tr"1Ll 1!t� F'ptat E31 LETTER. SAN RAM€!N VALLEY UMZD SCITOOL DLS't`UCT 699 Old O=hard Drive,lDimville,CA 94526 ' Office(925)552-59 6 M(925)SS2-05 8 May 22, 2003 Contra Costa County Community Development Department' 851 Pine Street, 2!4 Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Patrick Roche RE: Humphrey Property=Contra Costa County File#AP 01-0001 Specifically the 10 acre portion designated for us*as parking facility and playflelds for Monte Vista High School. Dear Patrick, Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the Humphrey Property EIR. The current enrollment at Monte Vista High School is 2090 students. The campus Master Plan is for a 22W student enrollment. Therefore,we are at %o capacity. The 5%increase in capacity,does not necessarily mean there will be a 5%o increase in drivers to the school. This would be a 5°la increase across four grade levels. We expect to reach the Master Plan capacity by the 200412005 school year due to an A4-I enrollment 4bubble"moving through the high school level and the interim housing of students from the Dougherty Valley. The Dougherty Valley High School is planned to open in fall of 2007. Once the new high school is opened the enrollment at Monte Vista shoulddrop to levels slightly, below the Master Plan capacity level. Although the EIR Includes a site plan for the 10 acres, there is no final plan approved on this site. The sits plan also,shows the inclusion of a detention basin. The District IA4- will not take possession of the detention basin because o#issues regarding liability an maintenance. The District does plan to use the subject property for parking and piayf ields. We will also study the reconfiguration of the on-site parking lot to better accommodate tate traffic flow between the existing parking lot and the new parking lot on the Humphrey property. There is also a plan to signalize the Intersection between the two lots to allow A4-3 the students to cress at a signalized crosswalk. Can February 14, 2003, Fehr&Poem completed a subsequent traffic study to the one dated October 28, 2002 and Included 11 .... ......._. .._...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. ....... ......... ....... ........................._. . ......... ......... ............................ _..._.._. ._........ ......... ......... ......... ......... cr r ccsr rc. � c ra s bWVU3t r-+qc ILI!':tom PAGE 83 in to EIFL the Februwy reported the eff ref w"gnal operation on Stone V ley Peal at Monte 1Ys#a �ligh� . 'rho analysis v atm tie�` n Of vllle beftuseft TOM of Mar tie Currently has a plan to inttail a signal in at the Monte no 1 Monts Vista Koh'School*Hono~d&&way locaflon. #copy of the au a 'traft y is~ed for yaw rovieW The conclusion of the study wed that it there were two ignatt, om lit Monts Umno Drive 1 Monte Vista Nigh School*Nor hoes drkwmy and one beton the two parking lets, it could cause negafte con mass for tragi fkw. There are currently about 175 cart,that park elor�g erne Valley Road and the surrounding suseft, The addition of a parking lot would eJIow for sufficlerd Qn-site A4-4 parking tharebryt lessening the ImpaO of student parking on the surrounding Again.vve appreciate the opportunity to o xn ent on the vuboot EER. Should you have any questions regarding this infbmwtrar►p , do not he tte#o ccakiot u$. 31n�ereiy Tina Perault Faclttttes Planner, 14VUSl3 _ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ��.cor cavo kc::t� �t�oot�t5 �f 5RVL15D FACILITIES RAGE $4'' TIANSPORMTlaN C9NJULTA#TS FEB I>: Febma ry 14,2003 Ms.Tina Pemui.t San Ramon Valley Unified School District 699 Old Orchard give Danville, CA 94526 subf eco: Nwrtua60n af Tr+v 4irta1 operatlan on stone valley Road at movie NrsisAlek School fear Ms. Perault: This letter is an addendum to Fehr & Peers Associates (EPA's) October 28 2002 letter report entitled Access and Circulation Evaluadon for Monte nista High Sc t This letter presents the analysis performd by FPA to assess whether traffic operations along Stone Valley R.c+aci would improve with a second traffic signal placed at Stotw Valley Road l Monte Semo, in addition to the Previously analyzed sxgx 4 at Stone Valley Road!Monte,Vista Parking Lot Driveways. 1. Background and Results ofPrevious Previous Analysis This analysis was requested by the Town of Danville because the Town currently has a platin to install a signal in at the Monte Sereno 1 Monte Vista High School "Horseshoe" Driveway location. That plan is teased on a recommendation in FPA`s Green Valley Road/Stone Valley Road Tr%r;rc Operations SW* 2000. However.the recommendation was based on Monte Vista High School operations at that time,which did not include a currently plaataed parkag lot on the north side of Stone Valley Road, opposite the southern lot, nor the currently proposed shift of much of the drop-off I pick-up activity to the southern lot. Given these proposed changes, and kcal neighborhood opposition to the recommended Monte Sereno signal,.the San Ramon Valley Unified School District asked FPA to determine whether moving the signal to the parking lot driveways would provide acceptable traffic operadons. EPA's analysis showed that the signal would manage traffic acceptably during much of the two peak trek periods associated with Monte'nista bell times. During the hl&strvolume peak 15 minutes,queues would still develop and temporarily black the adjacent Monte Sereno intersection, but the proposed signal would provide lower delays and more orderly traffic flow, overall, than the current unsignalized condition. 3665 Mt.OUR*Blvd.,Suite SDI Lafayette,CA 94349 (92S)Y84-3200 Fax(928)W4691 www.fetuendpeets.Koat :._... :::.. N :::.. ..,.: ut:.: .t t t .... ..... �.,. tvuv sa.,�r aLaasritr��v i�'iUa3J t1Lll lea PAGE 05' Ms.Tina ken ult H R PEERS itabruary 14,IM TIM4044TAT26* tQ1su.tAWT1 ftge 2 r 2. Analysis Resula Fres Operations Wilk fiwa ftnair The installation of a second traffic signal at the intersection of Stolle Vey Road and Monte Scren o would benefit drivers ting to and from Moift Sere*w to the north and the Horseshoe ddveway to the s*04 by pcoviding Mtected signal owes fox theme tures. It would also allow a protected pedestrian tarossing'to be provided at this location. However,the sigma has negative, consequences for traffic flow along Stone Valley Road and em for dela on the north-south approaches> at tbt two intersections. Them negative cozsetponceas are due to two primary factors. the close inummd an spacing (abartt 500 feet); and the luted vehicle storage, capacity of the Horsedriveway. Tbest factors contribute to the following problems with -slgnat operation: • An eastb nd queue at the Monte Stmo I Horseshoe exsection that is estimated to extend over 40 feet back during the am. and p.m. I S-minute peak periods, backing up into the parldniz lot driveways inv aection and potentially blocking movements at that intersection-, • • A westbound left-turn queue at the Monte Stow f Horseshoe: in section that is estimated to emend back about 450 feet,and a westbound through-movement queue exteuding back 400 feet during the a.m. peak IS rnimttes. The we ftund left-turn gemue may grow well above 400 feet if the hor shoe driveway camot a c commodatc the "platoonP of left xring vebicles arriving on each green arrow phae. The cansttwned flow typical of drop-off and pick-up areas.,along with the limiftd slum capacity on the horseshoe, will malm siVW opemdon at this location less efficient than it would otlmwise be. Table 1 compares the'average der delay for each intersection under the ono-signal and two- signal plam for the a.m. peak ISgn n At period. Table 2 provides the sam comparison for the p.m. peals 15-minutse period. The tables show t1w the two-signal ;plaza has a strap waauvt impact on the average delay at the pa*mg lot driveways intersection, and at much higher aegative impact on average delay at The Monte Sereno l Riorseshae,msersedim At 'itha r uttesrseeticn, average giver delay increases by about 25 sit& in the a.m. plod, and 15 seconds tu ft p.m. period. Notably. even the side-s delays not*b and and southbound) increase in most cases at this Intersection. This is beemm the;signal tiraing is set to optimin _ flow slang Stone Valley Road, wh ch in turn benefits ft avtnW driver delay at the combined two-intersection system ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11.................- bkVL?6i) FACILITIES PAGE OS fp MS.Tina Peraeft FE 1-1 R & P E E PLS February 14,2003 TRAWSPOKrAtION COW5UtTANTS Pop 3 Table I AM Peak 15-minute Delay Convartson Delay(seconds) loursecd= Ustbowd WeRbowd Northbound Southbound Intersection Aime Stone Vaal Road E Par ki. One$&of 14-6- 20.7 Two s1 20.1 IIA 36 19.9 24.9 Net Chow 5.5 4.8 LO Stone Valley Rood/Mooft Se Horace -22!SIPS! 2.2 3.0 -1 40.8 1 31-41 il- Two Si is As -I- ......; I pa 1.4 '".0 32.0 36.3 Nei C 37.3 3.2 0.6 Table 2 PM Peak 15-minute Dew comparbon Delay(swonds) Intersection Intunction Eudmnd WA J Southbound Stone vidley Road Di"Ways I Onesiwl 1 19,2 1 22-1 29.1 303 24.9 Two sigjLs M$- 1 10.6- 36.6 31-5 25,7 Net Chaw (3.7) (2.8) 7.5 1.0 0.8 Stone Valle y Ro&d Morm Sereno f Horseshoe One simal 1 1.8 F 1.5 2f.6 19.2 6.9 Two SiMls 21.6 19.8 24.6 26.4 21.9 Net Chaw 1 2#.0 1 -2 CA) 1 9- 3. Candwions The '=1YSiS demOnstWes that adding a signal at the Monte Sets nD t Herr 606 irAeZSeCfiOU would not improve traffic flow along Stare Valley Road, nor reduce delays significWtly at tht side street approaches. However, it Would provide potected turns to i foam, Monte Satno and the Horse shm as well as an additional protected crossing location for pedestrians. with the signal planned for the parking 14 driveways W ft west of Monte Sereno, and the expected reduced dmand for cin-stmt ' on Stone Valley Road along the length of the High Seboot .............. wr �udl IGvua .tca.t:a ''�d3 adKJ�7C bKVUbM tAALULI t t:Lb' PAGE 07 No.Tina fah �f l�R ' �E E RS Ftbmry 14,2003 P*P 4 TRANSPDATATICA CONSULTANTS fmntagc (both sides Of the swat),the Moate Serena inft action is not expected to be a}sigh demand pedestriancrr►ssittg location. In-addition, we have not been made''aware of an accident problem at the Monte Screw / Hmseshae intersection that would be resolved through signali�ticn. Please mH Ellen Paling at(925)284-3200 if you have any questions about this report. Sincerely, PEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES,INC. or - Ellen M.Puling,P.E. associate Joel Rabinovitz,EIT Transportation Eaiginw 1021-18571 1857 ltr2.14-03 RESPONSE TO COMMEws/FwAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMmeas AND RESPONSES LETTER A4 SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A4-1 Thank you for clarification on the S%increase in student population effects on vehicular traffic expectations. The analysis in the Draft EIR is purposefully conservative to ensure that a worst-case scenario is analyzed. A4.2 The parcel lines will be changed to exclude the detention basin from the future SRVUSD property(see Response Figure 2). The acreage for the proposed SRVUSD' property is accordingly approximately 9.6 acres,and the residential;component, which is the portion subject to partial cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, is approximately 24 acres. This proposed change in ownership of the one-acre detention basin site does not affect the environmental analysis. See Master Response 1. A4-3 The negative consequences of placing two signals on Stone Valley Road(one at the horseshoe driveway and one between the existing and proposed parking lots)are; noted. Abrams&Associates and Hexagon Transportation Consultants conclude that there is no need for a signal at the horseshoe entrance(noted in the 2003 Fehr and Peers traffic report)and that a signal at the existing entrance to the school parking lot (and new lot on the north side of Stone Valley Road)will be beneficial. The overall negligible traffic impacts of the addition of 39 residential units would not significantly adversely impact these intersections,even if they were both signalized. A44 The EIR is in agreement with this comment. Currently,students utilize the neighborhoods that surround Monte Vista High School for parking,and the addition of the proposed SRVUSD parking lot on the Humphrey property would eliminate this impact. 4.9 .... . ,... •vwx•. ut x,+ra Tv a L.LI1. `.i�.`+'i. �.�� ��5�.:... �. ?', ..... ...... LETTER A-5 Letter sent via f ira e.(925)3351222 _ Original and attachments sent viaUSPS May 28,2 Patrick Roche County Administration Building 651 Pine Stmt 4th Floor,North Wing lvlart nex, CA 94553-0095 'x RE: I7EIR..hlumphrey Property (County File: AP#01-001) Dear Mr. Roche: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impart Report EIRj on the Humphrey Property (# N: 193-1%-04; 193-200-005 -41? -019) The Proposed profit involves the development of a 23-acre portion of the property for a 39-lot residential subdivision, and a 10.&acre portion of the Property into a parking lot and sports playfield along Stone Valley Road to serve' Monte Nista High,School, LAIC USE&PLANNING Gerwrai Comment»Ddhd#Iori of the Vroje+ct" The € ETR states that, for CEQA purposes, the "Project" is considered to be the dis tionaty activity surrounding the property owner's petition to have Contra Costa County approve a partial cancellation of LanA Conservation Contract No. 4.76 ( 'llliatnson Act contract) for a 23-acre portion of the Humphrey Property (APNs 193490-004`-tom ani 193- € M;-017 and-019). The DEIR's assertion that the specified altematme land use proposul also has "Project" status for CEQA purposes rain sip ficant, basic questions about what level of development entitlement the Humphreys (as owners), Davidon Homes (as developers) a , the County (as CEQA lead agency) respectively perceive is beingaddressed by the DEIR and what type of development entitlement can be 510 La Gom%Wiry•1}euvgle,Cikbfbrn 9026.19 O x-3143 a ! !. d. i •.i 4 r" � a� a f6 f • R i a i .;a: R M l..:,{. s s.d d ' r d. s 'd d k r a. ar :.! • - ! aD 5 4 ! • ! B .y ! d srt . r td .. y s s d.. .:. .f -.' as•_.. .. , 4 K d ,' rid d s. . i} • ... d '. f. f f'. R K ;,' a R :' t. 4 p.Q aF d a ".tR ! t. V. 4 R .fes ! _♦ - *.4. B i iR. ! F. s ati"" ! a'�. 8 f • R R11 lips' a ! .i a ° • a':.s. xR. R, as 7 i. •d dd ',* 4 ;,a aI !. a '. K ! R" k K �d d a a w roll"W4 zgt�toll C4 t s. f ..F,.t 6 ,. t... .g }, i i•t8 a f:'t f r .i f t f t ;•.. f+' 6tA . f .a .# A � f e # q -7-, $U Mel ties >Q - i f i•.. .1.: t i. Oil um #t - lk 40" 74 IL rJ i e W is d r Sk YVP /rs Y W i e i a •. a :y x a.. t ;. ;.,.• ; a � Al � i i': � .: i s a x r� a W t,� .• s W ;,r. tt ® w� - -� x t • t d8 � se Wt ;a >G a' r s x e.,;• e ;.is - ". W :, a ;.r a...,a .+G - ' ,..e - . ■ :. a r • W w a Y s t .:•b # s e r it rtz q-t "MWvc > R t Ilk% i • i i t a �' :-e W x- ♦ $ t a s r W ` p fit' s �# iy•" � . , , $ e r, a±.d. ;4 UA fv..` t a 'A $ A f' b _ Ae t A. i# �J 414-1--- r" ;im6 "; A a �0 :sa ,.. •:" as ;. a:.a f - 0 bt ol 4.. ,"f..F ;d t r - d r7 ),: p .. ! '•r C: t'. tls ! 8 ! 4'1:8-:r•✓# l8,9 ..F.. � d"J•' %a % 4" i � n is f p 0 ;,, R a8:..:.i. '8'. .;•.�: :4 i 0 X 8560 R ♦ ::n d. a : ... 4': -..i :.A i a ;. O A a..A ::�. Rk t •' 1 � c;.'.A 4 � a4 is $ $ 'k` �. 5. Secon4 Sentence -Second Paragraph - 'age 3-10 "Project Characteristics n The DEIR needs to cla?* the land use designation'siratus of the portion of the site to be Purchased by the SRVUSD. The DEER states that the 10.6-acre portion of the Humphrey property that is proposed to be purchased by SRVUSD " .,would have the General flan:designation of Public *- Sewni bhc use..." When would the 'land use designation change occur? There is no General Plan Amendment application currently pending before the County that wesuld make the change from the current Single Family Residential - Low 'Density land use designation that currendy applies to these 104 acres. According to the DE I?4 there is no formal plan for use of the 10.6 acres currently �-7 formulated. There is representation in the DEIR that the 10.6 acres could be purchased by the SRVUSD, and put into,sports field and 'parking lot facility use, without need for a Board of Supervisor action on the contract cancellation for the 10.6 acres (see First Sentence-Final Paragraph,Page 4.1- 3). The DEIR is silent on whether SRVUSD could construct the sports field parking lot facility absent any subsequent planning entitlement processed by the County. Would SRVUSD invoke the privileges associated with the development of "classroom;related facilities" to act unilaterally with the development of the facilities? Will SRVUSD subsequently point to this EIR as the requisite environmental analysis to address impacts associated with the development of the 10.6 acres as a sports field / parking lot facility? 6. Third Sentence=Third Paragraph Page 310 "Expected General Flan and Zoning Modification." Why isn't,the DEER advising;that the Project proponents need to secure approval of at mineral PlanAmendment to go, n 12..1+// acres of Single Family Residential-- Low Density lands fat W souttheast'mmerr and along the southwest edge of the propnV) and 83.8+1 acres of Agricultural Lands X23.4+/ acres,of Single Family Residential -- Loin Density lanais fat the southwest corner of Me property) 10.6+1 ams of PubWSemi-Pubtk lards, and 61,8+1 acres of Open _.. Space Lands? The DEIR states the"...proposal would retain the designation of Single Family Residential Low Density (Sig), but relocate ;the SL designation, to the southwestern corner of the Humphrey Property, comprisingresidential subdivision is proposed." The reader is left with theassumption that the DEIR and County are talking the position that the spedfied alternautioe land use proposal is theA5_8 acceptable mechanism to double the acreage of SL:lands; to relocate where the SL lands are situated on the property; to apply the P ublic l Serni-Public designation on the 103.6 acres going to the SRVUSD and to change the land use designation on the lands to be left under Agricultural.<Preserve Contract. The DER is also silent;on whether the County would be creating a conflict with California Government;Code in tam 8 series of discretionary actions resulting in a stand.-shone Agriculttural iPreserve Contract property; that is Humphrey Property DEIR Comments Page 6 of 19 ;,e; dr' ! F ,+ r i � >t s s.: � x k t eo o ;.i ► #1 ° e Ma 771; _ # • # • ■: - � sin # d � . 4 .r Aid ! 6 ,r d' A:..r.A.x• A i' .d xA a. f d f t Y.' T' P f fA b. x t T $ v + � A } A f A 'i r }.•. ..:..r l f / i.- ! s-ii'.d A 'I r ,:tq f }rtda '. ! A; y - A 1;.8 !Y � ,TP .s ^! a• f s� � :k��' s s :x ,a a •r� t ;- - g s- a' a J i Qjlr 4F 1 #t V00, rlull a a;a f4l 8 Ay a i Y .• Ta.. J 8! !!9 A ! F < a.. y . _ y #. ! `, • aF # Jk- S�9 i,d3 .%• ! !.-. 6 a..� J 6. tf: # d a z. � ! F 8 x,8 $ { e• 'w E. :.t: 8 % � r ;, A$ .. -is i � b a:..F� >e { 8 a % >x 9,r,� a `iS s♦. s..sr, . -t '. : 4 R, • 4 ` 4 4 :� z�+.A n.k.. S 1plle.,8 E 4 Ys$ Si i a i % :a%i. .{. % e • ;. s' i. �"i;.a. { b 9 a" .@ E is { 1 J. ,; � a• K .ri a Y 67: F: F 'k. f0 r o ®.: - ♦.: tg 4 a 6 w'4: i { {:. a R b R :k k..{ $'.�y r: 8 i 4 :d d d... 8,,d d ✓ !I'd.'" i ° S A d. 3i.�,. a.i A ,i a i a i { $ dd:.... .' i i' •'d i. a. * i � i 4",. iP': t,a# q .; gA A i f ! k d { 4 i.R 8 • it { »; % • �' 4TZa s • e Fr' d i t i ! ,t�.':} ° a 4 F d d a i F d d 5'' Y B t" f�t'9'• :� a R } � ..R. r R - x' it 9+ a,• R ° -} '� t ! i ! A d 9 s iP'� * W 4 4 ► 'M 1 » r.¢ i �«i ffi`M`1 f ! 6 dt :.+.' f f' ! 8 ► F1 °. t p...s is ° �" ffi 11 .4 �! l» $ 'M. 9 4i.9 `B I t f6fF fX'. i P • S A :4 ,:45.8 .•p } ;: r p x'X %. a X q , r as s R �. , r A:+r B ,qx •• d. �+8 �:,., s .s; ; R + •.,B. # a ;.B t e a # :. �,i a :,•: � % '` e 6 ;,r'.,: ;•s % s e 8 s - i i % s % i. ♦ '_lnM & i algal ro ark sick s H d. la f fUllf4tqq 8. i F X..' .�. i.. R `.� i. X 9 to � �+ ! a s r ■a ! i k d�i} 9 ;:.� a % R R. W A.;.j �{ <.�,. t f R t' R a a ♦ .:o`4:=z. WWI !' $ rf • VF * :'i. a ;. a y t a • at • # A 6F ": Y% •. :¢ A a i A a tr" a.. ::A:':�d # t t. 147N MW # • � Rr � A aa #: , . a • A • ,� a ;s amu : % � a a a;, 11 a'#'.. R R#. # 8 i" a, • O w $ ., a .. # $`.a $ a # e" Y. ;• � A.. tl t A. A'tt'2& Fig .t 9 $ •" rF' 4 as rg p &,i '..R ) #f t-' +, d 4 .d 8 iJ4d �. 8- p'6;: -t d ) t t' Y f' d x'y. .rt. itf ✓`! i F l f: d ,f o "'ii¢as C r ¢ r.f.A� {d s t...p'd'f..P % i6 i:._A `.;i:}:: • A.$ ¢;,Y A'.: 4 a R 4'0 B ,:,F : • d � Y % ':E # �a;R.: B f.. ;. 2hi F A S:'q. R •3 • R x# $. A 'S.: % a a a t w: • :K: a a %,:' # # s" :.P .� fe R A _ aye A .:.e - 5 8{..$`a ;J • :3 % R .F• .' Rt '„�: # R $ i- ! #.” ok Ts t t 4it 4 oil 4➢ tt d f 3 'r 4f.. f• f tr a ..X ;.# ;!f �,. 'f ,) p 7 t-p.f { f !e. r ,yr ¢:. x R„R f s i P-y;;,. a ui A' t a a.• MJ p = AF e t ar - s.:. A.s 8 it s't' A ', g•_ w ! a R s # A m a # A flit t.=4 11410)4 + B a ;d # ®'Q %. A - %. t:' q ♦ ffi % :. % d'�} = f' • # ,. % a $ d. a p:.i A:•: A a F of f 1 141 R10`1 S a >e a a s a •. a : � # :. a s a ,• ffi ♦ a s •. R m $ e ar. dw r p! J AA d F R r¢ 3 t 6 :,➢ A.. J'-p.p R' r R + / :11 d,g,, J q;, •..B € 6 Ra;.a4 9'; 3F a� Ai, ffi :.ik ffi ffi.& l' ffiAINFRIT P 177 7.7.' ffi R z, 8 ` ! d ` a�a#'d }} :A '• . azar a; f s � a e a7 a . 1 " d, k Q �' rR # %i ffi • dM $ ffi .: s e � d o rd � SaA # ft s $ s �tr. ' ¢..Fo- A' a A s r ,� q ';,r' ,+•. "4 ) F'9` f t 4 P R'IO - t Rt4 * 4.4 A ) s &4 ?.'.' r .4 eY4 kAA' srAe r'A: A A 4+t P A:r•' � r * 4' 4 , J r• ) ,e J ) ,A � J r a s a t o P' t J R.: # :a3 i H a. � ' 4� J8 M - w.o '= 0 • # ;.i. ,:; r p a J'4' 4 $ Y'. r c;a-" Y i,.'#' 8 `.•tY 4. 8 Y') t � r 6 A �I ` 4 a � 4 6 J 8 'br•' .l -A` i .8 4 JS >4. J e / f;! "f t' 6 f ✓: ('J ,r# s.t s !R • a o - s ,.�..: e..• xe - d a rat i 9 �8F S ..$ 4 A #ti A% # R # • ! %R ! ;.$ :s 1t'".: ;.t. ( 4 # f 8tt. a A # ,,:•h: b i7 i mi: ,4 pt r' 8 i 4 i•itit s< R4 R 4'a «� « �• i. 4 +i4 6; a r; A . .a R'# :a � : x i _ a ai ...: �x Ra •# � �: s �1 - a O a O O ka Ra -R R i ffi. I=.1 # ;.R R'. ii. gr:.J :,:3: a' d +♦ OPP a 41 M i R � r RR iR F O R ° i a'• '=d 3 R' i R O a 6 :::-ti R i ' r .y ix RiaIA. Ra ♦ , x a w - aR . a � 4a # xr 11 _ - as a e a Ora • r: O R � :.z R ar t .O ^. s � O $ � s '.�W rt A be % <m " 'A '.:,! ." s'mi a4 A q m. b.' m.' RSA ♦ 2. m D -;# :x: s e.: ' A ►% a •.xa % � .a z MITI %. LIU lu e � $'. .' d' ^.a 4.q .:t `$ = A % -.. f a mR ', :i$ + - � • ° :rW LFA t 0' W S • A. s^ R a' # a R.' b: 9. � 6 � m, ',. '.:, a a!8 ,. R o � x .,„; R � • R s ;s b ` �: ra v R �� A / ,! • . ^ a s . � b` as � = pR • r: as s s 0 E • R � a : a s s xs ” 'a 6 � Rm • s wilt s ate,., 9 • t ar... d ;.;,g • x'.' :.a R.'Wd m.R $ i 9., A. Y: •R �" R b 8 b: Au tLil�U ;e R • R » A ! 1 a � R R':.dt • a R » •F R ..s i • a.;.a *tW--T=7 -7lT7.rVu a R977r. 7;i • :,se , t a ,• xA' � A a $w b _:;.<'t a .- a a $ e - a, WWI AL d • .ib AO �a c:- � • a• A a :..i...� R R # R t �•• R # m i v • $ t A :.t x s:.� i $ nl b:' 4":.2 6.:. R $ A . 'a • i A - b A: a:.$E '-a as m �n't R x x b e b : Ra . � ' �' • tf ► Please do not hesitate to call me at (925) 314-3313, or Devin Ga ley at (925) 314- 3305 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, TOWN' F DAN .LE Tai J.Williams,AICPev` 'ley, AICP Transportation Services'Manager_ of Planning Attachment A- Town of Danville Conceptual Parking Plan Attachment B: CCC Public Works Department Traffic Count,Manch 2003 Attachment C. Danville Comments on the Traffic and Transportation Study k C. Mayor and Town:Council Town Manager City Attorney Planning Commission U:\Tmmportation\Project,teview\RegkwW PY'Gj"`H=phmy "\D1UR Com L4etter OMS doc Humphrey property DEIR Comments Page 19 of 19 _ TCrrPL P.20 ...........11.1............. ........ ........ .... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... RESPONSE To COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER AS: TOWN OF DANVILLE A5-1 See Master Response I (Project-Level Analysis and Subsequent Use of This EIRE. The County believes that CEQA requires analysis of the whole of the Project proposed to he developed,and not just one level of project approval(the Williamson Act contract cancellation). "Projecf'means the activity being approved,which may require several levels of governmental approvals,and"Project"should not be limited to any one governmental approval. E.g.,Guidelines 15004, 15063(a)(1), 15161, 15378,and Item 8 inAppendix G. A5-2 See Master Response I (Project-Level Analysis And Subsequent Use Of This EIR) The County believes that CEQA requires analysis of the whole of the Project proposed to be developed,and not just one level of Project approval(the Williamson Act contract cancellation). The County agrees that the Project approval currently under consideration(Williamson Act contract cancellation)would not give the applicants the ability to construct the land use development plan aspect of the Project and that further approvals would be required before construction could commence. This fact does not make the EIR defective in its analysis of the whole of the Project. A5-3 The Humphrey EIR is being prepared for all required approvals and permits. See Master Response I (Project-Level Analysis and Subsequent Use of This EIR) A54 See Master Response I and responses to comments A5-1 through A5-3. The "Project is the whole of the action proposed,which is subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. "Project"does not mean each separate governmental approval. See Master Responses I and 2. A5-5 See Master Response 1. The EBRPD is an agency devoted to preserving open space and park uses,and would acquire the open space component only for such uses. There is no credible evidence that the EBRPD might develop the site for other uses. A mitigation measure is added: if EBRPD or other organization devoted to preservation of open space uses is not willing to take,the 63 acres of the Humphrey property,the County would require dedication of development rights to the County on this portion of the land,the site would retain its General Plan designation of Agricultural Lands(AL),and would continue in its existing open space uses. A5-6 See Master Response I and responses to comments A5-1 through A5-6. A5-7 See Master Responses I and 2. See also comment letter from SRVUSD(A-4). AS-8 The EIR advises of the need fora General Plan Amendment for the residential component,and the applicants do not propose any designation other than an Agricultural Lands(AL)designation for the SRVUSD and open space components. The EIR does not indicate that a specified alternative land use proposal is a mechanism for land use change. Rather,the EIR describes the process for canceling a Williamson Act contract, including the requirement that the petition for cancellation describe the alternate use proposed for the land. Please also see Master Responses 1,2 and 5,and responses to comments A5-1 through A5-6. The physical impacts of canceling the contract for the 23 acres(plus one-acre detention basin)five 4-11 .................. ....................................................................... ............................................ ................................................ RmpoNm To Commiam/FINAL EIR CHAPTERA:Comma AND Rapo"sn years sooner than the contract would otherwise expire are addressed in the EIR. The Project does not propose physical changes to the open space component of the Project,as it will retain its existing open space uses and its existing Agricultural land use designation. As noted by the EBRPD,the Humphrey property open space"could potentially provide a loop trail segment to the Las Trampas to Mt.Diablo Trail Regional Trail,"but deciding to pursue that loop trail segment would require a determination by the EBRPD whether additional environmental review would be required. The County is not proposing to create an agricultural preserve on any portion of the Humphrey property. The County is unaware of any law that would require the portion of a Williamson Act contract remaining after partial cancellation to encompass 100 acres. If there were such a requirement,and if the Humphrey project failed to comply,then the project could not go forward, resulting in no environmental impacts. A5-9 Contra Costa County has a density range for Single Family Residential—Very Low development of 0.2—0.9 units per net acre,Single Family Residential:—Low of 1.0— 2.9 units per net acre, Single Family Residential—Medium of 3.0—4.9 units per net acre,and Single Family Residential—High of 5.0-7.2 units per net acre. (General Plan p. 3-18,3-21) A5-10 See Master Responses I and 2. The DEIR includes information about General Plan Amendments to disclose all it can. The SRVUSD I's proposed use of the site is not consistent with either the current General Plan or the Agricultural designation the applicants propose for a subsequent GPA. The continued open space uses of the open space component of the Project are consistent with the current Agricultural designation of that portion of the Project. As noted by the Contra Costa County General Plan, "the title[Agricultural] is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas,but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural or open space uses..."(General Plan p.3-33) A5-11 The County is unaware of any law that would prohibit imposing conditions on a tentative approval of a contract cancellation. The County anticipates that the Project applicants will apply for rezoning. Zoning changes are recommended by the appropriate planning commission,and approved by the Board. A5-12 See Response Figure 3:Grading Plan with Landslide Data. See Chapter 7. A5-13 See Master Responses I and 2. The conceptual landscape plan was proposed to enable environmental analysis of that landscape plan. The EIR has evaluated the environmental impacts of that preliminary plan. The SRVUSD is responsible for developing a specific landscape plan,and review would be conducted according to the procedures of the SRVUSD. See Master Responses I and 2 regarding the CEQA implications of any changes the SRVUSD proposes to the Project studied in this EIR. AS-14 The Project studied in this EIR does not include additional trails. Other trails are mentioned as a possibility in the future,but have not been proposed,sited or designed,and would be subject to the jurisdiction of the EBRPD and additional environmental review. See Master Response I regarding the CEQA implications of any changes or additions EBRPD might propose to the Project studied in this EIR, and A5-8. 4-12 .......... _... _ RESPONSE TO COMMENTsf FiN L FIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS ANo RESPONSES A5-15 The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts,ofthe Stone Valley Road improvements. Whether these improvement are"linked"does not affect the environmental impacts these improvements will have. However,these improvements are proposed as part of the future development of the residential component of the Project studied in this EIR. A5-16 This EIR did not identify significant traffic impacts from construction activities relating to the SRVUSD component studied in this EIR. Accordingly,no mitigation measures are proposed for those'construction activities. Construction activities result in short term impacts which are less than significant. A required final construction plan would'be approved by Contra Costa County,prior to development commencing. See Master Responses I and 2. In general,CEQA requires the County to adopt one of the following three findings for all potentially significant impacts: (1) Changes or alterations have been required i ,or incorporated into;the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been,or can and should be,adopted by that other agency;or(3)Specific economic,legal, social,technological,or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. As for any potentially significant impacts of aspects of the SRVUSD component of the Project,the County anticipates adopting the second finding because it appears all such measures would be within the jurisdiction of the SRVUSD. See Master Responses l and 2 regarding the CEQA implications of any changes or additions SRVUSD might propose to the Project studied>in this EIR, including its proposed mitigation measures. AS-17 See Master Responses I;and 2. See response to comment A5-10'. A5-18 County staff has determined that a General Plan Amendment would be necessary before the residential component'of this Project could be constructed. A General Plan Amendment would also be necessary to enable a finding that the final cancellation would be consistent with the General Plan. A5-19 The comment sloes not raise environmental issues,but will be presented to the decision-makers for their consideration in this EIR. The EIR evaluates the physical impacts of the use the SRVUSD proposes to make of the SRVUSD component of the Project. See Master Response 2 A5-20 See Response Figure 1,Master Response I and Chapter 7. ; A5-21 See Response Figure 4: Current County Zoning Classifications. See Master Response I and Chapter 7. A5-22 The Humphrey Draft EIR was prepared to evaluate the whole of the Project. See Master Responses I and 2,and responses to comments A5-1 through AS-6. A5-23 See response A5-22. A5-24 See response A5-22. 4-l3 �.... :..:: ... N...:: ..«.�.:�,.......... ........ .....,,....tet...... ..................................................................I.......I......1.11,.................................I.................................................... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL OR CHAPTER 4.COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A5-25 See Master Response 5(Agricultural Resources). This detail was not included in the Project description chapter of the DEIR because it is a detail,and the Project Description presents a general overview of the Project. A5-26 See Master Responses I and 2,and responses to comments A5-1 through AS-6. The comment also raises issues relating to legalities and the merits of the Project,which will be presented to the decision-makers for their review as part of this EIR. These issues do not address environmental concerns. A5-27 The areas downstream from the Project site,within the Green Valley Creek watershed area,that are"susceptible to regional flooding hazarde'are below the East Branch confluence and include areas downstream of Los Cerros Middle School, Blemer Road to Diablo Road, and along Matadera Road. The Project has established sufficient area for a detention basin(1 acre)to eliminate the flooding hazard from the Project site. The specific design of the detention basin will accompany the final development plan submitted to Contra Costa County for approval. AS-28 As noted on page 4.2-12 of the EIR,"the exact sizing,engineering,and maintenance of the facility[detention basin]have not been specified." The Project has allotted an acre for the detention basin,which is more than adequate to address the runoff issues from the Humphrey property. The CCCFC&WCD will be consulted in the final design of the detention basin to ensure it meets minimum size requirements,and therefore gets their approval. The detention basin would remain a private HOA maintained facility. The long term maintenance of the detention basin would be assured through yearly HOA fees. See A9-9. A5-29 A certified geologist determined the mitigation measures that are applicable to the Humphrey property. The comment letter by EBRPDexpressed no concern over the geologic hazards on the Humphrey property. All physical changes proposed by the Project that would make slides or damage more likely were fully studied in the EIR. CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate geotechnical corrections to existing environmental conditions not physically caused or affected by the Project. A5-30 The partial cancellation of the land conservation contract would itself have no direct environmental impacts. The EIR provides full disclosure of information that is currently available with regard to what would most likely happen to the Humphrey property and the related impacts to biological resources. See Master Responses I and 2,and responses to comments A5-1 through A5-6. A5-31 See response A5-30. A5-32 See response A5-30. A5-33 See Response Figure 5: Corrected Jurisdictional Boundaries. The error has been corrected. See Chapter 7. A5-34 This figure was included to show the reader how surrounding existing uses(as opposed to land use designations)fit with the uses proposed by the Project. 4-14 RESPONSE To COMMENTS/FIN"EIR CHAPTER 4.COMMMS ANo RESPoNsEs A5-35 See Master Response 1 and response to comment A5-11. The applicants have not submitted an application to rezone the site,and the County is not currently processing any proposed rezoning other than preparation of this EIR. A5-36 See Master Response 1 and responses to comments A5-1 through A5-6. AS-37 See Master Responses 1and 2. The plan included in the Draft EIR was prepared by _. DK Associates,the applicants'consultant. A5-38 401 parking spaces exceed what is required by Monte Vista High School on a daily basis. The SRVUSD would utilize the entire parking lot at Monte Vista High School during special events such as back to school nights. See Master Responses 2 and 3. A5-39 Danville proposes that the SRVUSD reconfigure the Monte Vista High School campus to accommodate more parking onsite,:resulting in fewer parking spaces being located on the Humphrey property side of Stone Valley Road. See Chapter 7, Response Figure 6. Danville proposes to eliminate or relocate basketball courts, portable classrooms,And other school facilities to make room for more parking spaces on the High School site. Danville proposes 130 parking spaces and two school playfelds'on the site of the potential SRVUSD component of the Humphrey Project. Danville's proposal has been provided to the School District for its consideration. The School District's response is included in Chapter 7 of this document. :Danville's proposal will not avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts. The parking lot location shown in the conceptual plan developed for this EIR is located on the only portion of Humphrey property that is across the street from the school,and which could be aligned with the school parking lot. A5-40 The Project proposes to align the proposed parking lot entrance with the existing parking lot entrance,and therefore not create any"misalignment," Elimination of the horseshoe is not necessary to mitigate or avoid any significant impacts of the Project. A5-41 The new signal that is proposed with the Project would help to improve existing queuing problems.' The either intersections noted already exist,and would only be upgraded. A5-42 The Project proposes two ingress/egress"cutsf5 into Stone Valley Road: the>entrance to the residential component and the entrance to the SRVUSD component. The studies and analyses performed for this EIR do'not reveal any significant impacts resulting from these two cuts. The amount and location of cuts to and from a project are based on a variety of things such as traffic flow,dispersal,and safety considerations(i.e. line of sight,distance and interactions with other intersections, etc.). The agency which might possibly have input on the amount of cuts into a roadway for a new development would be the Fire Department,and they expressed no concern over the amount or location of access points to the Humphrey property. A5-43 The traffic report for the Humphrey Project was conducted in 2002,with the most up to date information at that time. Abrams&Associates held meetings with Contra Costa County,and Town of Danville staff to ensure that he utilized the most current information. 4-15 ........�uut ............. ...................................................... ..................I--,.................................................... RESPONSE To CommEmTS&INAL SR. CHAPTIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES An updated traffic analysis was completed using more recently gathered traffic count information(March 2003),and can.be found in Chapter 7 of this document.The results of Mr. Abram's updated traffic analysis indicate no significant impacts associated with the Project on the Monte Sereno and Stone Valley Road intersection. A5-44 The Monte Vista ffigh School peak pin hour for traffic is immediately after school lets out at 2:30pm(2:30-3:30pm). This was not evaluated in the EM,due to the impact being evaluated for the am peak school hour,which coincides with the general public's morning rush hour. The afternoon rush hour for the general public occurs well after school haslet out(4:30-5:30prn). After the determination was made that the am peak hour traffic impact was less than significant,(with the combination of both the school and the general public's peak commute time)the pm peak hour was assumed to be less than significant as well,due to the difference in pin peak traffic hours between the school and the general public. A5-45 As noted in A5-43,after running the traffic analysis for the Monte Sereno and Stone Valley Road intersection with updated traffic counts, a less than significant impact results. Traffic signal warrant studies were made for two intersections on Stone Valley Road at the High School. These studies were conducted using the warrants as described in the Caltrans Traffic Manual,Chapter 9. There are twelve warrants that cover,such factors as the hourly traffic volumes,the number of accidents,the presence of pedestrians,the presence of school zones,and others. Based on the updated analysis and the Caltrans Traffic Manual,Abrams&Associates has concluded that the intersection of Monte Sereno,Drive and Stone Valley Road does not warrant a traffic signal for Project or cumulative conditions. The intersection of the SRVUSD parking lot and Stone Valley Road is proposed to be signalized with a designated crosswalk for the students. A5-46 The traffic models that were used in the Humphrey EIR are accepted standards in Contra Costa County. The two methodologies are in agreement. AS-47 It is assumed that the parking lot would rarely be full. Occasions when the parking lot could be full would be during special events, such as back to school nights,or sporting events(up to 67 nights for the entire year,or approximately 18 percent of the year). See Master Responses 3(noise)and 6(traffic). It is expected that the SRVUSD will not relax the requirements for obtaining parking permits at Monte Vista High School. A5-48 Figure 4,of the Abrams&Associates traffic report,has been corrected and is consistent with Table 2. See Chapter 7. A5-49 In traffic analysis,the accepted standard for intersections is that the entire intersection is looked at as a whole and individual turning movements are not considered in determining LOS. That is the threshold of significance used in this EIR. The County does not employ Synchro to evaluate significance,except for queuing issues on major arterials;in Danville(as was done for the TVPOA Draft EIR and the Integrated Project EIR). This Project does not meet that threshold criterion. 4-16 REsroNse To COMMMTsffmWt BR CHAPTm 4:Coh mEws Ano REsPorms A5-50 See Master.Response 6(Traffic), The suggestion sloes not address any potentially significant impacts of the Project. A5-51 The Town of Danville has reviewed the Abrams&Associates Traffic and Transportation Stud o,f'the Humphrey Property,and submitted hand written comments,in addition to fir comment letter(See Chapter 7). These comments range from minor editorial corrections,to issues over study results. All substantive comments have been addressed in previous A51 responses. The editorial corrections are noted,and appreciated(changes are not made in Chapter 5,due to the Abrams& Associates Traffic and Transportation,Stud o,f the Humphrey.Property being an appendix to the Draft EIR). Nene of the handwritten comments address significant environmental impacts. 4-17 ...... .. u<tta... :n..:.. LETTER PUBLICWOR �E� TI ENT � COW"COSTA COUNTY DATE May 27, 2003 T Patrick Roche,Advance Planning Division, Community.Development Department FROFROW At Schaal, Transportation Engineering SUBJECT. DEIR Humphrey Property I have reviewed the Draft Elft for the Humphrey Psrop+srt , SCH*2d02012429,and have the following comments: I. Mage 2-16. In the lmpaotcolumn under the Traffic Transportation and Circulation section, it is sued" th+s intersection of' tone,Vslie- oaed acrd Green galley Road,with iliac addlort cif Projbct traf€ic them would be a change in level-of=servic s during AM peak hoursfrom D to E. By policy this reduction is significant to be less than signint for an signalized'Intersection In Contra Costa County;" The Environmental IMpact Report should state which policy they are using to reach the conclusion. 24 Page 2-16. Under the Mk gation Measure column ander the Traffio Transportation and Circulation section,the first two sentences contradict each other, and are W. t relevant'because the intetse�n they,are referring to Is unslgnall d. Thisre contradictions to be cleared up. 3: To enhance the operation of the new traffic signal ora Stone Valley load:at the high school parking lots, the parking lots should b conf figured to have:a 200 foot long or lower throat the entrance-to the lots-bore oats can d, rse r into the A6- partCing spacers. An + errr ie of We ty"-of layout is the parking lot at the Tart Stere on Contra eta Boulevard In Pleasant Hill. If you world like to discuses any of the comments,please phone me at(926)313-2234. c RESPONSE To CommENTVFmAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER A6: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (TRAFFIC) A6-I The statement on page 2-16 of the Draft EIR reflects a clerical error. The last sentence should read=By policy,this reduction is considered to be less than significant for an unsignalized intersection in Contra Costa County." This change will be noted in text changes in the Draft EIR,Chapter 5 of the Response to Comments document. This is common policy and can be found in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 17. A6-2 See comment A6-1. A6-3 This recommendation does not address any potentially significant impacts of the Project. It will be presented to the decision-makers for their consideration in this EIR. 4-19 ............... . . . . .... :., ki ■ UL fill f 0' M— It its If aAo 0, ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............ ............ term Practices to minimize Pollutants or pre-treatment, prior to discharging to stonm water facilities or creeks. LGIS: GAftD&%\EngSvdU.&M Gosseft2M3WaytHwMhtey DEIR ..............................................— ..................... ............-.......................................................................................................................................................................... . .. ........... RESPONSE To CommENTS/RmAL Elft CHAPTER 4*CommENTs AND RESPONSES LETTER A7: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ENGINEERING SERVICES) A7-1 The 10.6 acre portion of the Humphrey property,which is to be purchased by the SRVUSD,was analyzed in a conservative manner. Reasonable mitigation measures were identified. It is acknowledged that the SRVUSD and State Architects Office have the discretionary authority to adopt change,reject and revise the mitigation presented in this EIR as part of their CEQA review. See Master Responses 1 and 2. A7-2 See comment A4-2. The detention basin will be excluded from the proposed SRVUSD site. See Master Responses I and 2. A7-3 See response to comment B3-9. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) must be submitted and approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)for the 39 unit residential component of the Project. Best Management Practices are typically developed for the SWPPP. After the sale and final design of the 9.6 acres to the SRVUSD,a subsequent SWPPP would be prepared for that development. Measures typical in SWPPPS include use of oil/water separators,regular street and parking facility cleaning,minimization of pesticide/herbicide uses and prohibition on use of certain toxic substances, and others. Requirements established in the SWPPP(when itis prepared)are designed to meet the RWQCB and Clean Water Act goals for protection of creeks and other water bodies. 4-21 .................... * ap la 8 - ®$ a to $ a ,• s3!' a $ } - a s �a ,i $ DATE t r A w q•` s; f _ A°: 1te } fo 4 %I 16�01 AffTal eI VA -:e8 ,:. ;t.: a a f ;w t # s a as.. a. £ ♦a ( $e a p Tmv �h a � W a r gym• a s�w . a i sa ;: W s.,.. �, W s a �� a• etre a W _ • a a a F; s e $ as 8 a, E♦ Lol of t • a rm,ro * a W. � � _ trs: '"'.za ar; $ • $.r a � a � ,«rc �?c _ s a .$ �:.�. - c a • a _ �` i • a { ir: .a d I l4 Nail" ng, ' , -c:s F' •itis 8 �. .. a a.m a arss $� W >:e R t la S W � 9' •F:' $ 'a a A � aP: a a ! .: a - �.:r-; S 9 � Y ID 8 lA O W � If ,: : • a � W r P LNJ W r7,77, ga a a li � W r a<a � a°E • w ;. W ;- ¢•o c e,a s �,a # .......... i-#ss !''OEC64F-1 go Mr. Patrick Flochs May 7, 2003 Page 4 of 4 improvements in agricultural preserves unless the following specific findings can be made(Government Code section 51292): Me A=tfon Is new owed prinuWy an a conslasixibn of the lower wo ofaoquking t in an • "If the landle ag*Owal landrmrad undars contract pursuant to this dm4ftr lar soy powic improveownt,OW them is no other end whin or cuts k*1h#pmerva an wtitch it is msonawy f"sgOf tete the put f10 AMPIOMMat(16 1 292(b)). A Williamson Act contract Is an enforceable restriction pursuant to AYWO YJI1,§8 of the California ConstItution and Government Code section 51252. Assuming other necessary requirements are,met acquisition of Williamson Act land must meet requirements of eminent domain law for acquisition by eminent domain or.In lieu of eminent domain (e.g., Code of Civil Procedure 1230.010 at seq. and, Government Code section 7260 st seq.) in order to void the contract pur3umnt to Government Code section 61295. If the acquisition do"not effect termination of the contract,the Dishicre uses of contracted property will be affected and limited by the terms of the contract. The FEIR should adequately address time requiremenits. Thank you for the*opportunity to comment on the DER If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or Information on agricultural land conservatton, please contact Patrici&Gatz at Sol K Street, MS 13-71, Sacramento, California 95814; or, phone (916) 324-0869. Sincerely, av Erik Vink Assistant Director oc-, Contra Costa Resource Conservation Dist t' 55 Clayton Fload Concord, CA 94521 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ RESPONSE TO COMMENTS(FINAI.EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER A8: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF CONSERVATION A8-1 See Master Response 5(Agricultural Resources). If the findings could not lawfully be made,then the Project could not go forward,and there would be no impacts on the environment. A8-2 See Master Responses 4(Open Space)and 5(Agricultural Resources)along with the information obtained from the California Department of Conservation regarding the Exchange Program that is included in Chapter 7 of this FEIR. A8-3 See Master Response 5(Agricultural Resources). The exchange program involves placing the exchange property"under an agricultural conservation casement. . . ." (Gov't Code section 51256) The applicants are pursuing this option. However, if unable to implement an exchange,the applicants will pay the cancellation fee. The County agrees that dedication of the easement land required for the WAEEP exchange for the cancellation is not mitigation for the loss of agricultural land. A84 The EIR references potential public acquisition by the SRVUSD and by the EBRPD. See Master Responses 1 (Project:-Level Analysis and Subsequent Use of This EIR), 2(SRVUSD Component of Project),4(Open Space)and 5(Agricultural Resources). The language of Gov't Code section 51292 is acknowledged. It states: No public agency or person shall locate a public improvement within an agricultural preserve unless the following findings are made: (a)The location is not based primarily on a consideration of the lower cost of acquiring land in an agricultural preserve. (b)If the land is agricultural land covered under a contract pursuant to this chapter for any public improvement,that there is no other land within or outside the preserve on which it is reasonably feasible to locate the public improvement. If the SRVUSD cannot lawfully acquire the property and pursue the SRVUSD component of the Project,then the SRVUSD component would not go forward, resulting in no environmental impacts. If the EBRPD or other public agency cannot lawfully acquire an easement in the open space component of the Project,then that easement would either be held by a private entity,or the applicants would dedicate development rights of the open space component to the County. In any of these events,the open space and agricultural uses and designation of the open space component would not change from the current uses and designation,resulting in no impacts on the environment. 4-23 U sill I list -1 C-Cf,"I k b t 9 f 4 a 4 Oil O'lis Is a f "I =71 0 1=2.14-Ij m I to) 41 so 0 t I ru I M. ,I a=, RN jk t ........... _ .. Mehl esa Marton PSPTWO In addition;to:the developed area draining tct tha baste,will the entire undevoloxped 6 .acre upper watershed be rotated to the ptaposed 4.12 acre-ft detentian � baa t�as e11? The Study did not include the 65-acmofuadavO4ed upperwatershed: How will the naiades•ofthe upper watershed.bs aouteri to Grew Valley Creek? if the upper waged will be muted through1he basin,itis: po to anal &c:additional flog frons the entre c�nt�ribuung _. upper watershed (65-wm), as well as the entire developed site including the school*s f ilities <which will drain to the detention'basin. -2 Based on the limited channel capuity of Or=Valley r k,the detenntjan basin should be designed to rete peakflows tol ess than or eeal to pre-development peak flow conditions.Since the detention basin will serve a watershed less than one square mile in area it shall have the OMPSCAY with suffloient freeboard to contain a<ten-y r ftopmy of average:recurrence intim r o `' Adtlitionally> the detention bins must be to contain a one h rtdred,year vers ? c +�0:interval runoff with adequate fiftboard without veat+aitha a r�a �ra unleita�slowntta or �a - average recurrence irate i val rutto 'can be:safely felt'pawed Hugh the deterttio basin without damage to the detention bad or downstream properties:or conveyance Wstems.Quest's; study does not address the routing c'f they 1#1tJ-fir#lovrs� t ate tbat an e r y spillwayshr+uldbeiracluded in*6 de igabbtthisdoe s not address pot+mtial down street pzqwdes. { Althoughthe basin was sized t D.mitipte flo-wa for tl d clqed -94p acres to Project levels during a 10-year storm,the da Iopees ender nftds to audyn the flow ramfor the lWyear storm over they entire.OontrOuting waterahodso that an to amount ofarek is reseed for the deve of the -slta `ons. Asthis has ad, to ectont sig l`t € aste bthis at ysis Aould be.e�lete�d befeu�e�ifica�tian.of the� . 3. We ';With uesta,'s December 17,2001. let r,wh h staff "prior to f "Sk a stagy vs: volume cum shorild be dlesped.fear thatroposel bay. The basin's dean should also be choked by routing dxthroe h the basin., Water su 'we elevations within the bars during design storm should be ct A9- and all. COUW mmdatedl. board and m aintemme3 "Witious should bes +et." P or to the kation ofthe 9MVe r+:corttr d: the+de rd er pro ids the -a scha yes fo9r re iexw,so area oau be ad aside for the basin. 4. The Cmty or the District should pr y a detailed eat the h; drologic lcula6ovs► priorto approval ofthe �ivorttag � annotatedt#loratetrtutar ' '- ' ar?ea and motion bai,lwcat€E should 00aded nth this future sulitterl. S luRydrolovsdonofth*,RwonOgmtion Afterrudivo,par5-4 mention rumffwouldbe. ly'ipar°visurthcea derrrl�ent, Ifthia altet'native is chaseat,wesrenrxterl' , the impacts be idea�ed and ntiu be g +tetcd and reviewed. A 04 It 4 V T Ott!" 7 AN 4 so to* V. :It 3- #iWlt ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....... ................................................. RESPONSE To COMMENTS/FINAL EER C~Teft 4.COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER A9: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS(HYDROLOGY) A9-1 Performing an inventory ofGreen Valley Creek to identify any critical locations prone to erosion is out of the scope of this EIR. This EIR has noted that there is a potentially significant impact related to runoff,yet will be mitigated with an on-site detention basin. A final design of the detention basin will accompany a final development plan submitted to Contra Costa County for approval. Questa, Engineering,Inc.has indicated that areas of concern could be those downstream of Los Cerros Middle School,Blemer Road to Diablo Boulevard,and several areas along Matadera Road. The detention basin would reduce the amount of peak runoff to a less than significant level. Questa Engineering Inc.has noted that the current amount of runoff from the Humphrey,property is minimal,and contributes'a less than significant volume into the Green Valley Drainage,and this would only be improved with the addition of a one-acre detention basin. The CCCFC&WCD has commented on the need of a downstream erosion study on Green Valley Creek.As proposed,the hydrologic impact of the,detention basin outflows is minor when compared to the overall Green Valley Creek watershed discharge rates. The detention basin as designed does not allow outflow from the basin to exceed the 10-year pre- development capacity of the outlet pipes,which is 12.43 efs. The Flood Insurance Study for the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County (FEMA, September 7,200 1)show flow rates for Green Valley Creek downstream of the proposed Project site to be much higher than the 10-year pre-development flow rate.With an area of 2.53 sq.miles,the watershed for the FEMA station nearest the Project site has estimated peak flow rates of 865 cfs for the 10-year flow, 1,260 cfs for the 50-year flow,and 1,400 cfs for the 100-year flow.The maximum allowable outflow rate from the proposed detention basin as currently designed is 12.43 cfs, approximately 1.4%of the existing 10-year estimated peak flow rate in Green Valley Creek downstream of the Project site,and less than 1%of the 100-year peak flow rate. Thus,an extensive erosion analysis within Green Valley Creek is not warranted at this time. A9-2 To correspond to the current proposeddevelopment plan, Questa Engineering Corp. revised the drainage map used in the sizing of the detention basin and submitted it the CCCFC&WCD. The current development plan and detention basin design parameters were taken from the "Alternative Land Use/Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan" (Sheet 3 of 10, DK Associates, July 2002). The proposed Project watershed totals 38.3 acres,comprised of 10.6 acres of school facilities('including the parking lot/ball field), 23 acres of proposed residential development and 4.7 acres of contributing area open space.response Figure 7 shows the areas which contribute to the detention basin (See Chapter 7). The remaining area of the open space (60.3 acres of 65 acres) does not contribute to the proposed Project watershed. The new analysis shows that within the remaining open space, flows to the east of the contributing open space drain to a catch basin located above Canyon Vista Place just outside the proposed Project,boundary. Flows to the west of the contributing open space drain to a detention basin located at the end of Stone Valley Oaks Drive also just outside the proposed Project boundary. 4-25 .......... .................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... REsPoNsm To CommEWSJFmAt EIR CKAPTER 4:CommENTs Amo REsPoNsEs The detention basin should be designed to reduce peak flows to less than or equal to the ten-year pre-development peak flow conditions. Thus,the allowable outflow from the basin was determined by the 10-year pre-development capacity of the outlet pipes. Calculations showed that the<maximum storage volume needed to contain the 10-year storm while maintaining the pre-development outflow rate is 0.53 ac-ft. The proposed detention basin has the capacity for a total of 1.71 ac-ft. and a maximum elevation of 493 ft. The 10-year storage volume's stage elevation is 488.7 ft.; thus, 4.3 ft.of freeboard is maintained within the detention basin during the 10-year storm. The 100-year storm was also routed through the proposed detention basin. The storage volume needed to accommodate the 100-year storm. The maximum storage volume needed to contain the 100-year storm while maintaining the pre-development outflow rate is 1.15 ac-ft.The proposed detention basin has the capacity for a total of 1.71 ac-ft. and a maximum elevation of 493 ft.The I00-year storage volume's stage elevation is 491 A ft;thus, 1.2 ft.of freeboard is maintained within the detention basin during the 100-year storm. The detention basin as proposed can safely contain the I00-year storm. If necessary, the maximum elevation of the detention basin can be raised I-fL to 494 ft.to provide the 2-ft.of freeboard below the lowest point along the top of the basin during a 100- year storm(Contra Costa County Flood Control Detention Basin Guidelines, CCCFC&WCD, 1991). A9-3 Questa Engineering,Inc.will perform all necessary studies,as noted in their December 17,2001 letter,to be included in the final design plan for Contra Costa County approval. An adequate area has been set aside for the detention basin,and the final design of the detention basin will be included in the final design plan to be submitted to Contra Costa County. Figure A,below,shows the stage-storage curve for the proposed detention basin. Figure A.Stage-Storage Curve for Proposed Detention Basin. 403 402 491 490 489O -- 488- 447- IM 488- 485, 484 83 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Storage(ac-ft) 4.26 ...........I......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ RESPONSE To CommEws]RNA L EIR CHAPTER 4-.C:t'mmo4Ts ANG ftspoNsfs A94 A hydrology map annotated with flow rates,tributary area,and detention basin location will be submitted with the final design plan for Contra Costa County approval. A9-5 As the DEIR notes,the reconfiguration alternative would result in slightly less peak runoff due to extended travel time. A detention basin of approximately the same size would be required,and the samedownstream mitigation measures would be imposed. These studies have been submitted to the CCCFC&WCD and are being reviewed at this time. The Project site has the ability to mitigate its storm water runoff impacts; however final design details and approvals will be attained'at the tentative map stage of the Project. A9-6 See A9-5. A9-7 Project site drainage by-passes Oak Park Pond. No Project run-off will affect Oak Park Pond. Oak Parr Pond lies outside the piped drainage from the Project,and therefore would not be impacted. A9-8 The applicants have requested that they be permitted to pay the fee. A mitigation measure has been added reflecting this fee. See Chapter 5. A9-9 See A9 responses,above.Please note that the storm dater runoff impacts'from the Project site can be mitigated on-site. Subsequent conversations and correspondence to the CCCFC&WCD have demonstrated the ability of the Project to meet or exceed the,requirements spelled forth in this comment letter. The ficial design details and calculations will be reviewed and approved by CCCFC&WCD prior to final approval. 4-27 All $14 tsf; v cz, at -ts IF i4;k m+4$ IF 4 40 _is 4 loll# 9.3 41 S 11; -f;—It 4 4 A 489 a Go's -T."" it :W011 of ti tats Slot, f :ts IM .;a'os#sit fl'.�Ojk -4 «I :If. 41 1 k ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... • " PAW&Roobe �Mky 7*.2003 At-go'end oftbu f paraSmpk:page 4,,ICS.6.6c:ft�uowing cceE abouldbe Crd�e90 -59,ChVtw 82 : ;Y que tic�a a mum a xx�ar tss WU-U"R.IMKPAUU ja..hwiee m.P.:_t ye< 4x,,,•s{ - —ixdk e7e' VS•"iw'^Ea!'r:.•k'%.. �M,N^Y m9•..esb�:.w ,i :,'"4•i t+°'v#�� ::.:.... ...............�. ....�. ....................,�. ......... ....:.... ......... .p e:.,:uec{e+cee0000000wwotucaottrtn...... .:r.:r... .......................................................................... .......................I..................................................- RESPONSE To COMMEmTs/FiNAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER A10: EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT A10-1 This sentence is re-worded as recommended. See Chapter 5. A10-2 This sentence is re-worded. See Chapter 5. However,the Project does not propose to provide water service to the northern portion, as that land is proposed to remain in an Agricultural designation and continue existing open-space uses. Accordingly, annexation of the northern portion is not proposed as part of the Project. Also,see A3-1. A10-3 This sentence is re-worded as recommended. See Chapter 5. A104 This sentence is re-worded as recommended. See Chapter S. A10-5 This sentence is re-worded as recommended. See Chapter 5. A10-6 Sentence added as recommended. See Chapter 5. The EIR further recommends that the SRVUSD also subject itself to these requirements for the SRVUSD component of the Project 4-" a4 PARKS :.3 �s14}" 4,44C $ 161 Bia6#E0kit tk A77P76.7.7 �x•l�:k 4a$,ei$# �' a7Y.w �' k .�*67,♦0 M q £t T44i"v 971i Ali'. a� 6 !. X +p.;A73.". is ::s alp s y '� i+'+':J >? ;11.4 q: aA i8�' tBk A#1 ,• e :il .4� �f�F 0};pR.'+�a?. @Y'i6:a• �.'°,B a; � :�i" AW+ta#?°A7 Wva 4a 0?:+ at 4 It r';.Of i##S B 9-i. BAt '4YAk' 6 i—TTWif.0!.:: 64 i4 i4 ii AB?: E,: 4'�ici i'0' #^A a,td-A ar. � 4 d 0.. •WAS k °i#$.;s+.6i a f7 '-14611.%= f4 £ 4 £ '4 iii' :3.x7 ;: f. 9 i#af626.: b .E E bA as i W' #t}rif£ E-at. .ai6 R 'Y R• a: fax r ! 54:,3. A•.7 :tY.W +f6#s x4 e•v �Wi !�#f #P 4Es : 4+ti P :kf�4 i a WA:4i Wo fwikl Ara, a# `A. *0 10 4 7 1:S7l, 4 6'x4 as f.5+ f; (} a>.+k4" A`:# :.9.1 A 0 of 4z b: 74+: 47 a' 6 tit Y. 47 f4fiat A .f6 3S i$ 1£'w +i6}%4 it##B#' £°!✓4 .'S'.i :"Y,4# =: 6,*' b} h9ftat 5 ! # :k '}: ! 6 'I -it 6 0,! a'- +•0 k4 r)'. 4. FY.' $i. F. 4,17 XvIo#.r Vv itl 4 W',WE£t`+ �I i f.lt3i9S aB9Es i :,a +6:4= £ '.ly# `$Stf: :i!6 9 S fi/ $::0'v fA'37A' 'x,'6}.•'-a} !J ivk k/ aff,:f`i+. e06}A bl:' 4':7 ;r•.S :tE,4 4:F:Yn:. #i /it+ fil* a7 31E'Sti'.m1 at E :0' #E. :�a;47Y i #5.F! ,if $# 6 ;,E15 5 8F$ ';lkq a' :kf,i 4 3 41•f 45 0"'N:el R�xf 0 :;.E'b t4BP 5 fA i aW. AM 64 !. $ Co °{OGH yt}sA: :731@ .+aftt. r;d#$',.+P1#. f✓8'.451.i Y,}:,t' .�6 tl ",? R>': t8 4•:14. ''rid 4•}..d: 6: i R-4.A r:i Y.! k :'#. =4 tl.4 775}: � - R]a)� :riaSE 4)•:!S ! f#7 k9 0 1 #'9; '.R 4603 C♦. >+3ld5'04*•<' 416 E67: SAS 411 :PS A`$.9. ! t:w•.i340 ' 1 4'2$.." toi— tit F J f ................................................................................................................................................................................................ . .................................... RES"NS9 To CONMEWWRNAL EIR 04APTER 4-COMMENTS ANN ftspoNsEs LETTER All: EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT All-I This sentence is re-worded as recommended. See Chapter 5. The trail improvement which could potentially happen would involve the upgrade of the existing fire road on the northern 65 acre portion of the Humphrey property. Al 1-2 See Master Response 4(Open Space). 4-31 i ^T 4 s}, i a1 O a• ! � a a #" sr- lip 1� s IF ALLS-55Z-51FaM _x 8 09 7- ,=t Latif s d8; JLL x rE: a a fLila, R s $ ► f f 4' i R'' A �a '• x`ri x - � • E E is x ♦ s t;. ,Willu 1311,r!] a R. :;E,a; : Es : 16 a eft�. •, E. .A 'e aa. i' A _: � ,r r^, ,».: i a�, '1�: :: x k a ', 6 .. � a$ :.. Y:. .9 ay i.�I a r 5 '�♦ xE :. ". Pe •...,x P Ea T a • A ar: a aAt. e A � ' � ea '. a w` .. ,e+: ,. $te .k 'a: •` a:. .. an e $ te'a its, it #t.. a;g,N. s} ..x -i A `':ix 1 t .:a Aga' :a �.� i:: �. R '.>'.`• s $` as. s a e as s i ;..zMao $ •-. -;e t e. ..ata e - 8' (° c� �r s f#1 i I � 8� 3,R r 1.. •e A 'b.*..'s't�. •r, l,..:,eog 717, , Y' a O' t�A d ;.'1.9'.: 4'-6A.ani :..a tl'�. i : • r ..'aix; $ ^.;. .•# .e '.M 9 1).,` '.'6 $ ,td. a ;p $ �'i+;, V y � Z;ai � - a�. - a,.g o '.a, >;- a.A a-.. a• a .$ '. �;d - �x x..^. a :'• A a,xlr' T b ar:Y' 5^ x}' - �•' 1 a a $:. . ,1 e, a'- : / a ! jfojjatsll S. r 3y;' A s k.•S ,® s d $ $ •w. IYI A •Y; � A #i�. Al � 'a #.A. �t •; b :k i„'• 1! ..3 3,-t#i s'` "q#':3;3. —:a4 . b# #,•^ia; t R ar p e;.77 7,a•a "w w 9 -A fto• : a $ m • i $ e ..e: a • !k a ! ,� xa :.,n A �r.s r= •' # -k � � � !1 OC 6 • ! � a < �Ati # �t t' air.. «,-F.. :. m•, $; eILA t 2=71i L*I$ L*RVA s i'R s ak• a 4 A 4 0 r.'"'..,a A• d. @ }" t @ @'. F � 1': R .. � F 4' - R t- 7@}: � F A R �.@ R R �:I @ :.lk:• l.;TC A ifpjr ,@ .b;R ',R:t) a 6 :3 iR F+ Rle { F> .tF @ it ^rig i' #✓1 #`` ! A 0 ! gw",# - M#9h,fE€x $ £i,»ilRb's t'Si :{ ig � •Sb$ .4;9 x�- s;;. {� ', 8;♦. f ae#- '� 7-'. t, •t. 2 ter #I t '� � � �B # AXe : x i ?-A00.t. $' i t •• �f F _ M 8 1. A-4i 61 • $.B.a #di, S 4 i t � A�. ..•s i - - :� � !� # 4 F.O.. # AM;• •a f � i � �$:: k�.^i 6}-�I$•.! 1dc=ani..' d':. S x"t.. asd .='i�6 arS a xa • - a i a e s i r m. a a R • ' A.. • i to R � :•.:d 'O` $ =# . _ f .. d, . O?' 'f' O k �t8i.; <..1:. O! .O f ,f .;.,y .Oji •�:. 7c• � tt �. tr :f;:;. • f:S' ;1 i "!�, ��• 'O i a k • O. • d:d F d P �P f a ! d •,r.,. s • k.Y;'.as R Y." -„.t�:' rR � �ils'2td 44 €Pt$�R�i"at �F"' wRX"1; ''7� EPRp ;*i�# $ � • •;; a Ail 1� k PJRPM all ax ia=eaja.I,=T*17 77 • $• �'.. 9 • :$ k O P • R ;jar.Y^ �{ k� �T31••AI I:. a,_� :,, f d f d;: {� 4 a k a k d • ,Y _ f a e � ry � � •.;, � � 'a � :. ., '.0 8s_.a ' f � k -a ; ,.., ..� :. •♦. � � is ' "'� ".K #NIB: li .,air -yrs.,.. •wl� i t ♦ I'. -1 '4. 1'i ry 3 :tet $ 11 • a •' h. y E � �kr� ♦ lw t d is l�dB.,; kt = � ,tzk ;.,•S k�k tp t I'd as t a a n♦it; • • r • • • a • • s is • r _ ♦ :'f !F " t � • • t,.; a ' s^ # y; a ♦:: t t. ' a' .' i .;o s-;. f .:'• # #s,: �Y! i .. s :,A cf<, z� alms#� .k ar. sig- • • - � to a: ! e • ,. t;. �..• # '..iY :,s d f ,r a t : 4;a� - 'a:' to a � # e • ,• � •. .... _ _ _.._... ... _ __ ....... ............................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................. _ _ _ __ _ _._..... ......... ._....... 'ROM :THE L1YRO COMPANY FAX NO. :925 254 5299 May. 28 20M 01 s 45PM P10 and we apprisclate the effart putrsrward by County staff, particula Ey Patrick Roche; and the consulting, team at , adiCul�l�t Josh Ta user; We lock forward t4 seem®.the response to comffmts am C, t, our work with the County, A.I.A. and lrfwasted ne l0hbors as we mom ahead. vary respectfully submitted, Wyrfl Attachments: Ber4uugar GeotSchnical Consultant's letter dated May 19, 2003 Zander Associates letter dated May 79 2003 Cc: Mr. and urs. Dave Humphrey Mr and:N Bill Humphray Mr. Jeff Thayer, Davidon Homes MOW D IR ltr ffinal ....... :............. «. ,..... , , ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ZOM :THr= UYRO COMPANY FAX NO, :925 254 5299 Mag. 29 2033 01:45PM P11 BGC BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL Via Facahnfle and Mail CONSULTANTS May 19,2003 Job No.2561000 Mr.John Wyro The Wym Company 40 Valley Drive 01i'lida,California 94563 Subject: Comments on Geologic/Gootcohnical Aspects of T)mft-EM Humphrey Property Stone Valley Road A 14ino, Contra Costa County.California Dear Mn Wyro: This letter presents our comments on the geologic and gefftchnical aspects of tine dra-ft-EIR. for the Humphrey pmperty, located an Stone Valley Road in the Alamo area of Contra Costa County, California. Berlogm- Oeotechnical Consultants (BGC) previowdy perform-ed a. gcotcchnical investigation of the Humphrey property for the proposed residential development and summarized out findings atuircoommen"ions in a report dated August 23, 2001. Wc have reviewed One document titled Draft Environmental Impact Reporiffir the HumphreyA-opem EIR, Contra Cosia County Community Development, dated March 2003. We have two comments on the geologic/ geotechnical aspects of the draft EIR, Below, we quote the relevant pardons of the dTaft EIR in italics, and follow each with our comments. From Page 4-1-16 to-17 of DEIRt Khtgation Measure Goo-l(b) To address the shallow dW),,*s of landslide debris in the hillside ravine areas along the north and westsides of the site(Landslides A. 8 and D), well-ora fned 6unressfills shall be earatrueted and founded In the firm bedrockmaterialt underlying the hillsides. Phe buttresses shatl be ofsufflcient depth and size so as to provide adequate lateral support to the&PSIPPO area, Th0fiftaldosignand configuration of the bunress fills shall be based onfinal eonlIguration of the graded lots and an engineered slope stabil4y analysis. S on ft north and west sides of the site are to be This mitigation is unclear, as it implies all slope provided with fill buMmes, it appears the mftigaflon is meant to reiterate the recommardati cma on page 9ofBOCs 2001 report,under the heading Cuts E;q*s fngColluvium.BGC's recommendation$ are thit colluvium mcposed in cut slopes will warrant remedial treatment;remedial treatment Should include complete removal of a portion of the colluvitun in the cut slope,or removal ofthe colluviurn and rep] 'titles -acementwith engineered fill. Colluvium is the unstable surficialM idesoilthatma: ta most slopes to a depth of a few feet. We believe the mitigation meaSstcd in the draft EIR UM as should be made clearer and more aligned with the BGC recommendations. We also believe that 1.N0#1NFPR1N(*v GFOLOWSIS * ,11;SUKOL ROU.M.MM 4 fftt-ASANTON,CA I-Iol"fi 484-0.V a FAX,M25)846-1)645 ...... ................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ROM :7FE WYRQ COMPANY FAX NO. '925 254 $299 May. 28 2003 01:45PM P12 May 19,2003 Job'No. 2562 000 Page 2 engineering si4pc Stability anaiy�es are not warranted in this instance,since mitigating c011uvi"m in out sippcs xn�rvlves very rrnttine srnalt-s ►Ie remedial grading efforts. From Page 4.3-18 of DEM mitigation Measure Geo-2(h) RelatiuclY urtifarm soil corsditlons shall'be achiever'ucr€�.ss,pad€areas. This can be cavvoir�nlxshcd by overexeing the areas underlain by the native soil materials and replacement with new Compact dd ill.; The d'ept'h of the required over-excavation would be dependent upon the actual el3 erer dal thickness of the new compa t€d fill placed'drfirang gracing; but It is expecreci that 3 to S fest +oscld ba required liis rni alio is imclear,as it implies all differential fill ttlickncsses should be elinunatr:cl. We believea r gatian mere in the daft€IR should be more aligned with SOC;'s (2001, P. 11) rectm�n datic n under the heading Cut/Fill 1`ransitkin Lot Treatment: '1*0 Provide,a relatively uniform-subgrade to support house fund-ttions,the cut portions Q!'cut/fa11 transition lots should be overexcavated'about 3 feet lwlow de,fiign pard grade and replaced with enginmred ED—. f you have any questions regarding this letter,plea. give us�t+call. Respectfully suboult d; ti4� Blul�r.o � �r. �xN1C i1 5bN'SULTA GRc# FrankJ.Groffie ', Fp4C1Nl Principal GeologistGEG4QQ13'T .� RG 4930,CEG 1539 AIN. .f ar .y SCE 20838P � 7CsIFl3:ijglpv _ u,, ;,a3 Cop ies': Ade s9ee> 6 J ' _ bavid{>xl Homea., .�� Attention. Mx, f eff 8yer dk Amciates (T A temido . NTS; Andrew Palffjr wp9t14t13146 BERLOGAR +GEOTECHNICAL. CONSULTANTS .. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................... ?0M -THE UYRO C FAX NO. :925 254 5299 May. 2e M3 01:46PM P13 ZANDER ASSOCIATES May 7,2003 Jeffrey Thayer Davidon Homes 1600 South Main Street,Suitt 150 Walnut Cred;CA 94596-5394 DEIR Comments 11timphrey Property Alamo,Caffonds Dear Jeff'. I have reviewed the Draft Environmental lnqmt Report prepared for the Humphrey property and have the folio wing comments with respect to the discussion on biological resources Comment 1.General: The report does not address potential habitat for the federally- and,state- listed threatened Alameda whipsnake(ManYcophis tater a&eurymmthus). Them are recorded occurrences of Alameda whipsnake(AWS)within five miles of the Huffy Property and potentially suitable habitat for the species in the northeast comer of the site where there is a small patch of Diablan.sage scrub. As a result. Zander Associates recommended that Swaim Biological Consulting conduct a site assessment to dtftrmine the potential for AWS to occur on the property and to ev"te pmject effects. The site assessment was conducted in July 2002 and a report was prepwed in Septentbat 2002. 11e assessment concluded that itis likely the Diablan sap scmb in the northeast comer of the property provides habititt for the AWS. However,because tido proposed development is a minimum of 2,000 feet from this habitat„it is not expected to have a significant impact on AWS habitat or result in any further fragmentation of AWS habitat, To avoid any potential take during construction, the assessment recoinmen&the following measures: 6 Have a monitor present during initial clearing of veptation. 0 Erect an exclusion fence outside of the northern limit of grading. 0 Have an education program for contractors working on the site. The discussion of Alameda whipsn4kc and the recommended avoidance measures should be incorporated into the DEIR and the Swaim report should be reftenced. Comment 2. Page 4.6-7. Wetland Vegetation: This discussion is confusing and does not accurately describe current conditions. 1507a—rd Way. &i& 101, Novato, c.4 p4945 telephone(415)897-8781 fay(41 5)897-0425 .......... ....... ...... ...... ........................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 'ROM :THS WYRO COMPAW FAX fel. .925 254 5299 May. 28 2ee3 Oi=46PM P14 JCftBrThayer May 7,2003 114E 2 Zander Arsocfateu The wetland delineation completed by Zetttnerand Zentner in 1997 identif,ad four wetland areas on the IRumphreyNoperty potmdally subject to U.S.Army Corps of F-ngineers'(Carps)jurisdiction(Arm A, B, C and D). The Corps asserted jurisdiction OD y over Area A. Since 1997,Ama C was modified Slightly and Area A,was completely removed for'conatrnction of art access road to the adjacent development project: As<a msult,there are no longer any&rear on the property subject to Coxes jurisdiction. Carps staff ccmfinned this during a site visit on December'3, 2002. Seasonal wetland grasses continua to be supported in Area C and in Area I3,which was constructedas a dilfing basin for water entering the ornamental pond and was also used as a stack pond. Comment 3; Page 4.6-13 Mitigation ri#asepre Bion-2: 1"hc pre-construction survey area for nig birds should be expanded to include grasslands that will be distad. The California Mused lark nests in grasslands. Therefore, the pre-construction nest survey should include all areas where trees will be removed as well as grassland areas that will be graded or used for equipment staging. If you have any questions regarding my comments,please call me. Sincerely, Leslie Zander Principal Biologist cc: Jobn Wyro,The Wyro Company ....................................... ................................................. REspomSE To ComKaKTs/Ftr4AL EIR Cmpirm 4-.CommEuTs AND RespoNsEs B=PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS LETTER BI.- THE WYRO COMPANY BI-I The information contained on the Appendix N map dealt with the acreage to be removed from Williamson Act contract. This figure noted that only the land associated with the residential development would be removed from Williamson Act contract. This acreage information is available on existing figures. See Chapter 7— Response Figure 2(24 acres residential development,and I acre detention basin). BI-2 Comment noted. This clerical correction appears in Chapter 5. B 1-3 Comment noted. Chapter 5 reflects this description. B 1-4 Comment noted. Chapter 5 reflects this language. B 1-5 Comment noted. Government Code section 51282 is reproduced in Chapter 5,and the reference to applicable regulations is made. BI-6 The clarification presented in this comment can be found in Chapter 5. See Master Response 5. BI-7 Comment noted. See Master Responses I and 5. The Williamson Act issue of public interest is currently noted in the main body of Appendix N. Further clarification on this issue is noted in Appendix N,under the applicants' February 5,2001 and September 12, 2002 letters. BI-8 This clarification is noted in Chapter 5. See Master Response 5 (Agricultural Resources). BI-9 See Master Response 5. This sentence is re-worded. See Chapter 5. BI-10 See Chapter 5. The first comment from Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants(BGC) has been incorporated into the mitigation,revised in Chapter 5. The second comment from BGC was adequately addressed by the mitigation measure noted in the Draft EIR. BI-11 See A6-1. BI-12 See A6-1. BI-13 See Master Response 8. BI-14 Only native trees would be required to have mitigation for replacement. Non-native trees are valuable for habitat purposes,and should not be removed during nesting season,yet they do not require specific mitigation measures for replacement. BI-15 The information presented by the developer indicates that transplanting may be feasible. A letter from the Valley Crest Tree Company is included in this Final EIR. 4.33 ........ ......... ......... _.. _....... _. _ RESPONUITOCOMMENTSAFINALEIR CHAPTER 4:CommmTs Ano Et spc+rtsss (Chapter 7) Paragraph d of Mitigation Measure Bio-3.d is deleted,and paragraph a has been amended. See Chapter 5. BI-16 CEQA states that the baseline will normally consist of circumstances as they exist on the date the NOP is issued. At the time of the NOP,and at time visual simulations were created for the Draft EIR,the development of Stone Valley Oaks was not visible from this viewpoint. B1-17 See BI-16. B-18 Comment noted. B1-19 The text corrections can be found in Chapter 5. The use ofR-15 standards does not change the impacts determined in the environmental analysis. B1-20 The text corrections can be found in Chapter S. B 1-21 The text corrections can be found in Chapter S. BI-22 The clarification about no wetlands currently on the Project site can be found in Chapter 5. No wetlands will be removed as a result of the Project. B1-23 See response to BI-22. 4-34' 7,814 eb U3 Ub 34p LMER -2 ALAMO OAKS HOME-OWNERS ASSOCIATION may 28, 2,003_ Contra Gaeta county Comnunity, Developrrrerrrrt Advanced Plameing Division Patrick Roche,Principal P 0"ner 6St Pine Street,4*'l=loor. North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re.Public Comment for tf*Krarrphr+ey Property Draft:'Environmental I~"ct Repcart(DEIR) Dew Mr. Roche; I am writing on behd of the Akm Oaks Homeowners Assocloiahregarding,the above' referenced Graft Ernrtronmehtal Imparct Report(DETA). After much review of this doerur ent,the following item ars submitted for further review. The GER dots not' :specifically address Indeteti ii a n mdw of art"and some of the ita,ras stru ied use inforamttion that appears in d4cureatc Also,I rtiquestthat consideration be giventi to re- circulate the.(bEW for r*+i*w after each iters has btehmddressod. Agriculture _ 'Wiilfaerha n Act Cobb 'Ca"Wiean -Mitigated Measure The DEIR should address what'much needed housing to the Contra,Costa regions."to being provided. `-he reference to the County reports th at.idmtifies specific hoWrag bend.! should be intitaded and which of that specific housing needs Bare being addressed. B24 Affordable housing is tort o ossedl in he types of housing,or prop" that is being cons!de d in#hitt diicumot. Another statement In the Agriculture mitigated,measure is"The project is consistent with applicable Contrera Costa Countyregulations ns and guidelines.' `1"hes land Use Policies,County scrt+i Pliarra L0 i U' .sandpolie ies'- eraesrral�+�ltetlici - i states that` xlirly r"ide0flal� ghb sa<O shall be.prote.+e"ted air Ccaralpcatiblet level a set"eared traffic'terr+ete#t tr , 1 s+ r i ;at+ ado s." The new development, Stene that e l star this pe o4, is . int- ti; Q vttlo t lot that 006 l+r s WOW B2 square:feet erre incm"tlble with ft land'use i4lentiffed Stone Volley utak& Specifically tuts 12 i3, 14, M,16«end 17 arr'ee amt co iMle with f Stone Valley aks+derniop mt An ImIt"notive pim should be reviewed than dmils vxn0lieance With the 6emeral Plan Policiss. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ad 26 03 05;34p P.-3 Another statement in the AgritullUre mi#i #"d a re is> i!► ro;�'t ar+ i # #;ori# applicable Contra Costo County reegula#ions and guidelines." The Land use Policies,County SwWal Plan Land Use Galls and Policies General Plan Policies-l ide fiat U statesthat'New housing projects"I be lor4#e+c3 On stableand secure lan&or shall be designed to mitigate adverse:or potentially adverse conditions. Residential derootlesof conventional construction shall generally decrease as the,r4tural slope increases." Fes.project proposes decrease a sl ifie:cvet amount of grading that eliminates natural slopes eand plants/trees. "Gids is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the tetra a osta County raqulations and guidelines.-A 1 eel#ernesfive plan should be revift"d that.details the pro4ect in q.way that minimize$grading on na#ural scopes and provides for conventional construction'ion that generally decrease as the natural slope increases. Another statement in the Agriculture rnitigctted sneaetur:<is'The project is consistent with applicable:Contra Cas#a county regulations and guidelines." The Land Use Policies.County ceeneral Plan Land'Use and Poli�i s,.pert+ l l' Pol ciees-l' C. ni 1e M glaerkha>sk Aceta,states that*Deeveele��t%tt shall bre reviewed to unsure the Corrtir ed rural CharoctIV of thee areae." "his pre dee t preepases ea signif lean#amount of B2 ling in a small area(speicifically lots 1 through 11 visible from 5tone;Yailey Road,a parking facility and significantly altered terrain and docs net reflect rural Characteristics. An alternative pleat should be resviettns l that d:rtOlk fihe pro jeect in a way that provides for rural character by providinglarger lOts,sts�allW'"'" ets and,use of thee rxistirtg#esrre:in. Another statement in#he:<Agri+ €}#urea retitigext+ed ire t`s The peaeynsisteuxt with applicable Contra Costa County regulations gt�e�elsnes;g "lite:Land Use Palicie.s.county 6ernerral Plan Land Use Goals and Policies- Sn+eral PlanPolicies- states that"i tis am priontt projects shall balesrIto minimize`e#tun�e s,to significant trees and other visual landrmarks! The grafi to igreificanfly alter the t*rrain and the B2_5 removal of a heritage type,oak tree does not meet thi$policy. Art alternative,plan should be reviewed to detail the project in a way to leave the Dalt treer an the higher par#of the terrain. ''NM. TtnesaepartatIo"wd Cttukftet-MIN sled Measure The traffic stud lees not take into account tht irtrota€se traffic levels preal4cted by the SR fUSb for now high s+d�oai students that will attWW Monta Vista I" gh xe:hciol from►new , r+esirletttiu!developments near,the glacielrrk cur�+ea. Chet traffic studies should be redoneto include this impact - Ille ietepctert of a sigYmOzed t swallc'frc thess par dreg lot area to the main scheooI grounds should havean att0hatit design. I'hex traff ig study does tte>#a lrlreers the lex tet of pimple that do not obey the cryasswall<siding preie:sed�s crass at #heir own l�ci«suret. An - ornate design'far a tel ar a bridges fio;ser the;parldng seat acrd main school grounds should be provided, an the impact Ar�ditiarialiyf rm asltee:�tuetee deimpactof net allowing turns uta red lights should be s#udieed, smeof the infort6t+ ut6d'fcl gwtifilttr*ff'c howrs in specific arms is quest ionable. �e projv,ted traffic from this IWN deeveloprt ent Eutween 1:30 a rr►.#�W. a�is projected'to be more than thy.tra�ffief roM.the Akmv*O*ksori ewd the Stores VeMey Oaks area. Bath of these arras have more hcw"thm the proposed devel�ment,;but the B2��i de lopmnt has apro cted use�r tear that hes two are". �e traffic study should'be redone with acc trate irtfortna#ia t trxltert during real time uses: 'Traffic counts should,be taken during times of expected normal use during the s oat year,not ho ar dors when school is not in session, Noise-Mitigated Measure An alternate tot,limit the construction hours of the t ew development to week days:only and apetify how it is deter�d which h,alidr� �t�oorh is prohibited>should bo prepared and B2-9 considered: SR1f V5b Znfor"Otloh The t)EIR has minims informationfor the de"Oopn►eEe, of the school districts det eioptt r t Of the 10.6 cog area proposed:for park!%and 3octer fields, S�ce the soccer fields etds are a B2-1 public benefit more information should be included that accurately detaits the benefits to and for thecomtmunity,, `link frau for your,consideration of these matters and for co► ideng re�-circula�tircg the (ISI:11k)for rev!**after a item has bow addtes" ifYom+have questio"or coir ents ltasecontact'me at(925)837-lam7. tf Z din ft*t aw lablc please i+eave a MtSO96 with your respon te. r greatly appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. r Vanr►te Phillip President,Alamo Oaks Homeowners Association 229 Smith Read Alamo,Cit 9417 (925)837-5487 RgsPONsE To COMMENTW1NAL Ells CHAPTER 4:Ct3MMENTs ANo ftsmNsEs LETTER 82: ALAMO OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 132-1 The Humphrey development is not proposed for low income housing. Data can be found in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR that notes the recent and continued growth of Contra Costa County which relates to additional housing being needed.As noted on the ABAG website(http:!/census'.aba ca.�€sv/l istoricallc2M 18602000.ht )Contra Costa County is,and has been one of the fastest growing areas in all of the Bay Area (approximately 18%). With this increase expected to continue,the demand for additional houses will continue in the County. B2-2 The Project is consistent with policies cited in the comment. Lots of different size can be adjacent to each other and still be compatible. This occurs throughout Alamo, as well as Contra Costa County. The lot sizes for the Project range from approximately 15,000 to over 39.000 square feet. The Project provides a reasonable transition in density between Stone Valley Oaks and Monte Sereno, As noted in the Draft EIR,the Project would not generate traffic that exceeds adopted service standards. See Master Response 1. B2-3 For safety and aesthetic purposes,grading would be needed for the Project site. The Project site has been placed on the flatter and moderately sloping portion of the Humphrey property to avoid conflicting with County General Plan policies. B24 The proposed 39 unit residential development is consistent with densities of the surrounding existing developments. The design of this Project is consistent with developments currently along Stone Valley Road. With the development avoiding the hillsides$the overall rural character of the region would be retained. Information from the SRVUSD>indicates the SRVUSD component will not be developed with largestructures. 132-5 Some trees will have to be removed due to the grading required on the Project site None of the trees on the Project site currently have heritage tree status,and therefore do not warrant any special consideration. There will be substantial landscaping introduced onto the Project site after Project completion. The 39 unit residential development will conform visually with the developments that are currently along Stone Valley Road to both the east and west. 132-6 It is difficult to predict where future students will cone from,therefore trip generation beyond a certain distance is purely speculative. The traffic study prepared by Abrams&Associates,and reviewed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants incorporates the intersections that these experts determined were appropriate for study,and reflected the geographic area of non-speculative impacts of the Project. Increased traffic counts are used in the cumulative plus Project portion of the traffic discussion. As noted in the comment letter from the SRVUSD,the population at Monte Vista High School is expected to drop after the year 2007. 82-7 It is speculation to predict how many students/pedestrians would cross Stone Valley Road illegally. By providing a designated crosswalk for protected crossing,the situation is substantially improved over what currently exists(students parking on the shoulder of the road and crossing with no crosswalk). 4-36 �... m.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................... RESPONSE To COMME14TS/fINAL E1 C14APrER 4:COMMENTS AM RESPONSES B2-8 It would be reasonable to conduct the traffic analysis using much lower Project trip generation rates,as this commenter suggests. However,the County has determined to do a conservative analysis. The reasons for projecting a higher trip generation rate for this Project are as stated in the DEIR and,in the Traffic Appendix. Traffic counts were taken on a day when school was in session(a finals day,when all students were required to attend), B2-9 Construction work would not be conducted on weekends,or national holidays. B2-10 See Master Responses I and 2. The public benefit of the school playfields isnot an environmental issue that must be addressed in an EIR. The comment will,however, be presented to decision makers for their review. 4-37 ... ___ __ .. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _._... ........ ......... ......... O'3 38'-#003 G s 2P 1 F0i-shuts. 91hafx d inbtr r UP, +41 UM11I T-681 P-002 F-45 LETTER ATTOR lys AT LAS: .z4zmgwvxs#v`c,.kip, 306,4AYatib WratMY JffiKfNetT M. DNtAX M+►ikK i.fA(C10111e46Ck! SAN rXAMCa$4G. +�>►e,lere3ttetelR MANi4Yi�iA G• MTatId1C k�tXA!C O. Mk#4iY.;O.C. 64I41t44CW D.ZINN TIRAN M, LAYT*i" 1`CLC!"tiilAktt> 14 a W 041-7z7z eA7retaia) C. eMoercl o teAe,'NK1.el: HObiriCR P'XCiakMtl.lCi {.gtl5:a �a5k.*.,S�ll>!'3 [pt►f'PI'�ta4M . itiL�N„t. iS�kk�eltta>R GfFiM:31Y f7,TAY4gli www.;aNWI.Aw. C014ikw7T�ttW Ct.:kte4t�� it66i84N 1`411.:# LAkiRlCi&. tMf►&"k°C. A.ik,'F� ..,. ftE+aklxc#tCs''s.Tarzatt caAwkti:«.k, iNcsiRp 1M>Lf.kA1DR�. WkRf'k'4 .1k1f,tN r�wirrRi RAeAEe�r at. meir,lwurrat3 ^R@41MAY 28f 2,003 LiSiA f:. LLtXr+4Eiet'f'ai.M...1,1QiT,GS 1111tTA14.).JO#t0S 1* @wrri'o�Atirti JAtkt$t'tf C. �C1tu!< ekA�4rNxx. Patrick Roche Contra>Costa CoUntY Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Stir,4thFloor- North Wing Martin=,CA 94553 Qmzats gn,& -ftegern Unp K&AMUM2RpLI'' ct Dear Mar. Roche:- We submit this letter of behalf:of the>T+ orate Sereno Neighborhood Alliance,an organization of residents formed to protect the quality of life,beaiiltb, and safety of the M(mte Staretxes:c+Dxnrntuxtity,;and to preventany now development that does not ae3tiportWith aatd Principles of land use planning. The Purpose of this letter is to provide to amen"to Contra Costa County on the&att Environme tal impact Report("DEIR")for the proposed Humphrey Property Pro t{uumpbre:y Inject"err"Projesct")and to inform the County that the document fa►iis to comply with the re4uioements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA?% Public Resources Code 121Of3t o aand the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of ,Re dations,title. 14, 151 ("CEQA Gui delince"'j The EIR.for this proposal should be:of the highest quality,Siving both decision. makers the public a full oppo tauity to uudetrsund and analyze envitonna+ciantal;repercussions of the Project. Unfortunately,the DEI t FIs entirety to live up to this mandate and vzer1fiteat the minimal standardsof adequacy under R QA. :T'be'docunmt's'curtailed,approach't+ environmental review is best exemplified by its fUilure to adequately describe the proposed Project Rather than provide:a clear picum of what the Project would look t*0 upon cowpllmort, the DBS e'tm'ita>fundamental facus and:details necessary to evaluate the Project's i parm on the<sutro+ ac g community. Apr ne:Jpaal comp ouent of the PJeCT is the acquisition of a 10.+6-afire'portliorn of the 0ite by ft San koro Val-toy Unified Schoo, l District("SRVUSD") for use as a 400-space:parte;tint and'%ci es athleticfie hd. 'T"be bowr-acrea*ing lot, Which $bM$aoomwouborderwitbd3tMo%ttSe=oneigbborhood and the athletic field would :::...,:,,,�. ...................... ...> ..... ....... :..... ............... �Ott ,,,,:. ..<.>: .. G6_ZB-2till3 fl2 I3p�l Fl !•Shute, Mihaly I Wiloltraet w. +sl lil42 816 1' 88 p.003 F-454 Patrick Roche May 28, 2003 Page 2 certaiuly impae;t nearby residents. In dire violation of CEQA,the HEIR.astonishingly admits that a specific development program fbT this component of the Project bas not yet been defined The DEIRR's discussion of the Project's environmental impacts is also characterized by glaring omissions and conclusory statemetints ensu ortCd by substantial evidence. For example,the DBIR falls to acknowledge that the Project's impact on agricultural resources connizates a significant and unavoidable impact. As will be explained below, there simply is no compelling argument that an emergency situation exists that would merit the early cancellation, of the applicant's Williamson Act Contract. The DEIR. also fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the drainageand hydrological impacts that would occur as a result of the substantial topographical alterations of the Project site. The DBIR's trairic analysis is similarly deficient,ignoring a significant impact at the nterse►ctioa of Green Malley load and Stone Valley Road. With regard to traffic safety, the DEIR improperly focuses exclusively on the traffic safety for residents of the proposed subdivision, and not on the''far more hazardous situation arising from the hundreds of additional students having;to cross Stone-Valley Road every weekday morning and.afternoon. Disregarding established case law, the GEIR's noise: analysis docs not include a examination of single event noise impacts, thus failing to provide an accurate view of the substantial noise impacts of the proposed Project. Equally troubling is t'hc applicant's apparent failure to identify impacts and obtain necessary permits prier to the draining of the Project sire's 2.5 acre goad. Moreover, the biological resources analysis fails to disclose that the site may provide suitable habitat for the Alameda Wh ipsnake,a state and federally.listed endangered species. Finally, the DEIR does not provide a:legally adequate analysis of alternatives w the Project,as required by CEQA. Only two<alternatives are set'forth in the DEM and even these alternatives appear to have'been set up for rejection on the grounds that neither would achieve the project objectives. A remised draft EIR roust be prepared to remedy the DEIR's many de ftciemcics. Only after circulating a corrected document can the public,decision-makers and the affected agencies be adequately informed of the euvirournontal repercussions of the Project, L THE DEIR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH TIDE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A. The D-ZLR Evils to Adequately Describe the Proposed Project. ....... __. __ _..._ ___ ...... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ INS-2003 U.- TWIN ss WIWY Z Wa€nber r LLP. +4100816816 T-581 >P.QNA21 HSA Patrick Roche May 29, 2003 Page 3 A clear and'compreheos v'e d ription of Ihe pr,jest being propgsed forpprt vol is critical to m�eaninSful public Mview. As tie+�ourt of Apgea�has a plained��� � accurate, stabte fxtite Pr � caripxionstheif#o nrxr�o ata ixuEormauve and lcgalEy st+ tcit EXR_" a 71 tt-1.App 3d 1854 192 {l97 }, The pro} d tion cont din a HUM*eY�l tY DEEP.f Is:to with this legal standard, Rather thrur providie>an accurate and poinple to v t w of the Pyr ct by which=00i:b of the public> pwposa and decision A y bal z� ce the, l $ efK aS; st its am tncnt cast the lElt's curtailed prtj+ t � st��the objectives.of CtA�a reproting process. ?hoFi1l def th�z 'rCsc as brsth the %a1;canccllatic�u of the Williamsoh B � Act contract and a Sp Ified Alterative Laid P ropossrl �h calls for�e daveYc�pme�att of23- acre pQrtiar►of,the.l um reY n1 fore 30i, sitsgle-f. nrly residential svbt ivisYcc�usa aril e development of s patl +r►g tat a +d atlozs to'soe tlse blame"U"tt�t li 5chrol. bEl at 8.1. The pto*t,ahO appareOy'iucludtd p�reser�ta�ott of'tbe rcraa ►iog acreage ref the Humphrey pxnpetty as open space. Thus,as tha Project U's t Me s+�parate,cox�a�ponents, each must be described i sufficient detail to provide an agate view of what the Project wotxicl look like ifappr wed. As d cussed below,the DEM"s discussion.of these campvn�cnts is sorely deficient. TUDEIROMW impo In st #+� m►at on R la1 to th+e SRVUgI'i P'ra�ect�cynpanent�` Of critical concernis tltc Zl *sctpltc failure to<d+ssrrlc tCe 'KYCT component they project. The DEER states that a 1{I 6=ate portion of the Humphrey I►zvpat + May be pursed by SRVU SD:and dayclop., with a 40�-spac+c parking lot and athletic 1�e1r1. Rather th!►n prOvu array spCC 'lrr de to isr �r'aot!as to p1s $ 1�t l '� xoin4`ly $Sears *at sp SD dries not have specific soilioea for t o�dxe parl�ia an sports facilities and thhat the devaloprOn't could resemble sim lar cilities at ear,SRVUSD 10c Pus DEIR., at 3.10. The docMeUt does uot�however,present 11a intotmadon relating �ue�, � l is desc be the rax er in w&ich the Pzojoct wo�xld''rescrnble these tse sxmuat f Cortrsrlr vc�CCA's rruixerents that sn Elly.tics- ta a cieaac and vcfiTeh�ivc desrciptxon of, the Project,this is alae c�j oTAplete. lnasrn=h as the parld o lett would be developed along Stone vaUW R'O&d,a' desgnat+8d sec route,and be acac�to a lumber ni�laz�mc$ "tea Monte Screrce� lei hbcrh d,the document must'c0:ftUiU appropriate ettua , dem and-o in#'ormatian. Would thcxe, ►ar OXAA .be a developed truly be re�Czs the nes ghbc�cing res der►r al A= d the parkinglad What could a the lae ds pe ueatmout? What',sc up, if*ny.would exist between 60 ping Jot and the adJa�sent residuetial r�igitib�rr�tc�n ? � Id *20-200 121"M FPS SWty Mihaly 11 4 3"i"It MIS F-048/421F-914 __. Patrick Roche May 29,2003 Page 4 the parkins tat be used at, t? Would it be:fenced and lit? If$o,W119t r/p e Of fencin acrd ligh i g'? CEQA requires answers to these questiorts butt the pEIR Provides,tone. A similar ttbse cer of"deuil'cha acterises the:proposed sthku .SeldM While rhe DPJR montiOns that the SPOtu field h""some pr tentisly'foy weekend.and avoni'ng Ute, wacertsinty regarding the extent of this use i�trate�s'thet GI-QA process. Whether the f old is available for u ou S.><mdsy mor gs,for exarm ple,is essential itr�fozmatiam fart tiny residexts flow onc"tly would the field be used on weakd&Ys,we0kCuds and*`CnniUgs? What=Soly wrould be its hours of tspexatuan? Who exactly uses the field? Sunhat re;strictioas on taco would be iustitutctl to protect the neighborr�ng xesitdcnts'peace and enjoyment of their hcrirtmts? 'what liftg t nee:�><r t fated,if any? What type of s+auu�d aMlaliScatiaa syatc ,i if so, hat therro be;portable Or amplified sound.? ''dill pamattent be tonst�rtcted and i�so,what will bea to sesda capacity? Without those detait%s it�imposs;<'bl+a frar me tors v�t�€e pu�►lic axrti docision-mks W CiVectively umlerstand and met a ere;item of the beet. "The rovind 1,Z iR should provide a co ptprrehe Live d crip n of the SRVU D component cal 61S f' ect. . The De:scrr iou of:tlf�te�'prerPase d #*�ipaere Use �nsoff ie.�t. The DEIP,is equally ambiguous as to the: ultimate fate of the Project's d3-here$of "rretaioed"operas space. The documeut states gist flu paruou flf ft ptope not subject to the Williamson Att(;awellation ore ecquiliffou UYSX USD would a tbarr retain.the CXU:: Ag�ri�cul l l aacls de: ig tiem ar rhe ted+rffii ted lbdn Space. OEM at -1�. of course,ets - demonstrated by this project,the mere a lPmem of a g crarl plan►degsigasrion or a coning cate,goly does nof' g to ensure permsneUt peOteclio;a of baa ce laird$from future desvelc►p mcut CN et can mid nc�a vydaac a irtt they DBIX that x i00 ti3 1.acus,would be pre rued'rg' p ►etcty aspera apace. if the Fara,�eet tnrrty ittclydes Preservation of this gam of etre prOF �the land should be set aSW it a coasearvatitin 0a6cme nt or some s imiilst laud preservation toot, The reviserd' 31~ll should reveal thea a rropa tte conservatiolftltoot *1114iug The meta Vmevt agencies that would ultimately'"be,rrersp+ wNe for the.preserrvetion aid ttoartnte ace of this opera Space:. 'The docutta t must also address the issue>ofpublic access to this inginaged Op" hex. 3. T)Ic DescripUOU of tber Proposed RssldentW US0 In InsnM+tieut Although the DSIR focuses Almost+mus ve:ly on die nsiderrttial portion of the development,ervcn`tbk comportcut ofther prroject deMiption lacks sufficient detail. Rather than, B3 provide detailed design and mhiwetural information,*a DM relies on;,a sales of goneric and .................... __ ...._... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........ ......... ...................... .....__. _ 08-H-1003 02.2 Fw"Utai 141trair Wonbr str UP. 4413 IUM T-W P DOWI F-484 Patrick'Roche 14ay 29, 2003 Page 5 'a high level of excellence' in the design and intangible project objectives chx ling layout of the residcMt hal suEbdivis%n. 13�R at 3-9.. s b ect vc req uernent of design excellence,without a deem car i dscagiug>ia�pertly inadequate_ est would be the B3 ems, z ectiOnag maw types snd eolcexs, size,, rc5idcnces ahitcural dash ►feattes,roof + l far ce r es4 streetr'aape de m l dsc apin,tc ?.. Th e raviscd 1� t Srovida this important information, B. The DE Fails tto A,,d ,eat+ y I�iaelos+a ar Anialys�the Praject's S�lleant Impacts. CEQA r .incud refit a gond faith effort at ts lbat ab a 1p: deed,o pieta. . full disctosure. Coe of A G-sideline s I I S 151'. The docume'at shata�ld provide a su k'"ta $t analysis to nfoun the,public about.f p �"roject.As adverse MY'rOume l map a11t+w declass Ynakrs Coale �r tu C�'istsstt with this requ�ir+�tant to istgly ferrated csut. armation rragardin the grdjez t in be f 131 Ca1,App.3d 350,357 {19 2 f d;�ng EIR fbr a g r}plan.�dme nt inadequate where the documem dick not make clew the effect on thO physieal environment). tcanisrl rru 'lysis of i eEfustes ono of CFt, A's fundament puxpccs: $ - m"ud"om -the public sled resxlsle aids dr t&e nvittmErl ctznsequ�s ot`th►it' decisions before;they are made.,' ! Cal.4th 1 t t , I123 TO accomplish this pu cese, as SIR:muse c�fa nalyx ,amt jhsc as �a�`'s �ca lumy� n � V c,f'g �s+rra �5�,Cs1.3d 55 ,SCS 1994 . Nor its asst of impodWO environ men al i�ucts after pr+� +e t;is cydater approved: ess 2 c1. pp.3d'1% 306-07(19,g An lwtli.`s'const signs must be mpported by sabstotlal evid ce. `t 1 47 ULU 3 76,�4Q9 (1 m) A$ doemented billow, the t um xL with substsutial evidence its fails m;identipf"arty ,or cc fusions ragardirg the Projitct' sig ht en ix xumental impacts! 1. Tho DIM facorira� RelAes vers the County's A btUty tO'?4►ke the WiNUMSOa Act Find gs t+o Citnejude that A�aricutturs�l Impacts would: S+t Ia��tcant� Camttt Caahttt e+et:the W#Ua.mse .Act.hidings ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._ ......... .._....._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0 -28�2i1118 1)2-.M MV-Shutt, Mtha►ly & IslAorpr LPI• 44i $BuftIi : T-142 PAi17 Ul t-454 Patrick Roche May 29, 2003 page The Pro cct;a eludes a getita t as for-panial caucellation.Of aWilliamsgan Act la►cc if ntracs. 1 .at,�.1- . s ellat on of a Willin Act valwActMay,only p Co of the, ,Act;oar." � tltc cancel anon in he ( ) a cancellation is co�nsis tot nr dx tlae + �cancellation pubtic interest. It is opt t►that thele di ga cannot be m S&as tie p woultt abet neither of the criteria. The,Cowry is,rcqui%4 to make certain ftdings prior to a 4eteIaa131tiOn tbat caxtcellsitian is consistent: i x the puxposts of the Act Out of tlietse."�ditxgs is than lic�►ble pxn^�isious o the 'cancellation is for a>�"tslte�aativa �lii�is c+�istent tltc �send of s gcnaxal plan city or county general �aov'it Code 1 82a b► ) ame ►dan,mt.the Project is not oonsts"t� County' ' serial d r p is PIM no existingtamed ase - d g rt oaa on a portion of the property that is proposed f or n IhI Agrieultu�r�Land(AL). The County ca snos approve a res dead din ��1y �dential— perro of be project:site til the Comity redcsignatcs the laaad� Low Density(SL). The Project applicant into redly asset that a ��is consistent WithL. SL- 'the+Genual Ple►n be�<a�isolaud pardons of the Humphrey prog+sa y are already B3-6 DEM Appeaft V �villi Act l rndl€ngshi �Jon The fact th; t slier t the ity Ht Y property basvc a"Slent land apse des tiom is i cle nt to tha pct eMl(MPIgM nand c ctt p�open stated for+��ctre�'tont t is designatedas Ali i��e�on�ty�a� supportthe resid+euri l densi + pzopose;d bar tba Ptoject. pause then tesi��al �bdi rrisicsrt cc rnpones t of l' ject cone mplaced for land with an i ecompattbi+s lsnd use designation,the County cannot fn A bat the projt is a ti twith the fs Plsn. Cotts�%cptes��, tion of x to' illi��tmson pct co tract+ t t b d va�the zrounds that it consistent wt, th the purpose of the Act. Cancellation of they Williamson Act contract is also not in the public;"interest. T rc;q ahae t,a mat v=t be made tett other public coatCOMS suhsantjsiiy ontw+sigh the objtouve s of[the Williamson A41." Goer.Cade: 512132(a)(2). The 4evel46pW"t of a'hi - end res dcaetial stabdir iaa does not substantially Outwe b the:A:ct's wed-cs li ed objectives to pre ave *alt 1.and open space lands. While th*Partsjecs sppli ant boldly Suggests tat the deva 4At of a resldeaetial sAdIvision would save"a public Purpose via the acquisition of adjacent p �byR' 'llSr aalr proposed usaf}roS' by�RtUS'D is 3xzele�+arait+ fEIl.. Append iX No Ot'aft' itua mson�Irc�ftdin at 12. Asa putsli� age�cy�gR�l�SD itt►t bound by the requi�t`�of a oat Code soon$12,82, DEIR,at 4r l to a+�"aTsplicaztt seeks caxceellation ut#dea ` » 1 only fox the propod -axe residansiattbdssion►,,' findiar omy only bo based on the irate costs served by the devslo t oft IMICSideAtist pc>ron of the Project. ............. ........ ..................... .......''I'll''... .......... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4<bjnb&rvrIUF-,:: 44,105MI6 mis 0.Cowl F-04: Poitrick Roche May 28,2003 Page 7 tender the ellaii f aVillistason Act contract would easily early"at OV O iglwt: 110Losisli , tu"10:1r OC Of 1 cat3txttme 0 tm ft mes on -USP e Act ing,06Ctivt as &4=4 ld for 160940* 1,0% I :agneultmal laud in'retum 114 spa ami 14ailmovota Y.PTOMP 28 Cal 3d 840,355(1981) — under thenof, Moupt Djjtbl6:and aIOIAvI.de Buy Act. The' We Propetv's Uu*6 location at the opspace.en in addition, to its value 83 13ay Regional Park District OP :Mee loads conuribute thdUlow a scenic ridge- BY cOutrls'4 weScenic road" the ►Orty is 10C interest. Nor can find ho evidact that the:PMPO., longer dictates to Whe -1be,public,latcrC,Sk UO Can we And any evideme:Ofvnvma�gency si�� ,bee that the Ouvwbt,cononued, Now that. 61300 Ofmaw;;Oewal hay t issued, jjjjaon:Act P I st:�.t.WaltihozamrAl"qvixatioulof the Vm deveWpMent On the HUMOMY mcofty:am COSIAMM: tbo rrolect Woult Not b. Th Have$v, I cant 10040.ov:Atricultur. WOU14 have in Ih....the,0 YAMPOC -Ahe:proposedlroject aU". , iW The DEM it et Act, Of die:H=. Ohre ropeny,fro m an . shits W-I 11 -Rjk:fiU*er,I0t:ave that any jamt thOt To ipr,es covLtrICL DSIR.4.1-11 T)m D pigceconsidered siggificant and t1must have the, ar. *OASI :of Lmd from a Williamou Act eonlxi4, IMF Ca tic --7 umvoidable,Ude"tho county b4AW dthat etaminft, :Aht fm C daB3 Ateve b id 'A di �Mft............ ... Section 5)282 at met. F the T"SOM isc rand C46�t.CAL :tfae relawd-to 164:0f SfMz�, MeSE&ne findings. Asai*�! iisnin"aund=avoidable limpacL Nor,as Ocusse4below,do &a Of. 'I'm sates p b gated�to a less- &gyicUjturaj,mp*cts would protide mq AM=PC that These easth The Ili Follsto AAoqu*17 Idea tity,SUO Aa*ke F I* the:0 x4joption melaures:for the Apparc!IdYbecmalbt:� Md"th*0 kt)�.O.document des 110400g: gnoulmal I'And:11114mot Wim require project *iMptet, A ob 4,1,-Irl. 'at POUA a..Ya provide 4.11 Abtof, BJ-8 Dx,:: must idendf AM&A-00 MICAMe requiresmom, SOCcl, 1scd �,ttrrau per ti c, agrameats,or Othe di r legilly�bi :that are:;OlW,cv.:fiq**abIe CSQA Guide lftm StCtwu M quately AtkalYZe the WOW"Hydro"c9ly and 2. Tbt DTJR Falls to e Ara nage Impacts- ............ ................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 41-21-2003 02400 fk*Shvte, Mihaly hInJorar UP. #41 NS T-013 Place/021 $454 Patrick,Roche .May 28,2003 Pago 9 Impaeb to,Wxtsr Quaft AreNot FxIIY Andyzsd. ,t* fay i&ntjfyand anal yzelhe*Vacts on water auslitY ftm 1114 The DEIR fails on of proj Project"sCOXIStruction. The IPEIR correctly acknoWledges t:hIk!: :c0USVUQUthe- exC&va%ian* and that 9rOSi*A Of bei$011s,"Ad',MP'ot wectater would involve extensive.grading and ases associated with at 4.2-7.. The DEUL fWhU notes that Obanical Tele of water It also result in She release of pol1utsaw and the�degradation consuuction sctiv%eq 17 and idAilbt increased pollutant leading Oras quality. A, Wbil6 it acknowledgesIImpacts ftOm DEIR does not begin to RLWAY 10t quantify the expew epollumt loads the fto*T would merely asserts y SUT600 w.swsl wells,or 4;luifts,the DtM "Use. Without 1-41 "i�inx*Sib I . B3-9 arby surfacc water that the Proje=004 com'buxet tho"&WR494-011 Of WOW quality inuo - C UAV.M.- Ofled impacts.the DEIR*cells for the bodjes�- DEM at 4.2-1, Tomit*210*011 DEIR,at�4.2-1 0. While ,.rpOUfion.jmdPreveVtiOtL:P ISWV - preparation or a Storm W these the proposed SWppp outlines possible measures,the DEIR provides no*144:Otto:any of tot approval Of w&plans,-until aft::ft Deferring der prep fou:policies,permits Or P)AUS. rcnd+ the DBIR useless as sil WOT"602.0l document.,an4 defeux tea CUI A`sPuIP00e::Of wrtingdecis I ion-makers and the public to,enviromental imPacv wben 944"ItiOu in sures can still r be imposed and alt.1matives c0usidered. lMftM 202 Cal.App.34 at 166,07. b. Tke DIOR Falls to,Adequately Identify RA-d AAILIYU The Fro 14d*g Overatiftal IMPACM ilinvolvesProfect involves the leveling,of a 40foot b.M.Andthe fl ing of a large pond. - OTherehanstsinclude a 36400t deep gill= t xMWU9 in 91 S0-P0.Ot::s0U*facilig cat slape'du th 0 side of the I s h*,,aA4a2l40btA9 'hill=10SA1,14USIA a 60-foot tail eftt-fioil*slope of north gradim the f? 1R does not disclose thc.western,side of the stft. 'Desi thin UMOVC amount Of T%e,ntumj�dr * a 'nip tterns or pa snom:wbic1h is cssfttially at the common dna thele s slops:of the RUIAPbt*YVrOP0TtY to at"llerm'"M hIrd Oct boundary bttwftu the PWj0cVPr*Pe`rWand*6 Monte Sereno ne'Ob'Orhood. Althougjig -10 : - B3 runoff'-would drainlOward this SMAIUS and ad *eDFIP thus the silent as to potential downstream imPacm The DEULdisclosesIhO substantial ingtesse 'a runoffff(fk*m 12.4 cubic ftet per ptavideszo:informationas to whether the second,(rf1s)to 33,0 1 dj)(0 4.241�yet"the dOCUM40t acc mo Ao OU-3he detention.basin would have sufti$vt Capacity to, am 'datc this' w' While it is ftasible to design a de=tibn facility to accommodate:a 100- t4k flow, the specific detmdon basin design has not bemirei4tifieen & *DFIR,at 4.2-9. LIR itself adMiS that a ... .... 11.1..... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................... OS-28-2008 02--20V FOh4hntax Mihaly [14,10hergW 1.11. +411 &25816 T-Sol ` P:Q101421 Ho Patrick Roche May 28,2003 'Page 9 Linder CEQA, eng�49r4g P lana su�icnt to, act•,c modate the 100-ycar Ve flow caAnot be B3-10 dofarad uriti`1 afte�r,a�pprovaL IWAMM 2t1 al.App.3cl at 306, 7.> 3. T`he U IR Falls to Adequately Id+� �r,and Aoa�e yrs �paets. ThetEtl2 fails so support with$utam' ad'evitae its cstnclusicsa that traa ortatirtn pmpscts reaul tt$ the proj'�w ou an 10"t- For example, in Section x,.5,4 of, I3EIR.tyle Project W0414 have a s?i�ca�s impact of�t wquld one pends or mor to she fawn tr*M, volume-at a�a uatsi a ted i�mrse c�za that ins pxc� t�cl to fall fromlevel of service(Lbs)Dor bad'� to E vx rone(ire). Data 6,ow DELR ?able 4.5-3>iadic tbart the pvo}ecx would result to a del' ixecreese oaf 20 P I at would salt unsigx�,ii= ixatomotfc of Stone Valley ,ad atad C:�reata"�ia►11 3 aad. Th y in a change in tjio iptersection's IOSI a.0 to E. mile decline in service sbcci silo with the to fall wit in*6 DEW$defied threshald of "fisc$.rhes nit xs b� ,u ►s p'port stattmant that lbly po lcyR d ora#orl is+considered to be a less then significant impact for a si inxerse�tvn�has Cosmo otuaty:" ?�ElRnac livable Vicat only docs his policy c+onta ear&er poheaes €u►d in the t baa at a also a P this coVtcxt as this Green V&Uey/ tme rales Road inx ection is 4oti signalized.a € a V ikylt en Tf.W s owns!ga�anr czitof`ia,the 03= r would significantly impact th ValleyRoad intersection. 4 1n cdditio%thea Em substantially and tat the project`s impact on traffic mon rate for the grc�posccl 4t10�:spacaa paricshg tvt, because it robes on an a rd'S ly low trip g �g lot and Play With conclusy justifition,the analysis assuxttes dint the:4Q8 spaca p field vAll ount for only 340 sddit onAl trigs P Y ►the grou s that many of the trips expo rondo by gs+exs of xhc naw'puking lot will be made'by xh dents Presently a ng Ottstreet parking.ung. 'f ha, t� however,:provides the conc3nsian. A� -space paring lot vron generate U i+�t 800�ped day,and qutitte po s ly axic�rc asswrniag Iunahtmie and after schc�ot a hle�'fie user trips. Car wt vn-atr x pa ng ► ta4c# s pe to constrain dt+6 tau nbar of studettt��to school. AAlthough tho increased aysila0nitit�t of ling w�cll enoosaratga add do 1.stades to eomz to b ear and abaa 4b gals,prihiic p atis�n,axad bicycliri ,sine aarc ly+ riciudes.s with no:saxppoxtive datr4yoa b t srudeat» g oe;rxttsd ttaffic will mixt rou0ly tti+a;same. 'fhc revised l Ella s1t Cen t 143ao k a",er on raft factor From the institute trf T'ranQsportatiola t�ngixieers, �► Squally i txx�tablirsg,the 13E1R ovesrlo+oks'a nnmbor af'additional t�c issues, thereby u�nders ung the s�everit�`and etc ofilhe project s xraff impacts. For example, Q6 2B•tttt9 62s2 kt FROO-Shutt. Maty a hlAtrssr W. 4411X'Unit T-613 .611/att f414 Pstrick Roche May 28,200 Page l There>%s do "once the DEM has taken into account the increased traffic delay resulting ftum atone Valley Road fmm the prctgosed;'parkitag lot during moat ng mute hours to _ teach Monte V iiia high ScLool. Although stud is would be required to cross $torte Valley Road to reach school, l~ .focuses exclusively on the tre, c saI of the r de a of the Posed subdiivisioxa,arch Wil have its own srpa ato prance off' Stone Valley.Road. Typi-tal of the limited scope of the l3EIR'a analysis*th e DBI notes only that the aces point tett new subdivision was selected so that safe A&diamesis maintained InAU pe ons DEMI at 3.5-16. with<thc s f of hued ds of 4-3 gh school shots at sem,I the l3WI must also Analyze all dte safety impli"tions of ra sta tuts to crossStone Talley goad to reaeb the patkln hat-and atblehc fiald� • The DEIR provides no information on,project* school ill ent and fails to sttaly�ze its till effect on sad traffic The location ofthe signalized'intersection for,ihe pzo�roa►ed>���ti lot �atxtotenwoul be only 208 feetfDrive. Sound Bering de 4n dictates that inter dons be'spaced at a su eitut distance to avoid excessive traffic «ate dean. Tbv OUIR40es not, however,ava the implications associated with hittg dme two iut ecaous In such close prtsimtityr. • °Thetixe Alatr c ,rnnunity would bt:impacted by tte traffic generated by the l ajftl,yet DEIR, limits a$00:0f:its tm o analysis otrty to locations along Stone`alley'Road. ba the�� z�x tlac;3tott��+Taik�r Ams projot; an adjacent developtaw m* volvi 47 residences, traffic impacts w*re studied at the Diablo/Green Valley Road i4t sectiou and tho Stone Valley goWDanville boulevard inteneedbu. The current Projeet:i Ludes a substantial eqmsion of'the high sclool'ss parking lot, yot the OEM only p"Imiftes toss iwmelOtions in irmmediste.proximity to the Prbiem The T31 *sUSem as► ysi is p p y aea-row. In sura, the DEIR niust be,rued to inch:a cempxobaus vo trans analysis that accurately asessz1) tiro Prtacct°s irtn level+ f service at nax' r cctaclrrs a a�atactions a� ��xl�+s sasc �scd pdaat�n wchi�:�r herds xesultg tiro increase in Projeer generated tura le and<padestritan travtl to and froxn the pmposparking lc►t. . _........ .... ............. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28.1 3`' Ot.� PGt 3tw ai WhxlY 1 hinbarslr L,P, #4156RUII> 1'-685 P.t J� 1 S d Patrick Roche May 28,206 Page 11 The,J3S.IFalls to Adtq#Wty����Airt�,�ality Impar. The DIM fails tet.identify toad aztalyZ impacts resulting fm m the use of diesel' powered englues mug., roj act caststtucti n� Tho cotabu�n of diesel fuuel m cnSnes produces " tair c n�3nauts T iedup dcsiurtlattbeznaatllta�cfro�rnbaiy the'U.S. �xrironmn tal AA A whichcanmins$ m40coUpom diesel eord oltotrxitAgedas hdo phramd xe1fi ) Omitted( CARB" of exbaustis a se c s rtabxia hcaltlt rc ,cextt. It has I+ec a + tat us emauve death. pxs+blc s� c1 ur ann n �8 n at clZi t rry d a, g �g Fixe diesel p�cletspirotary s �o�titetl daeg In�e� cart h aa�s Sed�A st 2? symptoms and disaas ,ptccularly chiren mdt adua3 l s�exut�si�e sciaxtUS revtow�pubtic lttrs .tls�s CA ides�eti�Particulate emissions Ott diesel4beled>=&ds as$1611021r!cox ►tn art ��� �ted 18 to 26 mouth period. The project would be'oonsihWt0i aver ; Cflnstmuotion would include extensive grids d�utll re€ioixe�e> atorsdozers. Kesel _ onexcaWatox ,compactors a0A haul mucks. MOST Construction�egmpmen -1 equxvam horstowe9r basis,diesel prouccrti at a ma +edly.greater X$� grid C:oiloject cohst uo�n wQttld the ft expose rxr ers, tIm reside its d students atteudjtng icntta Vixta mig�h Schoo'i to ei �d con tree ns`oI`diesel sxbaust. hb rh od in the IiIR acre tb�s pxevailing westerly u€imnds r$'ttch lace botb�the.A Dote St�renr� 8 and the Monte Vista High'; oo1 in the nth of rhe diose!a�haus A, sb revised I?IiIR ould idetvt and s tyae this incxeue n diesel em sions and eluate rhe pexb c he�clth i�otpaects t�rrorn coUSUUC oxt squipmom exha x emir s to reduce diesel am si i �the xev gd documm must t l+ ti y f bla; €vatic n m em scions. mp s;of such tnet sures ext, • use of a ole er(reduced sulfua • use of acid-an cv ►t+ ec ,`sg• aicol tp csraiytiozxicbt;+ • creation of s buffer:zone between ctlexy se iuve rcccptc�rs; irsallatiruc oflsigh;grearst irijectttra do dicot constationu a�te•2 Q1 02:25Pll F"'Shuts, Oftly i W610hUssr UP. +4tIIi25816 T-583 P.0I3IO2I F-llSd Patrick Roche May 28, 2003 Page 12 • lengthen Consuxttttion period during smog season(May through October) in order to minimize the number ofvebicles and egapntent operating simultaneously. In addition,the DEIR foils to identify or analyze the impacts resulting from PM 2.:s emissions. The U.S.E.P.A.has promulgated deur standards on fine particulate matter. B3-1 Substantial information has been published,for example, demonsttraung that fine particulate matter causes significant he" impacts at concentrations that are much lower than existing air quality standards. The DEIR slid not evaluate whether the tHuxtttphrey's Project cr construction would cause or coutributtc to wwoodanees of these new standards or result in health impacts to localresidents from the increase in particulate matter. The revised DEIRshould include this analysis, S. The DIM Fahr to Adequately Identify and Analyze Noise Impacts. The inadequacy of the DEIR's noise impact aialysis has been attested to by physicistt, Larry Levi; Ph.D. A copy of Dr. Levit's May 23,2003 report is attached to this comment letter as Attachment'A and herein,incorporated by t efere e. Dr. L'+gvit consults f'or a variety of d s+cipl es Including vasiout high whaology manufacturing clients and most.recently on a microphone and speech recognition project requested by the federal government. As discussed in the attached analysis,the>DSUVs noise impact analysis is B3-13 fundamentally flawed because it does not accurately desoribe the noise impacts associated with the proposed Project In ftk*JUfC' 10TV Over, Sa QMmiMe i f l 91 Ca1.App.4th 13441, 1382: 001),the Court of Appeal hold thata noise analysis that only evaluated noise impacts using'a 24-h-o rr average and not individual noise events did not provide fundamen al information about the pro eefs noise fo pacts. As disused in the attachT: analysis,is,because noise impacts from a parking,roc are best characterized as single event nonce, the DEIR provides an incomplete picture of noise impacts by relying only on a 12-hour'average. 6. The DVIK Fail#to Adequately ldeutifyr Analyze,,and Mitigate Impacts to Biological Resources. tsar The DEI 's Analysis of Impacts on the Project Site's Ponds and Surrounding Riparian Woodlands Is Severely Flawed In,a Man>aorwhiach Underuilnes*0 Accuracy and Legiidroavy,of the snare Analysis. Perhaps the mast stmling def`itioncy in the DE:1R.is its complete failure to analyze. I the impacts resulting flrom this destruction of"tbo sites ponds. Indeed, the contradictoryand B3-14 - 4 06-28-2003 02:20Y PRO*-Shuts, Maly 4 Wsinberarr LIP +4155921016 T-983 P114/021 F-954 Patrick Roche May 28, 2003 page 13 fleeting references to the site's,Pond$reflect the D'EIR's 8voidaA00 Of this critical i lnogi o issue. On a site visit on February'' , 2002,an env iron>Onental geologist notal p_ �,�ponds, the largest of which was 21A acres, in an where residential development is now proposed. DEM,Appendix H.2002Phaje I, at 2.Fig.2. This setae pond,referred to by the DEIN as the"ornamental pond;'had been dscribed as only 0.69 acnes in a 1997 study by Zeantner and Zentner. Appendix 1, 1997 W etland IIelineadon of the Humphrey Property, at S. The } IR's biological resources clysis avoids this apparent discrepancy by fatilittg to even illr stating mention the;sixe Or in any Way describe me pcmd, summax6-1 1."the�ornamental ,115 DEIR, att would be filled,this would not be a slggificant impact." DBIR, at 4,61 3.4.3 (omitting mention of the 30' fill of the'Omatzmetatal Pond in discussiocre grading plan) , Wbile the Project would also appear to require the destruction r f a 0.105 a 0.090.099 pcsnd,arta an additional pond of apparently similar size identified in the Zcnmer study, �► -1 these losses are also not adequately addressed. Appendix 1, at 4.6. Rather than protect this pond and its extraOrdinarily important ripariarn.resources, the Project applicant appears to have already drained then ornamental Pond,'� RM hose �2-4 and (noting that me"remai ng water from the pard was being siphoned throng plastic disebargod,"} From our review of the record.it does not appear that the applicatft obtained hed requisite permits for tis is work. It is equally alarming that the project applicant app arently ing Of the to nosif�y'California department of Fish do Gari(`•CDFG")prior m the v ave eoua anducted prior pond,so that an iditeodcat assessment afbiological res+nurces could gi ant's decisifln to to the elimination of this habitat. Fis'b & GM=Code 1d03 The app bypass the protections afforded by CEQA and the Fish and Game.Code 01119 into question the independence and objectivity of the l9g' study conducted at`the behest of clic apphcrantsts by , muter the &'Zemner. With no independent review by the County's biological erdete�xr natsulmian}trnat'thcre assertion,that aaader Associates confirmed act Army C¢rrps-of Engin are"no wetlan an on the project site{at 444)also lacks credibility,as does Zentner&Zentner i Removal of the;Ornamental pot►d'appears to be Motivated in pars;by a contract with SR'V"1; SD,which states that;: Greystone Homes shall remove at its cost the ornamental pond on the District Site through its rough grading of the Disuiot Site and it shall be mgponsib'le for nxitigation,if any,rclamd to such removal,which mitigation shall be off The District Site. Gtreystotte Homes,Inc.shall apply for,process and obtain all necessary permits,if any,that are prerequisites to the removal of the: n ornamental pond. San Ramon Valley U fled School T�strict,District Site Acquisition and Mitigation Agreement Between tltt�;., 2000'Valley United School Dist,the Rumphreya 1ad,fi�reysttc�nc hlota , 113. Davidon Homes bas suttee replaced Gyrcystont Hozncs, Inc. as�o Project dc�velopaar. _ ............._............................................................ .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 05-28-2008 02:ZOOM FRM»Shute> #!tialy t $014bsraar 11P. +4t 552681'6 1"-�83 P.0101ti23 �-91�d Patrick Roche May 28,2003 Page 14 and Zander associates' detwmfaa<tion that special status species "axe also not likely to occur on - the Protect sites,"DEM at 4.6-8. Associated with the unanalyzed and Mitigated loss of the site's ponds the destruction of riparian woodland,a biological resource that has expo tionced a tremendous decline ne in California.. DEIR, at 4.6.11. As recognized in the DMR itself, riparian woodland is considered ocularly important because itprovides valuable wildlife habitat(DEIR. at 4,6-6), and the Cl' FO considers riparian woodland to be a sensitive vegetation types. Id. Following a fairly thorough dissertation on the importuce of preserving this type of habitat,the DEIR asserts in out scant paragraph that the toss of over One acre ofthis habitat would not co .sdwtee a significant impact. DEIRt at 4.6-11'. This conclusion,its entirely unsupported by analysis or evidence. Meaningful analysis+e eetuates out of CEQA's fundamental purposes; to Inform the public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions Wore they are made." LA101-AsightLIL 6 CalAth at 1123. To accomplish this purpose, an EIR must contain facts ad analysis,not}ust an,agency's bare conelusiogs, v B3-14 Thus,a conclusion regarding the signific. anoe ofan e nviroumcutal irripact that is not based on an analysis of tbe relevant facts faits to fulfill CEQA's informational goat, V 17'6 CaEl.App 3d 421,431 (1986) (lead eY eumust"use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can"). The DEIR at issuer here'ibfts to fUlf ll this paramount CEQA purpose both because it neglects to present all relevant facts relating to the Project's impact upon the:site's ponds and riparian woodlands and because ifs cursory conclusions are based upon no analysis. without a detailed analysis of the iMponantc of the site's ponds and riparian woodlands, it is not possible to determine the potentially severe impacts the project would have on the species that rely on this critical habitat. _ This>.;punern oftion-disclosure Of biological impacts,Which bAs served to protect the in tests of the f ivet applicant at the expense of the site's rich environment,violates CEQA. iw+ onovecr the bet that the DEIR failed to adequately analyze riparian woodland impacts and the: fact that the pends have already been destroyed,of comae,does not release the County from its obligations of providing appxoptiaate mitigation. Indeed,given theSupreme Court's mandato that CEQA be interpreted so"as to afford the fullest possible,protection to the eavirotxctte34" l 'LWA KNIWA09na.El ASOMZ 16 Cal-4th 105, 112(1997). the revised DEIR s3eottld dude feasible an -site or off-sites Mitigation a#at 3.I ratio. Criveu&a presesmtlou Of over 60 acres Ofopen spacer on the Humphrey propem,it would.not he,infeasible to create a thm to four acre~wetland on site, _..._ ..........................._........ .......... .. _ .. OS-28-ZO03 02:26Pki FROWShute, Mihaly i Wsirttorter LLP' +4156Fi25II6 T-$ttP-016/021 F-954 Patrick Roche May 2$,2043 Page 15 b. The DZIR Does,Not Disclose that the Site Provides Suitable Alameda Whlpsnake Habitat. The DEIR does not Acknowledge the important result of a since assessment for the Humphroy property for the Alameda WhipsnAg("Whipsnaktl, a state and fodemlly listed endangered species. DEM Appendix K,, Site Assessment for the Alameda;`�tltipsnake,'SeptR 3, 2002. Critically, this site assessment concluded both that he property's northern open space scrub likely sug orts a population of the Whipsnake and that*0 whipsnakc could wander or disperse into the proposed project area. To mitigate for the potential take of the Whipsnake during construction, the site assessment recommended statndaxd take avoidance measures for the Whipsnake be implemented. These°`measures i"clude a monitor duxi",9 the initial clearing of B3-1 vegetation, an exclusion fence along the northem boundary of the grading,and an education program for contractors working on the site. Despite the site assessment,the DEIR's biological resources analysis does mention the whipsuake,much less provide for the adoption of these measures. A revised DEtR must provide a compirehensive>assessment of the site's poten'tial Alameda Whipsnake habitat,an analysis of the Project's potential to impact this sensitive species and appropTiate mitigation. it is impotent that this revised analysis be conducted by an analysis be conducted with full Cllr G and United independent biological eexpert and that the Stages Fish and Wildlife Scenics oversight. 7. The DEIIt Falls to Identify as Significant Itupscts the Prdject$v Myriad Inconsistencies with the Contra Costa County Central Plan. Thi DER does not acdeauately disclose or analyze matny of the Projeet's inconsistencies with:the Contra Costa County General Plan. For example,Policy 3-12 states that"developers shall generally tie required to restore the natural contours and ve:gasation o land afit r grading and other land diswrba Cas.' In a similsx vein, Policy 9-14 provider that '°je]xttemc topoombit modification,such its filling of 0"Yo ns or iremovin$hilltops shall be avoided.- The DER fls to reconcile these policies with the extensive cuts acrd fill required to construct the proposed"Project. The leveling Of the Project site from its Currenr nattural state is B3-16 directly at odds with the protective provisions of the General Plan. Rather than rest0fe th+e prop Y tc> its original contours,they Project proposes a 40- foot cut to a tame hill to the east of the Project site and rhe 30-foolfell of a pond located near the center of the Project site. Removal of the hill and the,pmx hent flattmxti?ag of the Project site is in direct violation+of the above mentioned policies as well as polivy 9-21, which states that sijaluy aew development shall be encouraged to generally conform with the Uawral contours and ::.. :.. 0 •26 !! U ; B FROWShuts, Whalx A 1116 rose LLP. 41 Y B T-383 P.81 T/021 Patrick Roche May 2$, 2003 Page 16 avoid extensivegrading." The a xtft ve:grading contemplated by the,Project would destroy the natural contours of the site, forever starring its visual character., The revised DER should B3-16 include an alternative that would accomplish the Prvj=objectives while maintaining consistency with the provision Is of the General Plan. a. The fJ F.M's Analysis of Visual Character Impacts Is Lego Uy Inadequate. The development of a subdivision and parking lot on the Project site would result in an abrupt and severe transition tom the existing grass-covered,oak woodland hillsides. Despite the: obvious importance of this impact, the DEWS analysis of visual impacts is both incomplete and misleading. Although the l EIR suggests that residents of the Monte S=no neighborhood would have a screened view of the proposed Project due to unspecified landscaping,removal of the 40-foot hill which forms a natural visual barrier to the bulk of the Project site would dramatically impair residents' views, Remarkably,the;DEiR does not begin to address the change in visual character that would result fi= development ofthe massive parking lot,even though the lot would abut the backyards of several homes and would front Stone Valley Road, a designated scenic route. As discussed,above, the OEIR contains ao desist detail or potential setbacks,buffm or even a landscaping plan,all of which, if property implemented would help to minimize the substantial B3-17 visual degradation associated,with the proposed parking lot In terms of parking lot lighting,the DER merely states that the lot would be lit for safety purposes. From this minimal information, it is impossible to divine whether the parking lot would-be illuminated throughout the night,and if so,exactly bow much lighting would be _ used. As the parking lot will be-adjacent to residences,specffic information;as to parking:lot lighting must be:provided if the public is to be properly informed of the impacts of the Project. The athletic field lighting'also has the potential to be extraordinarily intrusive upon neighboring _ re3side nts,yet here too,the victual impact analysis is absent. What type of lighting it,proposed" How would nlighttime'Somes be restricted to:minimize the extensive bight and glare impacts upon the Project's neighbors? The revised DEER must provide an,analysis of bight and glare rapacts end identify appropriate mitigation measures. While the DEER acknowledges that the proposed Project would result in a potentially si niflcaut impact to the visual character of the site and its surroundings, its conclusion that the proposed rnitiption measures will reader this impact to a less-than- s gnificaaat le lis without factual or legal support. As explained by the court in C"U 1 Bert, nt"40 29 Cal.,�:pp.4th 159`7 1606 (1994}, it is'"self- cvitdent"that`repla n spare with a subdivision will have an adverse effect upon"views .........................................I.........................................I..............-................ ........-......... ......... 05-28*2003 OZ.-ZTN FWA-Shuts, Mihaly hinberstr LLP. +055525816 T-113 P41VU1 F-414 Patrick Roche May 28,2003 Page 17 and the beauty Of the setting." .Instead of specific and certain mitigation messures,the DEIR a here calls only for a revised Stone Valley Road frontal landscape P13U and 8 color V lett e that will blend with the surroundings- There can be no meaningful scrutiny of an EIR(of deciSion On a project),when the mitigation measures are not identified prior to,project approval- B3-17 Given the serious deficiencies in the DEIR'Isvisual analysis,and the Project's potentially significant impacts,the revised THEIR must contain strict design guidelines governing, siting, setbacks,buffem building and fence materials, "ticulation.colors,textures,landscaping, signage and lighting to attempt w ensure visual harmony between the existing cOMMUnitY and the proposed Project. 9. The DKIR Falls to Adequately IdentifY and Analyze the Project's Cumulative IMP*Icts- An Elk must discuss significant"Cumulative impacts-" CEQA Guidelines 15130(a). -cumulative impacts" are defined as"two or more individual effects which,when considered together,are considerable or which compound or increase otherenvironmental an lysis" A Par cular impacts:* Id.11$35 5. A legaUy adequate"cumulgitive impacts $1 i views ti Project over time and in conjunction with other related past,present,and reasonably foreseeable ,, : future projects whose impacts might compound or injxrrelatewith thoseof the project at,hand. I environmental I impact of a proposed The cumulative impacts concept recognizes that'"ItIhe full gA_V�, a WA gfq2M S cannot be gauged in a vacuum." Wld= _ MLtZUL 98 Cal.App.34 397, action 18 408 (1979). B3- A cumulative impacts analysis is not discretionary. .Although requviod by CEQA, the cumulative impact analysis appears to bavc bean completely omiued from the DEM The DEIp,must evaluate the cumulative impacts related to all environmental issues including,but not limited WL,agricultural resources,hydrology,traffic,biological resources, and visual impacts. This analysis must,consider the emulative impacts resultin from this Project And Other Past, present,and retate arca. Such=avalysis would consider, reasonably fol.eseeable future projects 14 tOgerber With:that of the neighboring"Stone for example,tbe I)iOIO9i0&I iIAPacts of the Project l Valley Oaks"residential project,which also affects Alameda Wldpsuakehabitat. C. The DKIR Falls tar Adequately Discuss Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Every EIR must describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project,and to its location,that would feasiblyamin the prpjeces basic objectives while avoiding,or substantially ' B3 lessening the project`$ significant impacts. CEQA § 21100(b)(4),C*EQA"deliRcs § 1512 (d) -196 A proper a=IYSis Of altmStives is essential for the County to,comply With CEQA's mandate tbAx sign fica;nt onvira=erital datnage be avoided Or substantially lcss='Od whore feasible. Pub- ........................................ ...................................... 0529-2Qi13 D2:trP[t ft*s urs; Mihaly i Ifiribersist LLP: +41111€21818 T-103 P-010/021 F-254 Patrick Roche: May 28 2003 Page 19 Res. Code. 21002; C.1 QA Guidelines 111,5002(a)(3), 1 021(a)(2), 15126(d),Citi�or. 19$ Cal.App.3d 433,443-45 (1999). As stated to ,"jwlithout meaningful analysis of alternatives in the DEIR,utither the enures nor the public can fulfill their proper rules in the CEQA process. . . . [Courts:will tot] countenance a result ihat would aelunre blind trust by the public,ospecUlly in light of CEQA's 71 fundamental goal that the publics be fully informed alto the consequences of'action by their plablier officia►lsw" 4'7 Cal�'3ef 3'76,4#14(1998). The FIR's discussioA of alternatives in the: present case.£ails to meet these statndards. The 13EIR',s failure to,accurately ide;ntif' and atsallrzo the Project's broad-ranging environmental impacts necessarily distorm the document's alternatives analysis. CEQA requires that an Elft,it tify a range of alternatives capable of el nam the Si�fa?c�aut a is of`the project Here,the DEIRMs to even,disclose obviously significant Project impacts,such as impacts on biological resources*increased traffic congesstiou and traffic safety, increased potential for st+ rmwatter and drainage problems,and the significant effect on the visual character of the Ana. Because the DIIR fails to identify many of the Projeces impacts as significaut, it B,3-1' docs not identify a range: of alternatives that are capable of eliminating or even minimizing these: impacts. A proper identification and analysis of alternatives is impassible Until'Project impaets are f9tlly disclosed. Other than the no•-Projeet alternative,The D Ent identifies only two alternatives to the proposed project, Both alternatives assume that SRVUSD will not;pu rchase a portions oftltre Humphrey property and t atbawe:en 39 and 57 residences would be,developed at this location instead. Neither of the alternatives would do much, if anything, to mininnize the severity of the tmvironme nil wp .associated with the proposed Project. The DEIIVs consideration of hese two alternativei therefore.does not sad CEQA's mandate that am EIR disc"$at reasonable: Mgt of-altomdves that "Offer substantial environmental adva�pttatges over the'poject proposal." QW_aAsfln:52 Cel.3d at $66. no DEIR provides no explanslion as to why additional altau ti~ves were not proposed That offered features necessary to reduce the inevitable damago from the construction and operation of the Project. for example,the DEM did not propose: an alternative than would includesa smaller parldnS lot or one which would switch tht*location of the athletic field wit the parkinlot. The,revised DEIR should include:these alternatives. Of critical cantorn is the:fact that both proffered.alternatives do not includes any devolopraont by the SR:tTUSD. At The 3=e time,the Project objectives include the acquisition of 10.6 acres of the:Humph propertyby SR'VU S13. DEIR, at 3.9. Clearly both of then alternatives appear to have been setup four rejection on the grounds that neither would achieve' the project objectives. Thus,rather than irmatrtbmg serious information about potentially viable ........................................................................................................ 05-ZHO03 SZ:ZTPM FWWWW Maly d hinberser,LLP. +411015638 T-183 F4020/0ZI F-454 Patrick Roche may 28,20033 Page 19 adverse:impacts,the THEIR offers alternatives&at serve as "straw alternatives that could reduce a I men" 10 provide jusgilication for theproject. Such an approach violates The letter and SOirit of CEQA. The EMS treatment Of off-$* site alternatives is equally indefensible. ahs D,BIR D t odoffsiteoes not present a singloffsite alternative. Instead, theDERhastilyconcludes th poking lot alternative sites exist for the Project. The noise 1Wd traffic impacts Of the ProPosed are largely a rosult of its Proximity to the Monte Seftno neighborhood. Should the parking lot be B3-19 as the high school, these impacts would I be substantjaily located ontho same side of the ,street and move e the she of its,tennis courts,as parkin in , 9 - minimized. SFLVUSD could,for"mmPtc,use;the:Project's traffic:1 congestion,I n,Irafric safety, the courts to the Humphrey property,reducing tb noise,visual character,and light and glare impacts. In,sum, the DSIWS failure to consider feasible alternatives,both on and off site, , that reduce the project's environmental impacts renders the document inadoqU tounder CEQA- t This critical omission makes the DEIR of little utility To the public anddecision makers,who am left with no reasonable,less damagizkg*0011 for development of bis highly constrained site. D. The DEIR Should Be Redrafted and Recirculated. CEQA requires recirtuUtiOn of arevised draft DEIR"'IwIlIft significant now ation is added to an envirownelltal impact reTore,after public:review sad comment on the inform public I teview of earlier draftDEM Pub. Res. Code 121092.1. The oppormnitOCTIntaii.iU.- sign ificant new informau"On is essentiad"to test,assess and evaluate tbs data and make an thererrom.)t informedJudgment as to the validityof the conclusions to. be:drawn WK&SAWk M Of UL 122 Cal.App.3d 813,122(19:81); 9 192 CalApp3d 1005, 1017 (19,87). An agency cannot B3-20 * tft a, simply relcase a draft report"that hedges On important environmental issue Whic defaa * Mort detailed analysis.to the final[EIRI that is insulated from public review.$$ NWAMblion 214CaLApp.3d1043, 1053(1999)- In order to cure the penoply of DEIR defeC I IS idantifled in this letter,the County will have to obtain substantial now inforinationto adequMIY"Ms tb*IVrOPO,se4 Project's environmental impacts, and to identify effective mitigation capable of alleviating the project's significant impacts. CEQA requires that the public have I meaningful opportunity to review and comment upon,this significant new information in the form of a reciroulatad draft VEIR. U. cauclusion 06-22-2003 02:26PM FROM-Shut*, Mihaly d Weirtbrraar LLP. . +4155526616 T-663 P.021I021 i=-004 - Patrick Roche May 28, 2003 Page 20 For the fore goiag reasons, the Monte Sereno Neighborhood Alliance urges the County to deny project approval at this time, and to give no further consideration to the Project unless and until a.reviseddraft EIR is prepared and circulated that fully complies with CEQA. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBE'RGER LLP MATTHEW D, VESPA LAUREL, L.IMPETT,AICD Urban Planner encl. CC: Jay Lewis, Monte Sereno Neighborhood Alliance Roger Smith,,Alamo Improvement Association John Gioia,Contra Costa County Supervisor District I Gayle B. Uilkema,Contra Costa County Supervisor District 2 Kathy Chiverton, Chief of Staff, Centra Costa County Supervisor District 3 Mark DeSaulnier, Contras Costa County Supervisor District 4 Federal Glover, Contra Costa County Supervisor District 5 Mike Shimansky,.Mayor of Danville Seth Adams, Sava Mount Diablo Nicole K.ozicki, California Department of Fish& Game Deauis Q'Bryaat, CaUfarnia Derparttnent of Conservation Dan Buford, U.S. Dish & Wildlife Service (P A$C"Qo%M4tV"rb ifmal drat'!comment teaerj.v„Jtdj .......... ...............................................................- ............ ............................................ ................................ .................................. RESPONSE To CommENTsMNAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER B3: SHUTE, MIHALY&WEINBERGER LLP 133-1 See Master Responses I and 2. 133-2 See Master Responses 1,2,3 and 6. This EIR has made reasonable projections regarding the SRVUSD component of the Project and what landscaping,screening and buffering would be used. SRVUSD will not complete a final design for a property which it does not currently own. More cannot be known until the School District purchases and designs the facility. The screening that is initially proposed to be used is noted in Figure 3.4-1 "Proposed Initial Development Plan"and can be seen in the visual simulations in Chapter 4.9. See Master Response I regarding use of this EIR for the ultimate final design. 133-3 See Master Response 1. See response to comment A8-4. 133-4 The design information for the Project is illustrated in the visual simulations presented in Chapter 4.9(Visual)of the Humphrey EIR. This information is adequate for purposes of impact assessment. See Master Response 1. 133-5 See Master Responses I and 5. 133-6 See Master Responses I and 5. 133-7 See Master Responses I and 5. 133-8 See Master Responses I and 5. The Project site has low quality agricultural potential,and has not been used for agricultural processes for several years. The only potential agricultural use is cattle grazing,and due to development adjacent to the Project site,and the topography of the northern portion of the site,this is not a viable option. Because the impact on agricultural use is deemed less than significant, mitigation is not required. 133-9 See response to comment A7-3. In referring to a SWPPP,the EIR proposes that the Project comply with Clean Water Act standards,requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB),and then-current Best Management Practices incorporated into SWPPPs by the Regional Board. It thus specifies performance standards which would mitigate the effects of the Project,and which may be accomplished in more than one way. The measures are typical,and have proven to meet local,state and federal standards. Standard procedures ensure compliance. The Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department requires a grading permit, and a part of that permit procedure is submittal of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). During grading,County inspectors monitor field operations to ensure that corrective work is undertaken. As explained in section 4.4.5 of the Draft EIR,both a Phase I and a Phase 2 assessment of the site were performed to identify all hazardous materials in the soils that can feasibly be presently known. These are the materials that may be exposed during construction and carried away by stormflows, and they are below significance thresholds. The EIR conservatively notes that construction activities themselves 4-39 ............................- ........ RESPONSE To COMMENTs/FtNAL OR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS ANo RESPONSES might result in pollutant runoff,because that is the case with any construction site. The pollutant loads cannot be known until construction commences. These possible pollutants are among the ones the Regional Board addresses in a SWPPP. The wells - are those referenced in the DEIR,>and those to be discovered pursuant to the specific, detailed requirements of mitigation measure Hydro-2. Surface water bodies have not been discussed in the Draft EIR.. Contra Costa Water District(CCWD)supplies the County with water mainly from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta,which is stored in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The proposed detention basin will be designed to achieve RWQCB water quality standards,and can be sited in the approximately one acre area currently designated for it on-site. The Draft EIR was completed assuming the detention basin being located on-site. B3-10 The Project involves the grading of a 40 foot hill,but the hill will not be completely leveled. The Humphreys had an ornamental pond on their property,but decided to drain the pond in Fall2001. A copy of the September 2001 letter from the property owners to the County notifying the County of the plan to drain the pond is included in Chapter 7. This letter was copied to all applicable resource agencies. The property owners waited until Fall 2002 to drain the pond in order to conduct one additional seasonal survey for California Tiger Salamander before draining the pond. The pond was not drained as part of the Project,and the County was not responsible for approving any permits before the pond could be drained. The Draft EIR notes that the residential component will drain to a new storm drainage system of catch basins, closed conduits,pipes and culverts beneath the streets that would eventually be discharged to Green Valley Creek, increasing 10- year peak discharge to Green Valley Creek from 12.4 cfs to 33.0 efs,which would be reduced 20%through an onsite detention basin with a capacity of approximately 0.5 acre feet. The detention basin that is proposed for this Project is designed to accommodate for the increased amount of run off. Evidence of this can be found in Questa's report. See Appendix G of the Humphrey Draft EIR(pages 1-2). Project runoff would not drain to an intermittent stream at the boundary of the Monte Sereno neighborhood. Given the size of the watershed,County guidelines require that all facilities be designed to accommodate the 10-year storm as well as safely pass(i.e. no damage to existing or proposed adjacent structures)during the 100-year storm. See Master Response 1 and A9-2. B3-11 It is important to recognize that the significance criterion used in the Draft EIR is both the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology,as well as the CCTA LOS methodology. These standard residential development methodologies deal with traffic volume,theoretical capacity, as well as average vehicle delay at each intersection. In the Abrams&Associates traffic report (Appendix D),figures 2 and 8 note the amount of traffic volume that will be added to each intersection. None of the intersections would increase over one percent. Please see response to comment A6-1,as there was an error in the Draft EIR. See Master Response 6(Traffic) The projected Monte Vista High School enrollment is proposed to increase by 5%. The new Camino Tassajara High School is expected to be finished in 2007, and 4-40 .................................................................................................................................................................................................1.1.11.................11.11............. ........... .............. RESPONSE To COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 4-COMMENTS AND RESPONSES therefore the enrollment of Monte Vista High School is projected to decline after that time. Noise analysis was conducted taking into account traffic on Stone Valley Road. The traffic on this roadway would produce a less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The intersections are placed at 200 feet due to that being where the existing turn into the Monte Vista High School parking lot is located. The residential component of the Project involves the addition of 39 residential units that would generate traffic. The impact that these residents vehicles would have on the community of Alamo would be small. The intersections studied in this EIR are adequate for accommodating this scale of development. The Project would add a negligible traffic impact to all intersections. Two intersections are located rather close under the proposed development. These intersections have been studied for safety,and have designated turn lanes to improve traffic flow. The intersection at the new SRVUSD parking lot will include timed lights to avoid congestion on Stone Valley Road. The approximately 200 foot distance between the two intersections is not out of the ordinary for a street with the development that Stone Valley Road has. B3-12 The issue of Air Quality was scoped out of the EIR in the Initial Study for the Humphrey Project. The mitigation measures suggested in this comment could be incorporated into the Project,yet it is not required,due to the impacts being short term/construction related and therefore, less than significant. The BAAQMD has concluded that,with implementation of their recommended measures, short-term construction-related emissions would be less than significant. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,December 1999) Diesel fuel emissions are considered a toxic air contaminant,yet this is based on long term exposure. Construction vehicles would be required to meet current pollutant emission requirements. No methodology or guidance has been released by the BAAQMD for quantifying PM2.5(technically a component of PM 10),nor does the air district currently require quantification of fugitive dust emissions,either PM1 0 or PM2.5. The district does however require implementation of recommended Enhanced Control Measures (ECM)for controlling construction-generated fugitive dust,which the Humphrey Project would abide by. These measures include: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose materials or require trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and stages areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 4.41 ........................... ........................ ... ............................_.......... .......... ........ ......... __..... . _..... ...._... _.. RESPGNSE To CommmTS/RNAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESP mrn • Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand,etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or tither erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to publicroadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 133-13 See Master Response 2. 133-14 The pond that was previously on the Project site was a man-made ornamental pond. See response to comment 83-10. The seasonal marsh'was filled during grading for the Stone Valley Oaks project did not exist at the time the NOP'was filed, and no longer exists. The Army Corps of Engineers has not asserted jurisdiction over two stockponds on site(and did not assert jurisdiction over the former ornamental pond). There are no Army Corps of Engineers wetlands identified on the Project site that require special protection measures. With no officially designated wetlands on site, no mitigation(such as a 3:1 ratio replacement)is required. When the EIR stated that the pond would be filled,the author was referring to the depression left after the ornamental pond was drained. There is no evidence that the riparian resources on the site are"extraordinarily important" While some habitat is provided by the vegetation,the EIR lays out the relative quality and value that these resources provide. Neither County nor'CDFG have indicated that the resources have unusual quality or value. Zentner&Zentner,Zander Associates and its subconsultants(including Mark Jennings,Karen Swaim and others),as well EDAW's biologist(the County's independent environmental consultant biologist)have participated in the environmental review for this EIR,and are highly qualified. See response to comment 133-10. All applicable agencies were notified of the pond - draining prior to it occurring. The biologists that conducted site visits determined that there would be a less than significant impact on the amount of riparian woodland habitat acreage last. The discussion throughout the chapter(4.6)describes the impact determination,and why it was made. The creation of a three to four acre wetland in the open space component appears feasible,but is not proposed in this EIR because it is not necessary to mitigate any significant impacts. 133-15 See Master Response 8 and response to comment B 1-14. 133-16 Any area outside of the 23 acre property that is disturbed by the development of the 39 residential units will be restored to its natural condition. The County does not interpret its General Plan to prohibit altering natural contours or vegetation. As for most projects,topographic alteration will occur with this Project and is addressed in the Draft EIR. The Humphrey Project does not violate Policy 9-14, as there will not be any extreme topographic modifications. The proposed development will be consistent with the development to both the east and west along Stone Valley Road. 4-42 RESPONSE To COMMENTS/FINAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AM RESPONSES The proposed development will not alter natural contours or vegetation to any greater degree than did the development of the neighborhood on whose behalf the comment letter is submitted. The visually sensitive canyons and hilltops on the northern portion of the Humphrey property are not developed. The grading that is proposed for the Project site would retain topographic variation,and conform to the surrounding developments. The Project site will not be leveled. See Master Response 7. 133-17 The development of the 23 acre portion of the Humphrey property would not significantly change the visual character of the overall site. The conceptual design presented by the School District was incorporated in the visual resources sections, and in visual simulations. It is true that by replacing open space with a subdivision there will be an adverse effect upon"views and the beauty of the setting,"yet the overall visual quality and character of the Humphrey property is not degraded significantly,and the alteration of visual characteristics on a lot already designated for some residential development,on property that is partially surrounded by existing and proposed development of similar character,is not considered significant. The visual impacts will be no more adverse than those of the existing residential developments that surround the site. This Project is compatible with the character of the surrounding development,and ensures protection of the visually significant hillsides on the northern portion of the property. All applicable mitigation measures are presented in the visual resources section of the Draft EIR. These measures set standards that will ensure the impacts are less than significant. The Humphrey Project will utilize residential lighting and signage that is standard for the Alamo community. Standard glass will be used in the new homes to reduce the potential for glare onto internal roadways(there is sufficient screening and buffer for glare not to be an issue to those on Stone Valley Road). B3-18 See Master Response 1. The cumulative impacts analysis was not overlooked,rather it was assumed that Alarm is nearing buildout under the General Plan,and only those sections where cumulative impacts of infill development could result,were analyzed (such as traffic and transportation). Like the Project,the Alameda Wbipsnake has habitat to the north of the Stone Valley Oaks development. The Stone Valley Oaks EIR noted that a pre-construction survey would need to be completed to ensure that there were no Alameda Whipsnakes currently on site. B3-19 See Master Responses 2 and 7. The impacts are not considered significant for the reasons stated in this EIR and its appendices. See response to comments from the Town of Danville,especially the response to comment A5-39. B3-20 This Final EIR presents elaboration and discussion of issues already addressed in the Draft EIR. This Final EIR does not add significant new information that would trigger the need for recirculation. Because the commenter does not identify any significant new information,no further detail can be provided in response. 4-43 ............ 05-28-20113 02:34PM FR4*-Shut$, 13 halt I Wsinborser ILP. +d1�5525916 �-��� P.003/028 E-055 LETTER B' Noise Impact upon they Montes Sereno Neighborhood From the Proposed Monte Vista Wgh Stool Coaftm on PrcJ"t L.B.Levit MD.'Consutting ftysicist,LBL Scie fific 23 Nfiy,2003 The Humphrey Property Daft FM,SCH#2002012029,asserts 4W the construction of a school parking lot and soccer field will have title impact on&e Monte Serm B4-1 neighborhood and the proposed new developx�rteatr Due to imp analysts and logical flaws;in the rather technical nical noise only this c;on chision is incorrect and fans to inform the conmmu xity of the real impact of the project. - The DEM uses a sound metric called I.eq.a form of averaging noise levels which virtually (all) ignores short tsansiemt noise like aWnes stag or drum sounds. These sorts of noises are the most eruptive to a residential neighbor d, To provide an accurate picture of noise impacm, it is rccou=e nded that one of two alternative r actrrics,4&x or SE,be employed. These metrics enarphssiaes short tura,inrvasiv*form of aois4 which charade parlang lot use,,and will provide an more.accurate and in orrnat ve view of the noise impacts associated with the proposed project: In addition,the estimates of sound levels presented in the Draft Wit.are based upon me ire mean dat;while uxbWeally correct,were tarn in locations that would produce optimistic rte. Specifically,r suremeats were taken during final exams when the noise in the lei perm$lot is significantly lower than during the>neg lar school year. It is recommended that them ix►easur terns be discounted. The projections of the sound levels at the Monte'Seaeno neighborhood are also unrealistic for a variety of remsorns.The reflections from the neighboring hills were ignored. In addition„<the as*u tes were made at krca't on of.thes des,not at the pmperty lines,,which is obis case woWd be sulwtmoxially higher The DEIR sugpsts that the projects noise levels will be:rFswvmive to the residents and would negatively affect the quality of life in the Monte Screw Neighborhood. This conclusion is buried in the EIR and no sohhtion is oflkrad in the twcL It is recommended trio no plan be approved that places a shAe nt parking lot irnxnediately adjacent to residences. If a plan to add smdent parking must be meted,an alternative locationbe selected. The Nature of the Pwlftg Lot Nobe Source The parking los at the Mcate Screw H'School has varied tremendously over tune. At timers,the studeab have not genersted substanhtial noise as heard from the iV,lmu Sereno homes.At oth er*m,there have been,loud mifs caused by amplified muse,by shouting and by engine noises.The high school administreEtiorh has been responsive to cots made by homeowners,and immediate but shout term reductions ire.noise have been noted. 05-28-2003 02:34PM FRU-Shuts, Mihaly s Welnberstr LLP: +41665259th T-585 P.004/028 P-955 This is most cane y due,to the fact that wachers have be,en seen mubnOty iu the pig tot fizst thialg in the day when The majority of tote smdogs arrive. The tnp�rovemUlt 1"ts as Tong as the lot is patrolled.If a parking lot rmcft horn the schrol were to be'consauc tod, the issue of enforcemot would be snore dffw t Owing to the lack of proximity. The noise,in tit$parldnS lot is due to=and truck en$iues being std,homs ung, children shouting sod loud muitC fr=radios, boom boxes and other audio appliaces. Th6 sort of noise is mmemely intoxmittteut atad made up`of a succession oftraaasients (sometimes called sire eveUt noise). As''su*it is poorly rqresented as a coumnt background character ed by an average:mise leve 1.The natt=of noise traassients is discussed below,the obviously irritating Wture of them is maorioned'am+d convmntiot l way of dea&g with tbent is discussed below. Technical Issues nd DeffUNpngpeoffiHeise levels,an e s-Noise is measured in units called decibels Sod fOr cttmattmity �. a, emphasis is put upon rite frequencies to-which the b=an car is most sensitive. The A weighted meamuemM is commonly,used fm cou*u=noise soma bke few rued the units of noise are abbreviated as dBA. A weWWng is csseatialiy a filter that is iinms"'ve to noise in the love frequency range(below nide C ar in the same range as most automobile Wise).See Appendix i. Decz-bel is a logarithmic wdt of Measure which has*e property that the total energy m a sound wave imreases tel&ld Wben the<=Md level in dBA increases by tenFar example, sn environment with a noise level of 50 dBA consains ten tunes vu"sound Snow than one-with a level of 44 dBA.Sizmilarrly,ireasigg the by 3 dBA doubles that of sound energy ire the environment. Thus the,sound level 6 dSA repreSeW tWW*the amoxud of sound e=gy as'3 dBA and 63 dBA tcpresents twice the amount of sound as 60 dBA. Av_��' P gtocol--Very often,the sound l+avels reported for public decision maldng are averaged levels. There+are two such muds which are commoEnly reported. Each its summarizedbelow L,-one of these is*e average power measured over a specific time iuteral,typically 1- 12 hours.This metric involves mzasuriug the total sound.energy over that time interval cad the total time over it was r�ecortled. The power is conv a l4g exbed to dB using og by power at the re (liner) and is a veCy' a arltYan�fbrmTala,. This gives the sverage,gaw receptor fair way of estimadug the loudness of a wide variety of golmds such as a feu or bigbWa3 traffic. . is anotl=even more complex calculating.It involves recording the data from a 24 tread for brit with a penalty for how period and aver qM it�uifh nus saztae xzt d Hca sound at eight.$ec&use the noise issue>associated with the school can be limited to the daytime laoc by ordmace nmaw the puking lot mavailable at night,it is ern less useful as a metri+c'for evaluating'm$impact oxo the acioborbood.This metric should also not be considered. Tie or 1=3g&e Sotmnds- lu sme cases noise is made up of intermittent bursts of sound. Exiles we terC*AO mvvnmg bO=k mking etc. Such sounds aro poorly chaacterized by avMp power levet metrics like I„q and Ias- L==ad SEL-Because of the avem&&nature of the 1pq„A Ldn paFamM'sthey we blind to all but tI}e very largest and longest=nsients.For"=rplo,a residual neigbborhoctd in wbich the ambient sound level is fid dBA,the occurreme of a;sem boom - by a low flying mer jet at 100 dBA would increame the I"to 60.6 dIM S"imilal'Y the same location in the presence of a pudog lot where 20 SW's were s#erW up(90 dBA for 3 seeon&each) would result in a value of 62.3 dBA. See Appendix 2. Similarly,a mise level of 95 dBA due to heave co rmruction tyat lasted 5 minutes a day with a background nye of sofdy mstling trees in a.gait breeze(45 dBA)for the rest of the day would be hi&y objecdonable but would be only 50 dB' - According to the'World Health Organization, those transients are most disruptive to people. See:Appendix 6. The WHO recc+ ds the ps=ew"ax or SEI,in conjunction with C weighting rather Om A weighting. This chop in weigh would produce sikafficnutly higher values of sound meamume mt in that&e low Dequency armble ft=tucks and cars starting up in the peridng lot would not be discounted as is the cases with A weighting(see Appendix 1). In Dgk r&Komtbt An nu�t#�ee_yE Cifv of C1&V(2 001)9 I .. ' + Cal.A r,lth 1344, it was concluded that the use of fav,rather thsn I& or 14q wits necessaxy w grovk1a a realistic anewwwt of the impact of Iriumident noise. It is recommended that suet,Lm.measurettme is be made at the present parking lot and used to produce an estimate cif,`ft mrisc levels at the Mone Sereno party border. A sample of such an est ting procedure is given.in Appendix 5. For the barking lot which bas short periods ofbonas,shouts engins revving,tires sclaealing and radios at varkm vow,the&V0MgiXk6 Metric JQ should not be considered and thus, the conclusia=of the D=ftER with respect to noise we invalid and need to be replaced with wrote mcasureavift, Evaluation of Cbapter 4,Section 4. Quolati ons Of of noise at A=sites arc quilted.Several important questions arise whichmm+ake the measurement values quoted suspect 1. The data presenm td in the Draft FML was recorded on Jutta 11,2002 which was durittg the final==pa nod and as such are sign fi'i+c.an underestimates,of the sett noise of nomal tdraf is in sad out of the paddag lot, Sae Appendix 3.This is not a represenutive time for the paddng'lot sound level because malty of the stutim s were not presea and bemse the studeats do not all arrives on a*Wla schedule_ Any infirences drawn from that noise study should 4edisregarded riled and the study repeated.; .....................................................................:...................... ........-1.1-................................................I......................................................................................... .............. 05-28-2M 31.34PM FRU-Shuts, Mihaly I WfInborg4r LLP- +4155525816 T-H5 P.006/028 F-956 2. Sites 2 and 3 marked on FiVre 4-9-2 indicate that meaSuMnents were takea on residential properties,apparenfly direcdy at the residences.Neither Of the PrVeM of&e ruasurenum nor did they 9=access to the individuals owners are aware were td=at ft Mane doing die suidy so itis cAmhded that Iha masutmUft serano curb.Therefore,the incanUment underestimate noise levels caused by ft high school eadents and ft associated traffic,beemse of the:extra dimece for the orded by the ho sound 10 travel and also because of**so=d blodicing aff uses themselves. The measur=mts am imcculate and should be redone. 3. The nzxilmm noise quoted for the proposed Monte'Vft Parking lot wu 65-1 dB. This is in conmufiction with Ihe comMents made,as pap 4.8-17-4A-18 wbich state"Single event,noise levels associated with. Palldmg bd&ies cad reach levels of approximately 92 dBA at 50 feet for brief periods of time."This level for such parking lots is accurate and bw been do=mu*d e1jewhm in the literature.For exmpje,me Appendix 4 entitled'tarpeUtUia VaDOY CavethOuse PW9mm Revised Find EU L" The nmabers quoted for the proposed ParkiII&to t should be cowidered suspect and jejmted. On page 4.8-9,Contra Cosm PolicY 11-16 is quoted as Mtiug"t"If an ureas =nwlly increase'M 110M should not below the===Hn lln�ly acceptable"noise level,level,a-a " E 6ne metrics of loq or were us 4 a neoessarily be allowed. Ven if the unfair llaverslg— pa,kW9 lot adjoming;the Monte Smno residences would produce noise levels at the edge which would be exem*e. For a parking 10T abutting residential lots,The of ft Property noise at the boundary would be the same as the noise in the parU*lot and is estimated to be 70 dBA.See Appendix 5. On pap 4.8-19,c"Stions were done for noise estimates based upon a SEL of 92 dB at a distance of 50 feet An esdMS10 of avwage noise was then calculated.As discussed above,the average noise level for a transient environment is InisIftdilit and predicts ace"ble levels for unacceptible envjroninancs.Fwther,the plan places the t-WIdng lot immediately adjacent W WtW SC=0 grape M lines, not 50 feet ffoM them So the Wise ot estimtC3 04 50 feet we invMd. Residents Should exPcct W be Able to bzV0 P65oe wd qu' in their own back yards not just at the 110=e- Ibis cc=bzsi"caused the Town of Mom to memm noise levels at the property IijIt now than at 6&homes. je—e Town of MOMP Tow.Council Meeting;Mizaaes,June 12,2002,Me TC2002-7. Even if the invalid calculafion wen W be wcepted,&e Daft EIR poiuts out that the school is not required to limit parking to ft dayfime hours and that it could e=Uy be used at all hours.It Sm on to stair eat such a use would be a"sleep di"don W W-UbY existing nsidences.As a resuk long tam increases in ambionknois,1b,"ble to the proposed parking lot would be considered potentially sigdflcaal." This is a serious and valid SUt==t end shows the mvesive nature of the proposed project upon its neighbors- miltigation should be ft responsibilitY Of On page 2-24 the Dmft MR Points Out that any the SRVUSD and is beyond the scope of the studY.Not Only is the c on:Woneous ...................... ............... �8-28-2tiD3 �2.3�iP� PRO=Shu#p, ;Mihaly s W91nbsrstr L1R_ tdf8652681b T-583 P-DDTA28 H56 Owing to the locatica est aces and thei ivVW averaging of txanseaats causing therm to be ipored,the report puts mitigation issues into tate f ure and to a position beyond the authuriiy of the mon mfg body.It is Lely that a wall of adeqtude bright for sound but a nne would violate building codes awing to the ear#hquake ordinances lin this area. For these reasons,a pang lot plan sboWd be i*e end out of hand. It is Unportant to ralize Ow the task of mediating the noise fim a Pa"rl=g tat immediately adjacent to the proposed patrkbW lot would be exuatnely difficult. There is no d tst=e to disburse The sound and owing to the:shape of the terrain,,sound:buffer walls would need to be very.high to eliminate lint of sight ftm the pang lot to the bedrooms of the homes in que stiorL The oast of such a wall may well be beyond the means of dw SRVUSD budget, The:coat of sub a wall should be estimated before considering such a protect. Sound Level Evaluadon Issuers The Inc EIR estimates the sound Ievals 80 foet pariting lot It is la dy that this was clone to allow for some amount of attawndvn of the noise levels ftm ft panting lot: The estimate vas ma&as udng that the noise lei on the Montes Seerano propetty owners were Act mo uuant to mgt owept the levelsat the hou Property Owners may want to UN dzir property during school boon and went to have serenity in doing so. The sound level ast mates inalm theassumption duc *e noise is nutawd by 6 dB Aa doubling of distance.This is portly the=time*in an,am whom the a srvrrouto mut coag high sbrabs or uneven tom. The estmates tondude the:Mme level at the residences ares vales of Lq of 66.9 dSA and L at 64.1 dBA. Tbm values were obtained by eating the noise level at the pmpetrty Ime3;.at 3 d'Etdoubling of'distance,and wt&the automobiles dieing half trucks and SIG's.The emimate was based upon 3 418 per doubling of duce mer that the 6 dB wbich was uftd by the:auaws of the DEIR in question' WlYi*it is unreasonable te' coUftXux level area ea for an i2tetru*uW noise source lie the parking 14 even the values are in excess of the 60 dDA l it(see App mdix 5l_ Rwommmdedon for A riW*Sound Valuation There am City,County and Suaate3 OMimwe&recommending the mmd levelat residential sites be 'limited to 60 dBA. To be:a good neigbbor,the High School ftuld not be&HoWex W creator anYdling that pzadUaest tzUMieft goat exceed this level at the property line. Tbis is a mtscb metre:sting=requir=M than to 60 dBA 4pr vane mise levet messuremm that is discussed in the MIL .................1.11.........................I.......................................I............................................................................ ......----.......... ........... ............... U:31PM FRU-Shute, Mihaly & WeInberstr UP. +4135525816 T-585 P.008/020 F-illj r4ow LWAfS in a QM Sm LeaMm NeIghbaftO as ffa, as sr W,16,61ka0m0e07 DOW= As was done for an EIR for Orange CMIntY,California,a worst cue a highest hour modeling was employed to estimate the realistic inIP80 Of the not"sources being evaluated. 'See DEM orange County,CA State A„ oft ec.2000)and A24god—B-I& m 2M).Siniilarly data A&=IiLvs Tuffic Noise Lmid fD t' HooAomdlim- acquired in ii quiet wi&borhood in Sim LeMI&O showed Ihe SiJFifiC8zc*Of Udug highest bour data. The 24 hour measarement WOMWOU IS shown in the figure below Data was t*=directly hum ft published MIL See MR Bans W QMWdMIKZMiMt Saxe Leandro CA,SCH#20000092044. It Is CIM from the&mph that the noise level is Ugmfiogn*higw dunng the two mute hours Wben noise data we ao"uvd In this way,bigbor esdaintes,=oftined for the noise iupa at ftse sites. Responn to DFJR Chapter 2 Pages 22-27(NOIN Issues) CEQA recommends the p1blicgglon of .CNET,(community Noise Equivalent Level) COMM 85 R COUVWient way to diagmmatically display the effects of the arise an the comm=jty. No such presentation is made in the DEUR and should be. Page 2-22 The Proposed Soccer field is esdmand to have noise levels of 75 dDA and>an attemation of 6 dBA per doubbno of dimfoxthe noise source to the receptor. TbwePIOT- t are several.&W6 in tbW epkuljfo& Fin%the soccer field dO66 TIOt 000ftle a point so=e.pjgdW,thea noise due to spectators is spree d over a distance of roughly 100 M990M Thuz,the noise does mat disbww at all until the Ova=traveled than 100 Mcd is grea Second,ibere is to be subsl=dd excavation of the hi' S in the srts to level the playing ReI& In doing go,rta00tiII&SUrfikM will,be cteated,making it difficult to ftftAtO the noise kwels. To be sm,ignoring the effects of these"walls"will cause the noise levels to be underestimated. Page 2-23 The study concludes that the-noise levels ar the homes would be 69 dBA (consistew with Appendix 5y The study concludes that this could potentially.exceed the Cbmty-s DNL noise sumdard of 60 dBA.No mitigniol,suggestion is offered and no conclusions about the significa=of*ceftct am offered. ......................................... .............................. 05-28.2003 0235P FRN-Shute, MiNlY Wnbertcer LLP. +4155525818 T•605 P.006/028 F-855 It appears that the authors of the DEQ coed Cl that a*Y moues that deal with the school*s use of'the property are beyond the scope of the study, While this may be true for the EIR con th*tori,the purpose stated by CEQA.is to pmvide the public with a rftlistic assesnumt of&e Program. Because the prop=is stated to include the homes,the at$tletic field and the pandas lot,the DER is inoomgiete and conclusions cannot be drMVM from it age 2-24 7'he DEiR concludes that the addition of a pg6dng lot is.?otentially Signit caur but that after mitiption it is"Less than Significant"The report claims that the Mitigation would be a totally separate effort and any mr6pum issues we d be ft respa V*of the school. The only minion,issue world be the posting of a sign statim the hours to be limited to 7 am to T pm..In order to rendes the adjac=t residences es used,much greawm ==would be reed d=a simple sign. Technical treatm,cmt of the noise breis are considered above in this report,showing tbiat substantial . mediation would be needed.This is likely to be sufficiently costly that the SRVUSD would not be in a position to accommodate the yes required.An economic estimate of such a Mitigation progmt mast be donee before any action is taken on any part of this project if the residences we to be coupled to the school plans. Page 2.25 It is estimated that the noise level amibutable to the paddag lot measured at 50 - Ibet distant is$2 dBA. According to this DER,pig=4.8-1,this corresponds to a noise somewime between a"Soft Radio Musk in an Apartment"and a Soft%isper at 5 feet.'' This is ft=wistent witb experience and dee not std The test of common experience or the expotionce of anyone visiting the present parking lot. 85-28-Z003 82 35 PM FW-Shuts, Mihaly & Wtinborsor LLP'. +4166625818 T-585 P.010/028 P-955 Appeaft I. Weigh= 'factors fOrNoise Mmsummeats gin¢Lws1 wethting dab Ichsrt tp t � •4D 40 �I -50 ao Fniquom Q5�T@-2!193 1r2,815P1� FRGIi-Shute, Wha1Y 4 Waintersor LLP- +411162681& TIR P-011/028 F»955 Appendix 2 Appendix c x Calculadou of U,,for Two Se"merios Jet Alreraft Tan the fust cm,them is a quiet weigbborhood at 55 dBA for 12 moors and there is a law nyixtg.Tet Aircraft emitting a sonic boom(100 dRA)for 3 seconds. The baa JW*und power level is L-55 dBA which carresporuis to a power is linen traits of P-10's"O—316.228 relative power units The total emSy in the background neighborhood;noise is the power'ti s the time(12 haunts Ins 3 sees) E-Pt—316228 *(12*60*60-3)=3 16228 *43197-1356009!}89 relative=e'3rgy units The Sonia:boom power levet is DwI00 dBA which corresponds to a power:in linear'utaits of P-10 teonrer-ipe° The total em in The sonic boom noise is the power times the time(3 sec) B-Pt- 10'0 3=3* 10" aging the two emergies and dividing by 12 hours(43200 seconds)gives the 12 hour avenge:power in linear units: P-(13660090809+10000000=)143200--43660090809143200-1010650 Converting to dS gives La' 1.._,=113*lo&a(1010650) L,q m60.05 dB 7.0 SVVS In this case,Me satr>,e 5S dBA a nviro=ent is vieit+ed by 20 SUVs OW each take 2 secaands to start up.at a noir 1"-of 90 dB(as per Humphrey n M _ As above,the backgromd power(linear units)-P-10sst"o•316228 relatives gower units So the 1OW a nnmgy m the bwkgmwad neWftrhood noise exchiding the til seconds of SUV Starting time is E-Pt=316228 4(12*60*64-40 sec)-1364839{3381 relative anergy units .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I..,........... FRO*-Shuts. Mihaly A Weinhorler ILP. +4156525SIS P-012/028 F-451 The sW awmv power level is L=90 dBA which corresponds io a power I liner UMTS Of P-1000000000 relefive power Units The total energy in SUV SMXWp noise is the power times the time(40 sec) B-Pt-40000000000 relative energy units Wing the two energies and dividing by 12 hours(41200 seconds}Sivu 619 12 bour average power M linear writs' P-(53648390381/43200-1241861 Convening To dB gives 14q: J..eI0*I0&0(1241 MI) Laq —60.9 dB ............. ............................... 06–$6-2003 02.36PM FRO*shute. Whily I Vainherpr LLP, t�1' 5���iB16 T-385 P,D13/028 F•065 Appendix 3. Monte'Vista School+Caltudar for 6111/2002 X 'IS NGS L TA AMYTE VIM W"5"Oft tai hoWmaGon Dwp 14ft1 spar,, ,�..r+�rmw,n�e�eawrr�sor ra�rrwy�.- �• �e SCMMWZX FOA TOM Y.- Fivab rcrrx .�.w�x > n tttif 1 r&*- pas .t- vnmximmr.haw 23 ft"MIL am-Aft Be+Wc .N#rt11Y lit Ls v4gwmat dam.am area aft-Vow e� zed- t ta�aai� s�sr-r.:ar- p ref�r,,�, �p.At ypodaw i�jt m,t spmdet wWmari�r�e[tr�cArtrt+uidrerr �ova�+�#�a�ae� �l+� a�c�ol�c+�r�D��tar t�.�dk,a�sluri :a�ec�and�Ks+clA�. �6i�n�ied� �L�a�, _'"�'+� •.'�e9a�atlatr�a�nias#�+ar� �ttc ��rAensr.6t t4*5 tn+ UrA matt.0"m astpabovid soft tit-t DdKA A 4wmv4xwvtvmft (MM41md Ct$u=y V 1 Do. BL,iL�P�lV�E�i'i.lBIQ;;3ri0t-Tare �rt �ath�tteu �t► ��wtanm�rmn�se. C3�' �Il'3 ":' ��c7f:'►st1u71sif6�Nj:� b`p�{1�.Nb�t��Mi'�!! r —Ae M2- &tea A" stw camr m +3�m p+a� 44e+r+►ori aM s�tAar. tkma7e�t�%itfer• �ranvng�ca�r ��a ter a #'awy ' 33> el�r�adc� + o�s+.�ed�eoid. -lP�ar�a�k�e ►' fin surd� tt�t�at�rr�rt sty r.�€xa 1p►�t�p�t�dad �atrl�wolrlfi�►@u,�1r w Ate -W*dVO eNOW kn Adie CW f4 aK i1S Mao*U 03 MW year mud,.O bW m W p de sVW 03-ZS-2063 02 SOPM FROM-Shuts, 'Mih&IY d h inbtrftr ILP. +4111623816 T-688 P•014/928 P-96 Aptp mft 4 Secdon of Carp ltefla Greenhouse Study. Note Use of L=and the mmd levels in the bigh schaol garkkg lot SaefMR67 Netari 3.71WUIS� �l�?� frt�u�ttok�tr�tc+wren►�tt+�awtt►i+�ic�Wt�:�dr+ouuty ticxa6r�iGw�E+�tipY:t�tS#:+✓� + +�Lt�'ne�►e�m�ad��,erntr CittairpslhoeeRep�etatrtmrLll�e�bo+Iacar+r`gntd�rinxd�t:ertpr aYa�,�tmdu��mdrpi�itptrtrnn�k'�cu�tit�t�r Amar.'#�Y�tJrp'�tt�o+�t ir:��'s�fL xi�ni�emtf8utx�dld�6br. r�aprarorca�u�h�+atll�flx"Iw�brg+t+raFT,�fitt�+r[ esriro+�'i°'' .utr1 prrtltt�1�+tVC�}Lt ��ara.�r�t�,xtMtFtfsmses t�otdcPatJ7CCM.�vkidtc�el��,t+4�,y�ts:� wvncit�arrrrr�Mw j�t�ttidiP'�t!•lu��f eRni�tM-EitMfio�,learbr:r�r�u1N'gAwft*. '�lKdtiEt4tt4ir tbtoYgkW dw SteuFi Am fn.apPla6�r a'n�+�r�a4PR�ot�i al. Xdw 7Tsc Y si"Stints'�ae6aaE1'Fnsuvonrm�al7iaq�droalds�t,ukh�rtgt btianssst(t�pdslrs!�' �tisrSlwt�6iC'EptW'srsatti�M sR}pec nth;�ltp'urai tl�arars�tintri ts�rtaa'�'bts t�ioltta� tisftoraterrieu�nbrat�perSTak��?`+i ►GridttG �edEanX*si50 sMtmuttatntatlx v�temtionttl�utlted nn,hnke�299�f to atyt�at�re�d t�na�u�ttPurrtta T�to aria stases s�'t]fo rutftro:��ig s stry e[t3te i�oetmtiaet et+o�ttrror3 in Un: et7$xir(araaut3 mdprrt6►a+taddt�ia�t�icibl��t4oe�t lYaeAtrbe eocs»ur�ttanot, a. Qvm�of end Metaest.Atatyai>rcet�r y+$tmw�ix�patetoiEs ca�ttcad tier sxtlra ::e�dar+ussut ytawtt!�wvrkn�s�Eote�ateltl:Sbltt:of 6ucsatrn2trarmg ae�t�erwa+ol�trh#t ru+����fiix�gerwei�a�st �+a tac�e�tlyr,tap,�t runsa as a �Pw}as�l�oto Ipgt �i�ti'��}.TttAa7tAitac�tts�iteseeb+3 3ntce�mcaemretnaae of sut�.d�aadks rye$�3att aityautuE.iP in�etntat�paao�t3�►uasdP statistcaw Fora1cgporWOfAk t!omwort A�oso+ rr esrravi adirpapbvit l dutrsgaae+anc9rnneneneottwst f3raae�ftla.�! tsrettlgn�ndanal�r>sn�LetRlut�sond3aat 19ct+n �ra3tsii�+Antdttip recta:wdvel,�egt�5v*lteirarrx�tie{aoe! .Tire tally* r4d.m, t1'�ewiiavd►A�+vo�tt�Ee�wEJ!}ut ix�td+�ahaMtln£IN'�1tt+t•anaeru�+mi+e�es,����tst'+t��+a�i Int*ert=TtamwVwyw$kVttAzverspsdadof-Som.'Eye L"15*ae4wAAxm IwK" Io�rpcdalf Tisa r p�tmtara lP e, ae�tttF 4�++a�nafrxvlth tl�S�tlF�l#�ae�l un�r , 1�wyt d�tea�+I�aat:n+t pressttse7e�t dux pe�p�csu�et�i��aa+et141eaea�o�nei ttrtrt��a�as . x�usaand t��nef}.��1lr�ietta�twe#�a�ddeda�illtmc'd��y;6e+ea�EP,�drroddr$+rna ]taq�tNttr�iiC�t�t �a1 ;bnE sttrte«taa�►x��'yatar,�tiy u�usceyt3dbtsstla'w�utJ a14,tric70.t8'lOn+attmnaetc�crdot�wx�,eraro�asi�etd'#ilerad Hepttrac€tb�riatuer¢ottEu. hme�tt,e�:s wr�l auur�abtwl(Ir#B fir.d+prt'�t�S �t be`�it$�tac[�tvrlt�e ...:, asrino nn� ,i�aiftcE+ lrt.^craprP�wst�+rno�l�sv�asraMeraid�whi�rl-�d1►d�n++�+* �t+t�eoarrsEiti tro-t} Ioad. TEt�rtyCtWd t#ClY pCrIRcI'in wiaiCia ri0[Jo tIPAE�igt�4l9ttlltKCCttit�Q thdts�octssai a{�t sadr ns�atraoa�e�tams deafiv�erdrlstarzvr�r�tct'6n�tier a�e>'Y'ltei�+` t i6�trtu�'[.wrd{3�j�sa'�tx's tltiaceirtl���►1swu�x�m�gf�ac�sa'�ouc EiJ+.f �5-t8-28D9 �2.36P4 FROM-Shats,`Mihaly I binbwssr LLP. F-945 ib++ssn;r Aas� perintt.T b vxs aAAkftctttidoIDsugtallowmbsekv&wwmntfor +rem�a�fECci 'aIkai+vYChtltiglA:W+aK.iO�sJrlres®.ha'�opltMfn,sClr�e�r�,urdt tort sti+d�brsrir�a�csstastuvlbxwiey�end tl+�n 6snaaswnal roitista�ewne m�el�tn*raeettfq{erag<ier�t�rrnme�su6(c�taa ivsp,'+►� P9tit agfi10v dbm�xwwk R1s*fl0w w wfb%0�20 Uv%lPpIW In &-wv^wwmwmuddwrOudyam,StmParkw4Tb[s+'CaqMiftlha +atd4dw bacwe,oer�rfkkv r uutmtMl sstM afaa+�1TnasFaTt salrAoo*�7P=*w9VdAKvWPM$1Ohas e�rtmltlo C�Spiatmfa7�nsrl�oota�+drni> Ide�Ippemcati�4oar+glls�t�n►.°tl�rtn rid ilsssil5. �dc�+�gf lest saeiat�r ts+Pxagrao+� s�r�rccpi�rr+�rtmat�s?sowm cm Figa�3.4cFS�xtiafttll,Pra�aerlla+eriptlaet c>:x ,¢,Naiuc9wtesw.'T�rslSr+nrt9r��aenl►rxy�sts.fltr ptiri3cw rmitr eerot�r In d►c �J'ysaau, �n'�c+oxxs��Mtysu� k►madm�s�cnetrpndattaa�tle�k�t► mamWadixlumdawin.ibrAwAy w%mjaot?.IM.AsstwnittTa6k=-I. eevvd kr+e� s�d+�id+���t��l�udya�+ la�ai�ral�aTxw�k�ad�Sad�xMsw prtnm�ru�llnncaarddasa,�4sas�1192.L+list�s�tar�alddstll�hSckrtrot�� su+�urodat o+rbe.60 d:�{�s'}�.�Phict►aaa�aw#1* u� iR��aler#c►sLBt.. Mrawr:rrf rn+iue++s#fb � N6�"�*�iaw�r.in mr i5 bn'.�p di'1t;Ai on want _ e E.MW t ?` 624 1A 0TOR iYamrmnr�t�Isroar,hufCnlleaalj�titi. d Ilwsslsirxg amino Is--'iTOts"WMM*+ I,n.+ dd Id n*C*utsRafSD p[b 8ltdaalie+ptaa3 bL*VVKI fArVd k-,cwtstlWWftlsytit htL'ttksshcdciaayfit�l �rt.es+nai fly,'�g�7�aa11ca+s ewOc�llh ba�+snbr�ar�tad rxaa�ut :far't'�fyrcw 'CC�r Wnmrsst�aspitNr ik�#�it+t jt►t h3uhi5t[t tNlil�/i i�Cdil�faD�Ss7+v!lri waCdgEl•�P ��C�1,� . 'ilt4�ac6�s10C f1010o tiwaes ltafoe e�ietuiraua ie�dttµl��fosar�yng bias, ' ��ri�rsprCA�w a�Jad�r g»�smialpaai�u.pooi sraastl�riC > i rnrs+aa#on 05-26-2003 02-.38PM FROHhute, Mihaly $ Walab*rgrr LLP. tdi53525H1B T-183 Q.41VO28 F-155 Appeaft S Gaiculation of the Parking Lot Assodaftd Noise Level at the Monte Sereno Prop"Line The geometry used for the calculation is shwa below. 200 ft. 9 8 ? 5 feet 200 R. 3 Location of Sound 6 5 . Each circle represents 40119!=44.5 cars Average startup= 85 dBA @ 5' for 3 sec 1 car to 10 has other noise too (shouts hom, radio, restart, etc.) The calculation is done using an Excel Spreadsheet shown below. Number SWUP f vehicle Distanee to of Attenuaon car(dBA) Lamfion Obse"don Obftace obs Poinfit Paw(18 Ooubtngs deldoubling) point 1 5.0OC-4.00 0.00 0.00 92.0 2 1.05E+02 4.39 26.36 65.6 3 2.05E+112 5.38 32,15 58.9 4 9.61E+01 4.23 25.50 66.5 5 1.389+02 4.79 28.72 63.3 8 2.21E+02 9.47 32.91 69,2 7 9.31E+01 4.25 25.50 85.5 8 1.38E+02 4.79 28.72 63.3 9 2.21E+02 5.47 32.81 58.2 ConUrumd below N,. 06- 8-2tJ03 2.36P1i1 FROM-Shuts. m1haly I WeInborser LLP. +415S576818 T-685 P.D1tC(1 8 I: A55 Energy(3 1ta hkis aee Oftr ftl" Power Loc mign Unear Power duration per 10 Came {a{.48 Po1M# (4+4.6 vetddes) aeoh) a obs potr€sil v+Ihtc") 1 7.059+10 2.12E+11 S8.0 1.41E+09 I 2 1.0E+Q8 4.90E+013 58.6 3.26E+06 3 4.30E,+07 1.299+0181 52.9 8.59E+05 4 1-WE+08 5.98E+08 69.5 3.97E+06 6 9.48E+07 2,84E+08 58.3 1.89E+08 a 3.89E-0T 1.11E*08 52.2 7.36E-1"05 7 1."E+oe 5.96E+08 59.5 3.970+08 8 9.48E+07 2.84E*08 ` 56.3 1.18"6 9 3.69E+07 1.11E+08 52.2 7.38E+05 Conftnued below Energy EnwW for 2x(25 set 8ladaws of Day Uneer dtnvftn d6tt(as per Gasoline Ener (9 Total arch) D61) Power hours) Energy 7.04E+1G 50 1.013E+06 2.WE 9 2.85E+I1 1.63E+08 0 0.t10E-+00 0.,00E+0O 8.83E+08 4.29E+07 0 0.00E+00 G.00E+00 1.72E+08 1.98E+08 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.OSE-f-06 9.46E+07 0 0.006+00 DMF.+00 3.7`90+08 3.>36E407 0 O.fl0E+00 0.00E+0 1.49E+N 1.96E+08 0 O.00E 010OS400 7-95E+08 9.413E+07 0 0.00E400 OME+00 3.79E+08 3.613E+07 0 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 1.413E+08 ToW. 2.889+11 Tctal/S Hrs: 1.00E407 d8+A: 70.0 Thus,the noise at the Mmte 5srew propaty lime h nr a=cprabte by ev=*e I4q metric. 05-28-2003 02 411 P9 FROM-Shuts, Mihaly & binborlor LLP. +4165526816 T-585 P-018/028 F-155 Appendix b. Excerpt from s World health Organimfift Study on Noise vmm uni Nom ra�it�urr�a�.�+��rc +�zrc�7l�rr�.�ra�l►r�skat 'nr�rr�r�' S-106691 SA-g*krtK Snvdrn YflAftt#S,iI1<ii�'it1� ........................................... _. __....... _....... ......... _ ................. ......._. _......._..._......_...... .. .. ._._. _._... _.._.. _ ......... ......._. _.... _ __ _ ............................ 05'28-2003 Q2:3TPM RW-Shute Mihaly & Wainborar LLP. }4166525815 T-5'85 P-014/020 moo T IBruad++�Z Ilndv�allIMl�{tt-2 X17 �y Berglund, B, dt Lladvail, T. (Edea.). Community noisc. Awliivei of tbe Center far SesnscryrRemarch.1:995,2(1),1-195. .Abstr acct.'lbe docuwAd Critically rave tete advent:effrxs of COVAUtarft ase. ineludiag WerAreoee with cotm onicaadon:. noise-WhWed bearkq avmymo rexponsm and of oM,cn sleep, sbe =d1muctdar and psAmPhAtologieg systerm. verkemom PmA= tY. aW social behatlor.Noise sneasm or Induces based only an energy si m at onr am w enoilh for ttaP dw=wization of mutt tobet a nvixoame ts. This is puti=11arly trues whev conavind wbb health assesunent and pm dlctiorrs.It is-equaRy h7q*n nr to meame orad d ay the'aodmw des of the noise fluchadans, jxefe=tily Wit:biwd wfth a measura of the number of noise events,wd to s whtdw the noise inckuks a large proportion of law frrgt congmmrxL For dwetfingq,rmrawn ded guideline values iu ide bedmoms we 30 dB LAoq ft eta continuous noise and for ai no= avem 43 d6 LA x. To protect dee malwity of pec+pler from be sariou*annoyed during the da rune,the sound parr levat t}arm staacl r, coaYtimmus soit a on balooa es, twat:s,and In outdoor ItAq arm dwoA not ugaW 55 tS LAarl. To protect the m*rhy of pal ltm being modemmly annoyed durbs the daYdma,the sound Promm kwd should not exceed50 dB LAesl.At aWafim ouU acr2x sound``pressure levels shouk! na eneod 43 dB LAS,so #hat p may sle M with tedrom wiadbws opem In schools-aW preactacots,to be aWt;to hetet and tndentand 4x&cn xMMSes im class moms,the sound pressure level glad not cweod 35 dB L h q during twchvg smions.For hearing impaired child rrn,a ami lower tenet treaty be receded.Ma mvxWrAdlan tiara in Me elates mom shooed be aybous 0.6 16 and prefecaWy kowe r for boring irqmhed chikken.. For ownNy balls and ca# Cerin In scl ool buiidittp, the dation time sboa[d be hers than I's. For outftor~unds tlaa sa w7d pressure level ftern erccar d stmt us sbould ut mead 53 d8 LAcq. to itaspita h during WgWirm ft re=mmle+d' videlim venues for wandroorm should be 300 Lkeq tonedw with 40 dB l..A ux Since Palms hm Eats sba'lity to Cape wiTk sa7ess�,tote aqulvdwtt sounWasm lern1 should not eweed 35 - 9-Z fl3 02:3?PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Wslnberger LLP. +41555ZE81B T-US P,020/028 "55 8 dB i.Aeq in nim mom-in which pemft are Wag treata4 v m nvW or vsstirtg.Ta cormoemr for pro 'ftyquag Pwples boning I duftIchuM tomacti4bi+s ++amts provhiond viddim For cow WK cut&or disco cju . It is mold that pati+ m Amu d bac be eked to sound ptessuro levels Veatcr Agn 100 dS LAoq dwiqg z 4-haur period The surae' Zd4dim vatues Apply for -sounds fted back in hmidpboms wast couvermd to equivAeat.f m fttd t t.To aid hearog deficits firma " and. works. Mffomzm and "mm— should nos ba. expaer3 to nme lbav AO AB(peak) of imptdsive saht#tt t. aisft Ian quiet outdoor ate=is puklmd m d cunseatlon area&shmid be g[ssR ved and the bacsound-Waoisd nada ba'kapt low. _.... .... ............... ......... ........ ....................._.................... . . ......... ......... .................... .............................. Q5�29-2008 Q2:MM FRO#MShuts, tl a l y I We l aboror LLP: +4165525818 T-S65 P.021/020 f-953 10 Forsword This documem is prate far ft World Realtb.©rgtawiaan(W110)and U a rz%isidttt of dw a zIler WHO docutta#eactc uWbise l (WHO Erfvim- uttsstat Ha&M Crinteria, 12, Genew "9VbAd Halth arganintiom 1980) but;is caepwWodlargely and supplt menecd with, i.&, scctions as pbyaidlogy of Jumiing od rdozod wod avisms, an psydoacousz , and on meaml and behwvlorg effeata of anise. Gbidelineac for levels of o=wauaity,noise in tgft=envirunamts are also included.'!fie d=n=t dots not'Rmw on ucculut t in&strW A&-aft doewsm of 1 Ccrt=umity Noise was;•ps+epared by;FroRwor BiVua Berglund. Stodftim 'University(, and Profie r`tlwmw Liadvall`, Kmolinft hmivat, 4t+oe:tholm. an bdWf,of the WFTO and the Nordc Noise Comp of the Nordic Coandl ofNfu%6=.Publisbed immadoral and nalo tsl' r eAcws of coiwwdlty t+oise baw been conpAed duristg the ps t t of tine documactand arc listed in*a refex m list" A Tit:Force CDMpostd of 18 PftdPanIS » 9 acutMift toverittg thm veZkw of The WHO and tm Im rnm ions or, 'ins Sadwred in = City of DUssetdorf, Frdmt Republic of may, fiwn 24 to 28 Novamtw. 7992 ( 'List of Contributom).The scope and vwpose of the r,noodaig wam to srWm an in4lep*review of the draft 4ocu=anL Phrdetsoor Gerd btc n serer as cbatpuer=4 Dr.Sesad Robashm as vk a cLudrp ason and ftfessor 13irgiwa Derglund and Psvfessor Thomas LIndvtt l as rapponeam A nVort cm the Task Vome Meadng has been published and e rius the recommimckdous awed up=(Execathe Summary of the Environ weszW ReaM Gita a Docametrt an Co=mt nary Musa. Cupmb3g= World Ht'altlt trSmA=don, 1993). In dais decor m, dme rrs ommandationg appftr in Cuplar 11.Section 1. After dke Twk Edwe Moding tai Dfizwklorf, a munber of written comtw were recelimd and caiWoJered:in f draft dbcttmeent by the two rwottmtra and P"re*wor Xxvie r Romeftyofibe WHO RM$o t Old for Europa.Bcfovo and after the"Task Forco Mer tib draft of the decu., at parm oft were emit unt far review aammS 3ducists All over tha world. inclvdiAg dw wonbera of dw WHO Taak Tome.t1w officers nand the chair- and cochdrpetsdns of the Ince ttoad Camudsslon on 5i07oglea7 Ef hcm of Nome(iCBM4).and the marAx rs of the Norrtll a Noisc Group. An ubemW,mlew draft of the doconueot was pr epu ed by Ptufessors Wim'Sal)und and Tbonw Un dvali as tars(June 28. 1993)and was pmented for camas to all Vardcipwus at the 1CSEN Cvrtmss an Natlse aa,a Public HWth Ptaf0em(Nalse&Mat"93)held tit Hick:prance,July 5- 9, 1993.A Imp Cdr of aon=wn were received by tine aditors during IM old 1994„ inchxll tg coommm fiam nwmbers of tt hutmati+orcal lmduae of Noise Cout of Eughwering (11 von +Cries'm Q. MWivg). in 05-20-2003 02 3IPM PROW-Slute, 'Mihaly i hi nher er LLP: +4356125816 T-SSBI P-022/029 F-163 QdQi't M spwiitic commat,bare been re Arora speckdb is whtO We e ditom felt nwagWy to bill io obvious Ssps in the dmitincnt. ' The t&wts have =W their bit»to accomw+dW OB the ML91ky commemin ch-mm and to make &eidons wbem eotrEl CdAg COMM have bma=d'v=L Ttvri,alfl*uO tht dmu cnt is dv-'AM9n mauh cif the work of a iuW S=ber of persoN.?fie 9MMIM and eXteaded Work }mace vskes it raeesawyto dealwe tlr the 09to s we 541e1y"%*mible: fpr The pen5m text of the docuueeat. Bath*e Wbd d H.edth b t!W'.s Rel ioW Office for Euvape wd Hers at+s,9MW*J to ft Naxrli+o Gaundl of Krims,>(*c Nordic Noke Group)nd to ft CWTM Gova=wt who prnvided tLra meaessax� f mist snppmttt ibr the Tusk Pont Meetins f"2-The elform of all<vdi* have helped tat ft moa and ' UndOn Of dA u t m g�C',�u�l�r�C�d1C�TIi�t��t{, A 03-2B-2gg3 02 STPM FRO"huta, Mlhalr & figlo arar LLF. +41555258'it �»3B9 P.qt liZB - 55 13 u t of coatmptom 1 0*ma in dw V440 T&*Pow view�„Da"dur, OWNWY -No 24-28.19922 wjt Coatibutur it!r�+gspft as WtU. Dr:Sham M AbsL Cmuk Prt sor B#rgitta Beqftr4 swedat i r►r } Prof *rear Btir ar&v.'WHi'�. ebapa Ptoib3 r W:Esq;,U Dt.Luwramvrx P*gc4 jjSA f.Cin H.PIMA Uttkd Kivadow Mr.JWm A.tuMbelt.AtrsWi Pro&swr7b*n rts.t.'ctiatsrsil,svmdmtipabr riot polad Dt.Mobat Men CSC Aft mwt w-Lura Par"1c3�arbr,i`i P`+rt tBau d RGbtmQw4C.,r&m=w(V-vcha pe".) Profe ajr B rYI-T P.VM USA Dr,Miew Vailit, o*wm+atrrC"M-AV b ce arr'a +m" rc � P*fcggm-%A=IssorL Swadcm lir:R.drdoe&mw Note Dr.W.Babiich,G'cmvmy Pr*Amcw A-CvWk bait' Prat ox T.K hl�,S+ xi Dt P.Rift tt„im ZtsltsxA pmfmAv A-M 1 tis.CscCr mw pftsm=N.La=ms. or.S.1.,.Erste,Swakn Dr.P.Ufther.AusUi$' r Dr»tit,p ,tpu lac.IMLL T atmot,Urtiscd'$ingduto L C t+`*6wgi9.tlgW Xinq* Dr.G.Mgil%LISA: Dr.Mt Cdwds,Sop�4 Dr.MM.E.Wuanou,T8a eta kil Pnatorcr S.tb Prottst.�►.6rt.l'kncat roPss Aad M.P t3 L Nanon.Dcwwk Dr.L WIM&I,U Dr,2i„mem, N*hE#W* ay Ur.W Pootbi+awara t.`Che Prssi crT.HkUpO,Me Nethedarmh qtr.A.Preis,Poind or.S.#mac,Swadart A+te;be lth ms.NQr"y #fir.A.016*L Rmpry lL S..SWbr Nmwkv OL EX rsbii.USA Dr Ir.-4M s",Anguia PDLwar u-WO&tit by Pftfera ur W0.WB4 WA it D6-28-ZA�3 0�:.37PN ;; X44-�hut�.'Mlh�lr +� �le9nber��r LISP. +4156��6�1:6 3-�8� P:��df�2B �w+�r� w.....s.......ss...wwr..ss.r.s.t.......,rMw....... ...........lYw...w............... � .. SCOPE.........«aA..M+.M.+t...Y....A... ..../.......4.w................................r.1....................... 3 PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF NGalsE.................w..............a............................ 2 3.1 .Def loans sofSouW wd Noi ................... 3 3-2 Qkticterishim Of So'li ddand {.Ty►lli.-...•ras.rh.......rr.w.++».+.....w..#.s.r..r�................ 4 3.3 St and Prue 1xvals and tb* M urement \............................t♦.I.r. 7 .. 33r1 *1p i ............. .•.•.r.. 7 3.3.2 Culcu1adon and Mmuremat of Loudnfts Le .................... 9 3.4 Th Time - ..... u ........ 12 3.5 ll S .H. itrr.{rrira{.l.+...\i{M•.avMYl..a..a..1►M.Yllhlr .....r.Yfhl;..,. rcMilWft,i damaimio= Sound P.h==1-,gvtl .............ua........ 1.- ' .5 ......+..f.H.IM.»\I)#1)iEi...........r 3.5.3 Limitations.rf.A Wlai ted:SPL as�a, e&su of Loudness ................................ 1 4 TYPES OF � . ,.ar..ah........ w..... r 14 4+I Iny Vctioa.w....#..........a ..... ............aN......a.......................................... 14 . 4..2 Sou 1/ h.M+1.lW11 Ml.f};I;ii}a...►)ill.ilisfa.#r►.i/.M.Yi.I►w'./►#+YaY �'llf;.),....1H......r.... 16 4.2. H . . 'nwv per lc���#yy c, iitsy�yr■rm�ys1is andVsdf.if.► i' t?ls ..r.w.rY.M.r.r..sw......+w+R�..wa...n w...rr..w...rwaa+w.w. 1.6 42.2 Transpo fi 01it.....rw...« ......#.r.....rr.•..s....... ',t�7 4-2.2.1 ���Y1iNYN/a..w..i+K.iM.Y flaw.ar.....�.................................. 1j/' / 4.2;2.2 R traffica...........NN»iMa.+ww.►!./.Y l•..#r M.n1 MYY.#1.wa/lll#...........\ 1 t. 4 2.23 ��yyr�y++�Uafft.i........................a...........•.........l.........1.........i...M 17�{ 4.2.2. iYiV 11NM s.w...r...w.rs#rt•rw......s+»..a..r.e.Fa.............+......... I's 42.3 yC.���aym+��t'racdon N*Ls%#j��#.Public.W sNo M jwyNoi .. is 4.2r �/M.�j-F�Li�l{yi/�i /}/'� # .��f :.'+R�►'i'II N+.#r.w.•.F#.sr......Vow.......Y......r#r............... 4.2.3 M Y#1{ "�� .Y 3 ✓ 1fi...Yww►FYNM«............ 4+�, �" '(���y�t�,�r..�y�.lY� �ji�y A ■,..;,�6C� rW sr.r•r{..rY......►M)aar.r!)y.rM.....•;»a..w q�,} .2►6 Noin L ono LYii urt��i6es....►.....r.w........................................ L.f IR 5 iF+l7.i. OSUR e TO ZN- ONi7 ENTAL, OISE..#...r...................... a•ra... � Ir 6 ANATOMY, PHYSrOLY"ANDPSYCHOPHYSICS OF TM l ✓ frrmy isysnm..........#r..#. ... ► .....aK ....... w......... # 6.1 The Outer and the Middle fir. 21 M.fwt4.a..a...«ei#{ls.1.fsO+.a1..1+..rte.YMn+#sN.+.raraif...rw..ar.I.y ......... ........ ....._.__.. ... . _ _ ....... ...............__..__. _......... ....._......__....___. .......... ......... ......... ......... ........._....._... 05-25-2003 02:86PM FROV-Shuts, Mihaly hinbararr LLP. +4155521619 T-585 P.025f028 F-456 6A7Frcq"=Y 5tItctivigr.. ..................,....,...»,.......»...»..... 23 ». ....l.N.» 29 7 Sr-m fiSCSF NOSSON, Ft1 A 1$.....:..r..........................»...,..�..... 23 7.1 i' uxis#yhttigCc Hurd€.cr�z.......... .. 29 x _ 20 I t »N... ......x... 30 7.1.1.3 Noisosr licc b nxporaryth,Aa2d shifi.,.) .. 30 7.1.13 N i ctxi pa tmtaeM t1t<csI Id:dam:. 33 7.1.I.4 Nva-1�nducer#petit hea+rittg 1t�. ..,........, 3Z 7.1.3 , djaloa b5tvtM"Nola Xa ------ 33 34 lam OOW*V�w 34 • lt0di�a'tt�ceu3p�t�lctlr�liR. .a I..�VJ rain .1. _x..,..Y www..w.u.w x.N.wu w. r7r 7.13.3 Fntttttorfm of UmAit► 30 7.1.2.6fz�mvs+ arig ....... 4Qt 'x.13 40 7.3.4 41 7.13 aqqn iw .....N 42 7.13.1 Noise md tYt17 *A-,i .. .. 42 7.1.5.3 Nose= 43 7.153 4lCf t:or�fbnlcd#CiiyC$ ; . ._..� 44 7.1.5 Au&wxygf&m*fCommumi 'Nab* x ..... »..... ..... +44 7.1.7 45 7.2 SmaryUrbos.M'.r.Yw a HY.Yx.tl 46 7.2.1 rung 46 7'2.2 45 7.23 ftmaj 47 7.3 "pdom of 47 7.3.1 Aactxa�sd l�toisiea ttad At9ltoyc _.;.x._�».......... ... 48 7.33 49 733 ..Y..............:.:N.. 50 '14 bpmmem Wilt SO 7A.1 Voirw i;b�ca►litrtg......,x.x.N_w.x.._.....x.. »................... so +7.4 S 1Sp y �ofi..1,...... N,........r«...NH... .r.....M...ri...., +++tf��. .....www »..u...wtl.�...... .i�+7y 7AA2 53 7,1A.3 gtiitaistm d pure nZ&iZ;Ff ; Alawk 54 7A5 She c* is tpitrn Vis.» ..- ,.»..... 55 7.44 7.4.7 9 i eAsch C asa 1lc fitsac�..x .x.�. .....x.tl.......,. 518 vam for a wkb J i .D�lici vj)ysruncua,►� 37 - 7:4.1 5+ttrmy.......... . . .._. _ w.... SS 7-SDi�oe' . .....-»...........«._._ 58 73fc a#Sacog�ai+d�Cesp D€stu: rpncc........ S8 7.5.2 Smarts aP ltiaiaa air 6o Ttdro�e 7.53 .`:'_4�T.l� tl*r Si T��W�x.w.wxw..i4Y..,Nrw•..+x..+. Wl 05-28-2303 824BPM M*Shuts, W halt' & hi nberear LLP. +4185625$18 T-586 P-026/028 F-S58 t7 64 733.3 H +menattt�.\ .„.....- 73.33 P [tppE�ntag'tcai 61 7.5.3e# slcoetap Ali i6utian .. . 62 75A A ter-Effem ofNaiteDfofr 63 7S.5 llsfli Nte*f Abid 6* 7-SA L4m.TkmEftmcfSlc 64 73.7 E-(N4cf1Wst Rxpowmr. 'saes ca 7.5,8 VmbWbyinS+ WDimbax SeWrivity to l al:e..:._.".. 66 73.9 RrkW==of Lem Mcw=m tdt fbr 5kcp 7.5.10 £7 7A +67 7 l A -fir.►>rafnwrp\...«+......a M�+. ww..w....e...r.... 67 7.6.1.2 3>ydit a06ta= d stmss.,.,"a....a.....»,.,....a.,..., f:8 7A2 Catxlleu lsr _ ..._.... 69 7.bZ,l I.a o t stacsms......\ 70 7.4.3 tc�pasa�t�aal dzea' 71 7.6.3.3 CaoF tati�y tc es................ . ". ..._ 741 Ps�nd�cxiatsari7�ttnalcBS�ti l+ffaet�. .. .....,... 74 7 .3.I +syareEkrltae 1 ..«.N 74 74 5+tatrek'Reileac snd It n - 75 7:63 mem as :Sam of76 7.6.6 Bo ft l' '76 7A,7 Oftle0 1 tcaE1{er,►ltt# M\_».,... _.... 77 7.63 7.7.1 McWd othfintal Haft CQ3 » 7.7so .3 Maw 7.7W Dams,n S tax. d ck—mi ..».....-.....«., ». .ftb M 7.$ Perirc�r�ra $ ..N_.«..»..,...N.................»w............r....«.....,�.r..».. 83 7,9,T Twk Pofiwumcm mdP,ae cf tr ty93 723 Trs od 7.8A 1rumb tsg motw ►ccf itiae*...r... :.......«..»..«.A.w.. -..... '66 794 Darblidoaaald +kts�aoncltaaOam �usnoya�ce,. .. $' 7." Awyom ot']+ois—o fmo Mu 7+..65 AmmimeBefxtacrdAf w�tenxs nt 92 dftlt 7�.�I� .1'Yi�1iWLi4wr �- 7.V'.6,3 jtcod ttWty voi........a.....w... .........«..«.........-N 196 75.61.4 Mdv2ibft Ec=._..........___..... 97 98 79AS .WV GrLBliK� «. .«/VM.4.Mf»n T 79.6.6 131 <awor000000u<xaecc<?s+�+++<++v?•+ :. :::.. .. .... ... :>...... ......... ........_....._. . . _. .......... ........... ........... ......... _.._..... .._......... ..._...... _..... ......... ......... ............._..... tI5Rt8-S5>93 OWIPM F11U shutrs.'Mihaly 5 Weirthiraar LLP. +4155525911 T-595 P.02Tft1N F-955 -- 71 aca ordua5 to pmrwwd quamr, vuc label them muskmcaunity zmise. app etc (e-S., Haadei. 1989). Duo to Ink of'knmkdp abow the adeqpatr classificadon sysum Ibr tic ;<ut*y noise,'tt tesponsWe bodies n the indusWaIlIvA coatttttrks hot wrkma.dftxm mpWlovs for`speeifc zoises,do%for toatdt xcncisk aim noise,impalsiva moo,at.ThEs &avellopmem is Sam by pmOW necessity sa W tTho scdtmtif r .dcaawies h would be dmirable trr• tatce a uttsdtq that would >miate auftuny experience to pltaiod'ttewwarnftt of sound = weU at having'=rber modcl WWch would in turas telstc floc quality ft arudiitmy cxper tact to the aawyattce prr dwed bac comtmmnity noism tits ty, our knowledp is not a t"r aive aaeagh to allow the 4""rnevt of gmnd mtadds,box 40m spedfiic modeis lawbow appMted to mmk tondittom The require tits liar a Sam]umW would be ea nsiv41n&vd Not Onlyvrould variablor relaW to the ft€cai famm of tin nose be r+egychvd. but also mWes,Pawft totbe Ilmnes jokoda and pmm activvities, Fhysicatly kWndW S*wd.may become t sro one pamon and :ate to anothcr,'dgmz ding on waters one!)loos IMonn or rock and mil.IU same wise try also be p1mm at mbiftbiLt gow ring-att'mithtigbl,7be,wksae of tltc hr's lawmam=wy be znnq,�*if(*)he mwad thz hunt two dxp aRm but a p1mew relief it(s)lta jut remrwd ftm a stx wed vaudon to CkIke up ort can►retgrOWn ftm yard.,AtdUkL-is a amlor famr in mice (Job,199k FIdk 1993b) 7.3.1 Peeved'Noisinm ad Annoysoce It bas been PmPosed tlot an**er dimetiou of 3t>acaau response to voice, peerreived nisi a. is smear IM but d`csd= ftm landnew, aP,d that pert elve d noisiness may be a bener p recticoor tiros kftdnm at zhc ardvarso maps to AnLad. (e.&. X*w, 1974, pp. 270-2'77). Mwe+rer. tete term '126re%acaC dam'not Imm a am-qac=coin$;it ttasT rc&r.to stnwaniod sauna or 90 a TPOCaflc Mud quality.TWO Murals of equal leudnm and not be "Pally uoisl+ 'Elle dl %mme bin lau&v a and noiait= in ten= of VwirW cwtmt is svmll fbr bma bxW sounds buc becoam':u omat wben ttic sttutaci mtn an ttr OUr lime ad filte r xU=U=Rewnh In aWse pemption- has s %but pcwi*' can *ffwaa r camas s lh as tc+udfim,pearceir%cdwhOness wd awm.%=but who the vwceM are CWV&ly 4AW (A. 96*md. U. t3erjj , +B: I irtd%%1L 11975s, 1976.- :Hellman„ 1992), Communhy Wife Cott acfagl.v involves''Pm apition of sevem "urm at ft Wne lien-- E tpe+tietcttts have shpwn *at eta can ideatit! and asses a specirk wieo son= inla mut=e of'soum b- Such':t souw=my contsibuta este to amc jwm than=n be camated ftm fatal loudbas or sound pressum bel (U. Ba&14 1981; a &r$U, , U. $gCggfun4 & Uad 1. 1"0)- uWtwS at we, mouxdou of wed racist►samawallawsone to perecfc IoW#mora acmding to thio fly-Z8�2p03 02:381'M FROM-511uts, Mihaly I Wlinerraar LLP. +416'6526818 T-593 P.08f028 F-155 73 "loudex CompcnoWl >(H. Berjaund. V. Bengt oWsteln, �,Undvall 19811 This dpes not ply b6ld ft a.tni durc of aDise and.stt"Sstat WmPumnts. Um ta»plex tib have befit s=csdffly tried (Ptrwll, 1978. 1979; f711 ad, l 91311,& BeVUW cc 14 1981;Relftnen, 1982)but aff point to the so=s'mporm t princitala,nmelytbc<af a crs ot'waskigg imd m=a1 iattibition. At p teat#;bre aost favus=wV agaj% jea naise level is vir*ly-LOW as an index kw de=ibias cvmmvai7 noise:.This Wim atmy,be usefut watt ccnrpnrmg similar mise ZIon:i (fimm doniv= noise sota=* bmaul- lam noise sp rum witharsr dice itimida, etc). However, va=raus autota (e g.. Gjesilstnd dt [Rada 198{## Fields & fir, 1982) have shown that the equivrtk►u level is appli"c Wben *vrngearin noise situstiOus of utieguitl comer,liar imstauoct t*W tra9k nc4ae vs.rail not cordinuous vs. imetmiam udrk,1rnp*jw naim;in particular,>Pinduaft more tumowov for rho=Me+comziYmcus eneW aquyvalent noise level din 4000 use D iMPUisivo bD'-W(30b, I NOV,HUll nt,Riede~&Job,€941). It is btgpor*K to esmblish inilices based an physicalxttwwreaem Which Wav5pond to the pVWCPWAI quautla; or differetrc apse situti arm Hawser these Qualities are functiotss aiso of a set of Personal and psytwozicw facrars much ats,CqXtuadm hw1wattion, SWAtd% and goeist activity. ConscgtUerUtlY, fbs health assessamn we will probably ted;a mubear of voise indica bwed an differ OWmI pa-mrAters,°aeb rise dosi ped for spael fie pw im,v- tnr amwipfc,as indec for stir ep disturbuoat AWd Pul ably be bated an maxgszttrm sound levels and mitober of evenm whenms the time.rt stribution of noise tunas*bow a cerWin,laudmay be the mm sigaffiram paratnetcr for Speech intertsu pmm st Per PO-W arf mew zest Physical pammefto The siescrx iisg cc► upl#y arrm ane sound p=mm'level (iavaetmmus, nnao hnfint, equivalent)` or saurtd prs Wre levet diWkvdort, *uacy spectrum (W&WAg functions, tautad sstxirtpotteats), slrsgle noise eve (number and time disuibution), vatrizzlo is (tis* t3uau, tewls, gxwum of amplitude vacisdons),finsiiliarit3k andwedietability. 7�? Methods for Measuring Perceptual Attrr'bms of5ovn& Various procebres hm tsean UsW to Walaaw pevde'a tesponses ro noise otitcr tbab by scab Iou&Aess a sfi m*xrd abqM,RWeWqhbw shown the ainoymx,and other such pvveptnatl+=*boft SLa can be Waled by&re d rsd,a sealing me+thWS 4e-g., fleltaa=& ZalsackL 1961; S. Berglund. U. Lind. 1975a,,,19.76, 198k l islcrdd&'Go 198ft) Sona versions ofthese`,,wmitods hat ba me knowwn as absolute nathodr., is 4moluec mavitb+tier est metian and Absolute titotdiuck-production. 1n addWorn to ratio scales of lqudtiaays djW used abowt (SM."$. 1975; l4lwim. 2974),74), these absoluts scAcs.am egncted t pude nor only,the slope of the fumtkuts but dw do absolute p=% it scalar +Wueso&=v so inl9vithm?s use the;Sault sdt*thre Units for dAnvot pemgAttal variables, ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._.. .... ........ ............ .......... ..............__........_............... .._._.._. .._._...... ._....... ......... _...__... ___ _ ...................................................... .........___........... RESPONSE 7o COMMENTS/FINAL EIR C#iAmR 4e COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER B4: SHUTE, MIHALY&WEINBERGER LLP 134-1 See Master Response 3(Noise). The opinions and analysis of the commenter and his recommendations are noted. The ETR clearly recognizes that noise impacts would occur as a result of the Project. The commenter suggests that bath the method of analysis and the conclusions reached by that analysis are incorrect. The methods applied in preparing the EIR are standard to the practice and in conformance with CEQA and County guidelines. It is acknowledged that there is a disagreement between noise experts and the EIR is not required to resolve these differences. The entire package submitted by Mr.Levitt has been included herein and available for public review. The Levitt analysis derives its basic premise on cited case law that involved around-the-clock(24 hour)flights of jet aircraft over residences. The noise analyst who conducted the analysis for the Humphrey Project is well aware of the short term noise impacts associated with the case that Levitt referenced,yet feels that it has little in common with the Humphrey Project. The EIR noise section author has conducted hundreds of noise analyses on new residential projects,and believes that the results presented in the EIR are accurate based on commonly accepted methodology and practices of the profession. 4-45 i aoa ±„dls s Ai f A t t . R.` R f s. R S } _ d �. $ >+;d • 4� #} $} t d d A :..A ". d :8: tf b A d ". Yi1A8 i f f' $ 4M+ f �'� !•" 8 #4- , i tai- d d.` d' Y A !: ! ! a i. t v4 ! f f • Jd d". .► -1 'i. }•. f { s t ! A A f d :} f 9 A.i.�vA iv %xd . . 3;a It.Fa'.. ;.,,d : mm ';f L a.; a 4 8 $ i $.. wid !,' !1! a F 8 to kt s :•i5 ;' a $ ! 39 ! 48 > $ ,a ..a «d. .;t $ ! i a:i $ 4 d1 g" a. 4? 4 - t,•;�! `s« a i'ii3sd�F3c' ! 9 i � �" > $ a a $ : ya3 • !! $. a ! gjd:. `4 v < a t ; F w � g'i !.� l4 Fes! £� 3 ) '• ! F' a 'a l-44.w4. 4 a ! ; $.- i.. 1 0 3 ——-------- itisT 3"TIM rlrlvl am of 8,' #% ;k 90 itti. 04, Att st Fs 1 1#1 e a i sill Ofj a g r r r f rt r d it �p rtt r d r ` B.r * rf fT '..di a^' rfr lg..s if dr t # # t aY Y<a s t # �; 1E4 •# 6 E E - I 1.3 - t 3 3'}'. # "s# ## t' AME Ea � s 0 so lolls 14 8 s � $ r#'E t .# t..#. i £� + t �a # '•b a $;} � e.' $ # . �, � � � . .. ,� •;� .++ mss« f^tt: 8 ° 8 t 8!- �f•' t 8 v4 r+'t 88 :a B 'tl 4 ti n t f f 4t A R a , k: 5. E S' :M` 4- g t - ,f t i • t � 91 8 $E " : 4" f, L4!A µ.3 • $ :! t t i - t. 8s i'di` }t 'f B t $ :• R d t d i R $ w8 R t 06 t �'t. i It f B' $.� .:. t d &:' f'. 3 !#p %..t B $ ,. t -6•Arit d :8 Yf 'a ,Rtd a' B Btu`# s z 3�s sf B r I g.` a : t t.-t ? R t,• ' t S° i. aR a$ a.-0 f ' t R . t t R ` .t «f 8:t r'f - $ • # r4 t �. f 5.f' t R: 1 R a' d' f :.R t d 6 A v 6 7"f. '$ B. a � B $ t 9 t ' t 4 t• :.A•e R tB ;t t tt � g8:a A v 8 i✓X 9 f•:.' t YB t• s`% R•:. d Rt 8 t P 4: '.4 / tt a 8. i t t f � � �$ ! ! ' Y # t if a a.' t l ..!# 1 :f - •�:.� d 8, - i 8 8. 8 3 f" a :- R $ [ 9•ti: 8 8 : M S tl f'84f R. ._ f Re.i f $ ! 8... !i II f 8 :•f R F R t � � # 31 ! s f :. # i ' : ' a,' :a•g a 's 3 i�. ~ f 1► A l. Mill i .. i Y 8 °g' 3 • #� $°3 a $# 3 a f f }�, s' : i # # x8+' f # iry �i f8'A8 $ i Wilt)t i f & Y 8 # # f 'ai 3 R„ t A.v#: # t #q >•" i$ 3 # i... 6�= p.. a. a.e a # a ` a { S•$ #::' ` f # #. e+y S Si" # 9.f i..i A,` !;{, " -i ; A+�s i. #:' -. a.- a�. ,$ 7,# # i• �. fr; # t a$" t# # e f S f ` #,$ a �.` ".#:...'. s'wa . S # '#a•;.,'.' a LtjjijL�j lit) + $ # t � af ' a {; i " e : � Rt sba ►s {. ,,, f# � � - .,a -; i # b';. b: # ' # 4 ° Y+� ::+•;. + f *ti i f !' #f '` f ! t all . s 9 # ! er+ 8 sa# asa a;. 't #: # i a ' tsa 'da '4 '.#Y: 9;..3 a ' i•f,:r% #. f # i r�.. rt S *. ;P :. $ i151-T x I a " i Its ' # # Will low 4, C iRV IVa S.#''F ' i•S a d i £. i 4 # ' a f � 8 4 f . -. i W sF 3 �. i W� ,1.R # , ks.°. 6. f k i ! k,.• t8 $ a k'�. i d. `i ""i.. 1,4 Is # i 4 �, # R +eti.' a f i §i 6 ! '..... 8 i.♦ @ 4 ^. t Wa 3# a: $ k..' It 4 BI «. a,4 14A #•� ^P £ •i S�-Fb `:.k d - ^t-:.?$ i s..: v £:,. B 'k #5Y 4'x>!. W F+ k:• :. ► a. P F.' q 4 B" 84i �R ;!£,4 k.- R F .. i A t... i,. iv.#WAIIAOIKIA;i$ it 8 f-Wkis z k Is 4 W 1,4 1;t to 1 i f IL"I 2 is ' 1$ $ R i ♦. 4i °' B¢ - , «., a; i•i 4; :r.t. 1 ' ka 87,a 8:. i' R Ii y� {� $P I, 0. W •Ao- o's t m f}c f t � $ # a s J �f3 f i':. 1... # a • : { $ fk ass s :i - A 1$ iM K $ Oso # f: Aar' ► $��g �k s f' �a ;,r; Es } of t: f ' # f# #: + 11f f # # f $ aaa ' 1 # t t l NE 7th w r 1 �,,ra swyayt r a » t $ # e1 R# # w $ a•E.yts: t# �8 `. 3� � $ H t # Ha :rg k $ R,6 A` � $ 8 H 41.; + ,1.,.. $# $ f' , b 4 t # $.:,, t Y 1H # . • # to . 4. " t 8ti a -& # as,< f r- t H. i - a W # 6 # w e , f3} w� 1 p ♦ i y. R i• 9 tl !. A 4 ! 4 i ! . a a eis !vsd a ,RE i eY #' ; " ! Ef t.; k S P ! 0i ill I ON ! ; f E ; ' f $ 3 ! "D ; !+.✓, (•f b i M ! A"" i..� .✓i ! !; 4' a ; A i'r• Rr k i A•eS;,,n D A i f'E E d • - ♦. i #4 "E3 '.fid. D,f f 1 it ;:.. ,. e. E .s;:; ; -. i i f 8- f - 4 • t ! �i 4. i} ; Fri : ii 8 s � � ; i :k ;�: ! +` � u� ♦ .. •'8:! i..4 ;� ; R8-�:k i a' tl:$ ; 4 ! 'XEr �� Aip •� ®. } 14 Spp p�p w �m p $. $ !# -.! D.; S S 4 3.S'Sti<# $ •.d$>E. : f ! � ! a ! k9 •; Thr $ 8 A ! ' D(R :..i ; - �". s . .. !S k S fi e+;pp4.+^S b $ 6k A S !R" $ !.� 5..4. S $ % '. !�v %�' $!: .� 6 ° $ S $ d: R ,"'dt; f Da $ M " } 7.fd S k:'! i.;i" i .« 4 R .$dS $ S,' $` $ $i':Nk S; ,A'E '. # !'$ "' % i SRp dd g $•. kd t 9 R . 0 R � Ah& RvP 4.! .kr OVE for t roc RQ WX 71194V %W606 Figure 2 shy the"Existing (Ply.)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes". The study dates for the data is not shown. A frac;study performed by the Contra Costa Public Works Department on 3112103 has significantly different traffic volumes For example,the Contra Costa stuffy hasbetween 19%and 44%higher traffic volumes at the in of Stone Valley and Monte Sereno(sed chat below : In addition,paiwaph 3 of his section states that an;additional 47 new residential units for the Stone Valley Oaks project are currently under eonstraction. When completed,this will add additionaltraffic to the Contra.Costa study. Existing Peak Volumes Abrams Contra Costa %Increase (daft' vn3112#El3 AM Peak East Bound 468 636 36% AM Peak West Bound 582 776 3411/6 PM Peak East Bound 461 554 19°la, PM Peak'test Bound 383 553 44% LOUCAW " iJ- The CSA guidelines a traffic study is required for projects which genmte 100 or more peak nowt trips. Thipiecenteal approach of the development along S#crrte Valley has allow developers to avoid doing new traffic counts. The cumulative effect of developments along Stone Valley over the last 3 years has resulted in significantly more than a.100-peak hour trip increase. The Humphrey DEIR provides traffic estimates for only 39 although 59 units arca pons xility Traffic data should be included'for a possible 59 units, Praireet Traffic tnac ��, Tables 2 and 4 show trip generation for Peak Periods for Stone Valley and Monte Vista Parking and Sports field at 20for AM and=50 for PM. 'The proposed project is for 401 additional parking sees. When do can go'in and::out' The Tables shown do not include daft for the proposed.parking and Spm field(Not Existing). l eWW ftffic data should be estimated for this critical intersection, during peak school hours. Laid 902WMAW' 11*12=11. Table 3 shows Level of Slice(LOS)fat"Existing plus Project! What is the date of the data used for`Exi sting°'?H the Contra Costa Publi . . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ._... ........ .......... ............................... ...._.... ........ ......... ........_.. ........... ......._...... ....... ........ Mc�r - 0.01 BOX 7a • 1 • 1'he fart�e is forecast'as 6 . `'I c i� 'Clal3cy rse iop is only a sJ s point ft-the Alwr Oaks sAlpe Oaks has qpproxmknwly 1 9 sib, �finfilyj&ftcW QUn � whaungo"hw,was usW10 de mine t ' cQunft7 flowdoesthe 1b stay care i"y r c wile a 13S su bion'( n Vis) genwitft% 42 A ti ps wh a.,39-unit �(HUMS) would Meneme 47 AM peak trips? B -1 CbwtI5 Ow MOM Serer lhi've�'-HCM Unsi i capadlw AMY=--Existing plus Project AM volumes This z4ft,shows "Aaeh. at'�eI "': 1$tis a Ie h cur MMft fieft ham(M in tur d±a rel ►�,e aqui. ' ut l t lam and coma Medi wL Please prvv* s 4*4 in Fid EM. °1' VWky R&Diablo €d T O by 'eb he x indite hbow over all rte al y�. sum 1995. li t of these 'e"rta ". Wh4tProlvisioWconsidetuflons will appeat in the Final EM to mi*W:a reducel.t Due y of tmeOCOWTeMOS considering t increased traffic volumes? HOW will the Final EIR addresslmifigedc:lhewsafty issues? 14 $ t rr! 8 • i - ,81: i�..Mb. • :Fd. r. 4d lid $ • xf i 'ii.:.. ". a•R'ik ia:R't `9E.d.? £t: .. ' k.i + �„ a. Rtif£'*" ,4.. s•., • •.8 . . ,.:•. i • r ,. i ,. • .4 :.ie da,: i i o8.. • R k' $..i £ $;,. D • i t;:e %.i•8 of R £i:F - E.' �$. b 8 i'• 3 � t i ' 4 4 i .- .: & 8+wi !'£ , •.. 4. 8 3; 8 S£ 3 i•' - - $ $ E1 t....d y 4 i 8 isi '' ♦ t i: 6 F:rt $' i k $ S, t' .i ° :� :.t Nq $. t£ • 8 £ $: 8 •.., k.. $. • $ i - $` dE d ' i A ! 4 f • b: $': d at 4 1S t 1 � t4 $ --W1 FP. 8 .3•" 8i1 M.. ',B 8 8 " $:' i $d - i $ B ' ;.i d *• bi a i - � '8 1 F,: R d di f at •` .p40. $ t `. a i •4i R • i df i<.' $ Fieri t:t 8 i; $.$,,. � £ r - £.°. a i 8 • d . w�R Q +1 i • i $ 4: �a. r �;1 ` . -£.. L:*.: 'd,'• & s-' i d ' $ R t" F ! i' 4. •. iia ! 8. i £v i ,F { 4+t ., £B # `x 8 f.t .wd. '< 8s• 4t_ ; :S 4 fh 1 •$ 8 ! '� £ e-;,i "i� d! $ $:i d,' i i t a Y it ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.11.1 .......... ..._......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._..... ......... .............. _.. ........................ ......... ......... ......... fore IMIK t �yy Y % f 9 e i XV. A smey mud be 2Vis:prior to any geading"or-tree remov4and if nesting,r*,ors are fowl thug the,=M,n+e bra ing©r tmee mnoval will oem wi ri *doraur active t until lWfty d, meson being Fy l throuSh,Aopst 31. i e thin a spm is ante V"ng pen fbaae ua + cnrll the project ti le is this fey fouad somdhingand grafi had to be rescheduled to a later Jaw. Thera�r gtiie?d biologist called.for in the b should ba appmved by the C'c a y p tQ s ey wok, mar wee of edicts could+rfcur.' B5-14 Mitigation Mire Bio-2 Wage 41,643): Same tve of problimn as Bio.1,except that if raptors are found,the piding,, disume as surfed would be 200 feet of an active nest, T si.should lam; + to �$00 Amt as stated inBio-1 above. l"1 tial Me -3(Page 49,6-11%y; Ism(a�sbrt Id!fbt+c �a i���abets 63 a � tiOn to tree 41t. Tit(b}� etnt treeumbcrsuld increase f s Plan t of" elitile n theageand sireth trams in q�an t ------------------ =.I MAI --------------- d.%• t1 ! i' ! �w.B ! 8 8 t! 'Irk t ! � 8'�. 8 a. :4 - '. 9 ##s 8$• d k 1:; p ! .8' -..8 d 6d $ 8., 8.: a ! 8 !': ' ' a. d. F: �:. p ° - i A k ':.:a [ .! 4:7 _ $.: .F/. ✓; 8 •#; t;°_,fit t d ;.� _ �s i g ; ! 4 '�. a $ kt ! a+: p � °.A: 4. !: a ! $ a- $.: FR +S 8+: :. 4 a ' ! • :8'8 ..!. k R $ a .:may, a} a' i ✓ R 4 a t: 4-! 4:k. r $ 4 t." a :.p 8: ; `. � # it'- a /; 4►. a !. 4 .. 8 d } 3a1. <�!; R ! ' ! # R :=R :'.f 8•i AN IA!.t $ :.$ p '..a: $;4. •. 4•.$ 43« ° #y..: $ ! a d. 8 i ! a ! � f .ALAMO : ................ P.O.WXMI, are dlsrupfive to maple4 o.` iQ: cotr, ds c n� ot SELih cx3njtton with wigi€r tin A � T`his' In weighting VVW' d produm " , . vaW"of stand . : th the 2ovv �lUMY rtm le arm tr s andMrss g up int the"rk&glot,wouldwt be discouiftd,as is the case with A weighting(see AppaAx lIn a twentcourt decisions it was concluded that ft use ofd tothe than or' did;a much beer jub ofProviding-the public with amathe fn Of transient noise. It is recommended tbatsuch L the suMvwUbe atm present parking:lot and used to productan estate d the noise lis at the B5-15 Monte Semavroparw bokk Fw the prki ..ltt wch h st>pi revvmg,tib squealing an4radios at vaarious vol ,thea rag g mteWc.L"s ld not b c*vsidered and#bus,the conclusions oftlhe Dva*EIR wi& r to noise am cl b pl w measurcments. T refbm,rwomm tided nri ' are jUSUfficient.;WOjequfttrflWPjOjecfiOW bond ►n tt►is m be re ct+cd w calculations be and a n sr evaluat a Of recommended n" tions;be peed. Note.Remarks concerning Noise are drawn primly fivm a report pmTeW by L.B. Levit PhD. Consulting Physicist,LI L Scientific(aftached as an exhibit 19 m � � M�t. � ''�* ;'#:x� a kf wto4 s�♦ 9 r, �t•.!4 L•; 1 i � !. Y ;m,A ei... ! t t S.. B t � 4 9 E 9 1 B B # 1. # 8.4 > # v fB f,'s 44 t1f 9 { '!>! Bf 4 •. {.:,a i ! 4-„a MM °Aa ,t. ' a .f,aa i; °_ti ! i! ! '�E � ts' 4:tE>;•. fi p; # # i � ; Y' t' @• s' R:k i a fl{: Ei•:':2 h, � �, ,ia # # i m! a a a : #-: .,.{ s t•® #, ate' ° � ` =# { 4,49 f #'f f {.•. 7 ; 8 "a... �.$ # it � # #3 v { #'it: i.9 9 roe ; e. � s a i tt if 1 R:- # t# # i.MCI NR <,} '.r• .$ # #•; si d 0: ^Ri E:.S " # to#9 S ii t it i $ ;A d ' S4"`.•3 f 3 t 0 f 4 Sr' R 4 i' 3 'E 4,t ``..C:f i ;# $ 8. .b:.M d s'8 .1 .f:; S. ; 8 t d,: 'rR SS b: #S E + #•: #. i 4 E It t t # S.S E f-8 S Ott R t. :• E R♦ f r;. S+•# �+ dE.E E #.. k ' i Ir E E 4# AMOWQO A660CMCK fide; P.O.BOX21 coed,the tic tin lade t Of stude project approved but rmt yet:built,and this could push them to capacity before tlxb project is comp. 3 If sols were addressed in this DEM,they would also>have addressed ftaffic associated d with uanspotting sutmou to the semis. It,i dt the ftffic study is�pac'from Stone Valley load-�to themest� did S#orae' atl yy Road� : ' � B5-17 This is interesting as this.is the ditution all st�:t�would' mfr l tripo d to ter=Valley eu nWy M C l "e School. Now that>� patted schools' dimefi s r comup,it is more impo on,Green Valley Road andtcne Valley to the Roadand Green Valley Road i #exon. See Said Rmnon ValleyScUsed Distdct Map dw is attached. Transpomfion ofdiverted students could take dmn tot a of Denville or further south, . waWd a&to the Ori'Mattey;R bIo cmwdor that is aloperatmg at Lew1 F Schools has misclassified by this DEIR as having an impact of"bm than Sipiftt". It is of significant i pact and needs to W addressed as a topic; within the J)m AIMG OVEM r POw. : . Exlxta Opp 4.11-1). The.existing project sitar lan .use q4ftment in ft DEIR is Vague and It:f is m� �t11e Lout le*V"eque facility that e)dmd on ft prope y for M . ,Dkis,preperty has historically been a p lir-weefing plwe for Alamo and Danville re"ift that have equestrian iftrets.To ste cerise lacks focus on ft primaq w ft Ind bas enjoyed Mail the Double "was closed dovM In a&HUM%is propeny wu the saw for many to access Mt B5-1 Diablo StW,Pa*and,its many tads and public f flit es. Them sums to be some cession on whether or,wt the 10.6 acres of ft pwpedy to be pumho d by the SRVUS will be contactually obl to'be co�t��to l � facility as ft DEIRinsinuates it will.Time is no analysislin t HEIR of the cumulative impact tat will occur as n tesult of the SRVMD pumbaw and subseqnnt use.This is.one piece of prop"under one 23 � ® �� Y a'33 i #s ,aF;. •R .d + i aa+ i E +:` #f se 4d # a+ F ! '<Y 4•aa i -f 0 #. 8,: i 'S Sfr" a i fd . 4 ^tAf i' � " �'. o A i 4 .. . F z' � a s e a r; yd Td "f s _ ; r a �• #' oil0. a $d - v'�t9 A €." a i•:; 0 A 5„ 4 R 4' # A A#i f ; • # F 9 > f +•9 t - �.Y f.' 0I." ray :. 0 S - :.�. Rr tA.�^�%�; t Wig. q•G:{;, A. :... :,.i <fa Y Sk ♦>:. t S.4d ' F A � �" !: 8"F :'.a0 i ,.R4# iq- i dyg,a F Y•¢ $A.a 1 e i, a':' :ti F if•e e 0 #S: sa R @ �. $ f�a0 R 4e e � yA i € � d•R .A, 4 a v "i As' � d f 43 '4• &:, i$ #i 0 i Mali .: R'k *4 R�: 1" £ ii 1i9 i-_� aR `_� i R,�* 8s f Y..£ . 1,.,. .i. ti 2a.�rYS A 1.. ._ 0 tf:•.$ A � f t §3•" '4 t t Yt 4: #. 4 p $§ eA f .. pf 3.4 470 A.: f is lot ' IItb � 3 : tR • ; 3:t w+ °• p f f tit.a t # '.4i ! E tc"t S 6 RF:�: R f § $ p.: 4 $" t•4h> »,t§ '.a "w)". F 0 $ $ 4 f §;a::;n 8� f ' 3 - v r RE. r tio. i CA r 3 4 R'4 pp v t R 64. S rg 3 MA a 0ifivillf,` ! it,to." $ p• # t. f 3 IV 4.$.S � � :w► ,+� ��► � .gip .�. MfA't 8.110,8- to �c a - # A a aa�. � a �a R A a M., A,s. o 0'4'# $ $•$ s a•: a ' R °3 9 �R a R a it a ' # ' 68 3 " e r ; ;� - is # + # i • i'Y�i a- $ 2 a _ !1!i r o. o a s av e s Y g . I_ 4. i n3a # a 9$ -a1R • ° a # 8,6 , } g Al s ............................ _ _... ___ ......... _...._.. _.. _...... ...... .._... .__ ......... ......... ......... ........................... ......... ......... .._...... ...__......_......._.... .._........ .._........_......_....... .........._..._... ......... ......... ......... ....... ._....... A&.0M.-ROME kor s M&3606 If the "public interest" is senved by!U4,14,0 e SRVUSD, ,jcnint Po. or ru atie n nay t�bust y f i� €it that this;pat e r ens iii public de nnain ane tl a ii�rest:4 Mo Alamo Co Mmutzrt r -619 As"l €bli �Ce: t"is " "for j�acstify n t�tillianxs A Act Cancellati 'jzExe�ism we be Iden. led and p in plebe to g thea the l0 acs pM, t titid�t+��e "l iablic 1bte l". IMT The Gree aOr*V; � nt i f�f tt l-W �F and subsequent, rog ations are- -a tal aspect e. anusplartn i tools required to be ce�zsidttett when analyzing any topic d usse dl nzn 7 . ''The. li01 laid out:int:is element touch any and all aso I ects drowent and,eitiditibns auc quixews compliaitec by then appti+cant �azty p oje�f shall aPproved This application involves a proposal fbr the new development of residential housing units. - 0 Ciot 2400ddor l) n land,tthefou it f o being pre la 2) bei mimed in with land'imOWWWOons 3)Project site out €de curcnt svicarea otheentra costa Sanutaay strict,therefore, xai on will require approval ofL.AFC O and pe ibly the CCSD Board. Mfivaors. 4)Thepmposedproject lies'WithifilftwaterShedsland will increase impeenou5 Doff'acid a si mfxe arrt do�tre� floes. litaSpgse � 4 a time when sc�l W,y i the:attire Alantei a €'anrd norm Porti- of l�anlvii is si ifie�a�nt impacted Became of population erently,exceeding capacity. TO,OW XON1119L rartid, eav e"Liza ilon t'The follmed e tVe ntivs wtal cancellat an of'�d C onse ationn Contrae t lel©. 4-76(hump y pro�pely, dated February 5,2001 andamended on September 12,2002 including the d tt4ngs as proposed 1 y h+ petitiopgr's atm. Tb a oomm��are based on rev ewi : ni sand US Hous b hpetiti+vrter �+ t tact of the B5-21 VWiliarrsc+n Aet,l3ackrotadet.St pad'by theepact of Conservation,and the ruling e�fthe Mai er Court of�alifrirnia,Few 1981, re Sierra ClubY. City of Hayward,C;aOd 840, 27 NN .w :;w i6gv A, The:PMe VVIS, faced into fantf.Cbrrservation contract by David and ootrie Hu pht von 1~eb. 1,976. 4 the benefit f red ucord ts and the public benefited front ricultural land"arid open space. Mr, Humphrey pied a y ire l 'rand Mis. umphrey in 2000, ;. The cotntract liad been in accordance with family's desire to seek entitlernertts for the devetoprnent of'the property a notice,of non-renewal was.recorded;on 'September 30, 1999 and.per the provision of the Act the property will be rebased ;fro: the Act in 20091. The petition Mates that during Marjorie"s illness-it became evident that use of the property'would no,longer have the same emotional significance for the family, It further states that interest in a port on of the property by the Schon District and B5-21(a) IF that interest actually results in a purchase it would make it even more difficult to graze,the Iand4 Question:Is there a family emotional relief clause in tlaee Williarnson Act that vould'tri er a cancellation?Norte was found by this writer. Question..'' by is the petiti6iierusing ciro�uitous laic by first agreeing to sell the P tot the Distriet.and there arguing that with tfte District ownership,of parto the property it would be difficult to co retinue the agricultural use? Question: In the light of strong Ian of the Sierra;Club v. City of Ha d: where it states"..,we hold that cancellation i$inconsistent with the purpose of the act if the objectives to be served by cancellation should have been predicted and served by non-t n at an,earlier tile,or ifsuch objwives can be served by nonrenewal now."is tyre,a genuine trigger for early cancellation,,on except four the premature financial Aren't the mpg passim bf human beings and the evolving of oyctmrtzunity preclio`table'? What would have.prevented the Rurnph:r famity froth giving a otice of non renewal earlirer7 lszt!t the proper And consistent appm- ach with the spirit and the letter of the Act to allow for th normal expiration in 2009 Petit 'n for<"I' tativ rfit air "Bar ri A rt" t For tttltar t n federal cart�m n en tutly: Question.n. Is the School.District violating the provisions of the Act as-smteii its 5,12, 90(a) (b) and(,c)where they indic atethat it is the pol o~y of the Statw to vsai placi . arty pciblic improvements on agricultural p serve)Hoeg does one recon le this confl'.io:t! o uesti€�n, Is the "ehaotI €�i trice in violation ort`section ll.,201 of the pct ;hem t�locatio n of a public i rove t should tart be: 85-21(b) prirmarily based cin lower cost ofAtuirin land in the agricultural preserve and that there are-no otl er.lan s within or,outside ofihepreserve to locate the: Mprctye vnt sou stiom is thee petitioner an.accomplice,to the'above b; providing huge discount to the District,1which makes tliecost o#prune mporta.nce''= wide the a#' miry of Naar-orie Humphrey tree the s0ool.the 1t A1jAM0.,MR2LM.ZX b&. O. C�fflO_ P . BOX, zt l iter s` Ijil Iiti c t% i t t ur a ofd tl representative of the p titiot x on :c. stated that the I isfiri;t purchase of the property will not be.used as an'argument nt for public interest?please clan . Question: Why is the petitioner,in apparent violartiortof they suction 51230.2 where he has agreed to subdivide more,ft 5 acres to he sold to the shoot District (Oct 3,200)without first meetinag the provisions of the section 51238.11 and even prior to submittal oftlte request for'p rtial cancellation? Question.:Hotiv is.the petitioner in conformance with the spirit of the Act when he chooses to i Snore many provisions of the Acta d ,the stron rtpiraion ofthe Justice osk re opposition to early cancellations and the strict rigor applied itt apprevin early ; car►cellations in Sterna Club v. City of Hayward? Since`the Attorney'General has consistently agreed tl t nert renewal is the,preferred termination method(54 B,5-2 Ops.Cal.Arty Gen.9Qx 21(1971). lie has found cancellation impermissible ``e�tce:pt upon extremely stringent conditions."( 2 Qp .�a�:Atty t �. 2�3 240j.fry 6(1579)) hour doe's the petitioner intend to satisfy this provision gn.d1WWat stringent conditions are to be dernonstrated? Question; given the common knowledge oft e School District finances and the plan ed construction of a neNv high school resulting in migration and therefore reduction of student body,make the apparent need of the school and the resulting investment in. land and WIdings a short term artd expensive endeavor? Won't the school have to dispose of the property shortly after itis ready for use? 'khat happens then?Will the,'property revert to agricultural? flow does all of this constitute a public interest that outweighs the benefits;ofthe Act?Why do the surrounding co nmunities and their repre; atives don't see this proposal as 'their interest if it is so overwhelming? Mi n.of WW1xwg&:ActjCaneel1 torr FjjRdjnnftcLujXed F2EXtu Partial rev Lud CoNsaaflop-contract.. 'The petition refers to section 51292 as the applicable,:provision governing the Mcellation, the wording o the petitiondescribing these.provisions d6esnot appear to'match:the text of the Actand somewhat e+ fusin _It seems-that the petitioner is intending to s€tt% fy both 1282(a)(1')and ft 1). Quest. fry thea wordi sem to,ar se that the proposal rr�eet both conditions yet the draft finding disrrkisses(b)(1')-t } nod ream ?.Q tion �br� would building$2mil. - homes in Alamo be consideredpublic meed? Are there shortage of these tames homes in Alamo,that would compel an early cancellation trrUer'.'i B5" Since the.Act is-e lie y and unegwvoc dt pr tective of o ri s ee c ble tiv . what are other public interests that substa ntiall outweigh these otierctives.and would den the cancellation<:xin public interest`"? Question, If the proposed fly cattcellatiand d,te,lopmem require General Plan..Amendment,k� roulci the petitiQrser belie�ee the proposal is;c crtsistent ti�ilio tlte'1'lan(' 128 b3}? P esnxt this demonstrate that indeed the proposal is not, consistent with the cunt Flan? How does the petitioner mtoncile it°s proposal with the opirtior of the Supreme Court where it said even if substantial evi nc iset»with hePtahant} itwd nvtis rowided that-ft 29 AL 0, OPQQ)MW : CM11.1 . 1 . sehow � a i * that it: not sufficient f6r the determination o-f c nsis�c ft e Act;` c,euid� .h been, provided to demonstrate that compliance with the nonrenewal process would interfere with the orderly development of the-County,or defeat-any. other purpose served 'cancellation? The petitioner, s that there is to proximate non- contract a oncontested t', fat is available;and usable for.,analternative use that is. proposed' by the Humphreys fcor its twenty-five acres of contracted;mid. ' Question: Sitx no evidence�p rovided re aborre,hour does the petitioner intend tv justify thisirequirements per'definition:of"proxitnate"-as determined by the Court, which could be several miles away'? The Court does not stem to awe; Nvith the petitioner*s definition of where the suitable properties may be located nor it agrees that the other property must be available forthe:residential project ofthis size(section c Sierra Club v. City,cif ayward), How,does the petitioner intend to rectify this Comments. The petitioner concludes that the l�llcunpl r ys will rot reap a tai windfall,that early cancellation wilt indiarectty result in substantial benefit to he Sc s of District and that no used purpose is seed irk delayip the planning and the development' of new uses tin Hurnplm property until after 2(X19. Question: Even ifnne awes that there is no tax windfall',where in the Act one finds relevancy of the etitioner not getting a windfall as justification of early termination? Question;Givers the uncertainty ofthe school's ability topay for and develop the land and'even if it can,the short window of its usefWness to the school prior to the expected reduction in the number of the student, wouldn't it detract froth the credibility,of the public interestAr merit? Do n't it sound B5-2 I d rather incredible that.such a need can not be specified since the District is noncommittal as toi a combination of parking-and parts facility or dust packing (Nov. 15,2041 letter from Robeft Kessler,superintendent to Dennis Barry Community Development Director)? It does however toots to many that the District may be mare interested,in land-banking,and,ifs , how'does this support: early cancellation? The applicant should tc>cate and identify the proposed w.illiarnson Frote�ted transfer site. An evaluation and'explanation of how and why the public Interest-is served;should be included in the Final EIR. Section I11,,Items 12a thru 12iia the document,states various parts of the Actx mainlyS 1 2'20 and readily;dismisses them by scati»g that the proposal is not inconsistent with the,provisions - 1 Question; Holy does one justify this finding the light ot`the rivorous expect tions of Sierra v. City of Hay,-Nfard and.the State Attorney Gen ral? Where is the compelling rationale for the earn°cancellation' Ad AMO � !` ' lusk PD'.bbl,7n ALAMO,CA11100%94507. 1� (9510 W3,606 item 13.(�tion:HOW does one reconcile the conflict with the asserticsps of no available landnear the project with *trader defizsittsn of"proximate"AM °use"as f�in Sietm Club v. City Of�yward Item:164 It states,in part,that because.Board.firms tit�bllation As in pu�1ic interest the'consistency fin gs"set ► at S 1i 8 (a)f 1)and(b l)-(5)�not required forthe partiai cancellation of the,Williamson Act....Question: `hat Ware the ubjk coacerns that sUbbst ntily Outweigh the objectives cfthe Williamson Act? Item ' :It states thatat the time the Hurrspl prppetty wasentered iisto the contract in 1976the rapid urbanization of kind around the property could not have been predicted and the meed for notice of nonrenewal could not have been B 21 predicted'. Question: What about 1996 thru 1993? Does the petitioner contend that even in 1993 one could not observe the changes in the area? Item 16(h)-*it states-that the proles is uneconomic,for agricultural use,and there is ftoreasonable,andcornparebl,e agncultural use to which the land may be put> Qustion:'Vhy would this be-.anydiffererut nom than when the property vus ,► } placed its contract and qualified for the Act based on the carne use?Especially when petitioner states that the land was not used for food production and only for m ing?H am think rea Ychary d e�pt the increased value of the land for development? Cumulative Ips The foregoing d scussiarz of inaccuracies and incomplete data throughout this document forecloses ny concltwon fo this DraftEiR. Sirs erre " r f. airman -Planning Committee- Greg: ommitte >Greg Jones project Coordinator Committee Members Jack Bobsereshi David Cippcmi Don Copland John Henderson-Chair Emeritus Fat Gullliford Dick Kauffinann;; Jeff McClung Ed Moran :31 N.... m.....4N« RmPoNSE To COMMEN CSANAL EIR CHAPTER 41 CAMMEFt's AND REspoNSEs LETTER 136: ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION B5-1 See Master Responses 1 and 5. 135-2 See Master Response 5(Agricultural Resources). 135-3See response to comment 132-1. The definition of infill housing presented by the applicants is not included because it not part of the analysis of environmental impacts of the Protect. The compatibility of the Project with surrounding neighborhoods,'its compliance with applicable General flan policies and goals,and its land use impacts are adequately addressed in this EIR.' Methodology to determine the degree of need for housing by the Alamo Community—or by Contra Costa County perhaps warrants consideration by the decision'-makers but it not germane to the assessment of the physical impacts'of the Project addressed in the EIR. B54 See Master Response 1. The Draft EIR notes that the existing zoning is A-4 on page 3-12. The applicants propose to pursue a planned'unit district zoning,based on R l5 characteristics for the residential component. See response to comment B1-19. The SRVUSD and Open Space components would retain their Agricultural Lanais(AL) designation under the General Plait and retain the A-4 zoning until such time they are acquired by another public agency. The densities of approved and existing development surrounding the site are depicted visually in figure 3.4-3. Monte Sereno is zoned R-15,is immediately east of the Project site,and contains lots ranging from 14,200 to 73,180 square feet(this is not representative,as only one lot is 73,180 sq. ft.and the average of the development is 18,902 sq.ft.). Stone Valley Oaks has a combination of lot sizes ranging from 20,021 to 83,506 square feet(with an average of 28,925 sq.ft.). The Humphrey development falls between the range of the surrounding developments,as it has an average lot size of 20,843 square feet(low of 15,000 to high of 39,129 sq.'ft.). It is not known what the commenter means by stating Stone Valley flaks has lots"with full agricultural'rights"on the eastern perimeter adjoining the Project site. The Project is not growth-inducing,as explained in the Draft EIR and in response to comment 135-20. The historical uses of the property are not relevant to a growth-inducing analysis. No"historical access to the trail system"will be lost by this Project,because the Project site has been and remains private property with no public access rights. See Response Figure 4: Current County Zoning Classifications. 135-5' See Master Responses 1 and 2. B5-6 See Master Responses 5 and 7,and response to comment B5-3. B5-7 See response to comment B5-3 regarding housing;.issues. See Master Response 5 (Agricultural Resources). The commenter appears to be referring to the exchange program. The merits and wisdom of exchanging property rather than paying the cancellation fee are outside the scope of this EIR.' B5-8 See A9-9. See also A7-3,A9-2,133-9,B5-10, and B5-11. 4-4T . ..... _ _ _ __ _ _ ._. ___ __ __ ..._ __.. .. ......_.. ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._..... .._..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _. ._... _. RgsPot4a To C©mma"TsMNAL SIR CHAPTER 4 COMMEWM AND RESPO SES B5-9 The Phase I and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment documents for the Humphrey property have been completed by certified Environmental Assessors. Significant site contamination from motor oil,fuels and pesticides were not identified by the Registered Environmental Assessors. See also responses to comments A7-3, B3-9,B5-10 and B5-11. B5-10 One aspect of an environmental assessment is to evaluate the historical data that is feasibly available to reveal areas requiring physical sampling. The questions the commenter poses are just the type that are and were asked during the environmental assessments. As is often the case,much ofthe'detail requested in the commuter's questions,which address daily practices and activities dating back decades;has been lost,forgotten or was never known. This site has undergone not only the typical Phase 1 assessment(Lowney Associates,2002),but also a Phase 2 evaluation (ENGEO Inc.,2002). Both the Phase I and Phase 2 reports conclude that there are no significant hazardous materials on-site and there is no need for monitoring during construction. See response to comment 83-9. BS-11 See response to comment B5-10. Phase 1 and,Phase 2 assessments were performed by Lowney Associates and ENGEO Inc.,which exercised expert judgment in determining what tests were required and whether further evaluation is needed. Because the commenter presents no basis for questioning their conclusions,other than,speculation,no more detailed response can be provided than to refer the commenter to their reports and section 4.4.5 of the Draft EIR. B5-12 See responses to comments B5-10 and B5-11. B5-13 Please see baster Response 6(Traffic). Abrams&Associates,prior to starting the traffic analysis,had meetings with both Contra Costa County as well as the Town of Danville traffic planners to discuss which traffic count numbers to use in the analysis of the Humphrey Project. Since the completion of the Draft EM, additional traffic count data has become available,(March 2003),and this information has been utilized by Abrams&Associates to recalculate the Monte Sereno and Stone Valley Road intersection. The results of this analysis can be found in Chapter 7---Updated Traffic Data. No new traffic studies are required for the proposed 39 unit residential development. Developments that have recently occurred in the Project surroundings were included in the cumulative analysis for the Project. Projects such as Stone Valley Oaks contribute to the 15%increase that is assumed in the Humphrey Project cumulative discussion. The cumulative traffic numbers do not always equate to 15-20%for each turning movement(these can range between 10-25%),yet the overall intersection falls within this range. The Humphrey EIR took a more conservative stance than the Stone Valley Oaks EIR, and used a higher trip per day calculation for the analysis(See Master Response 6— Traffic). It is the Highway Capacity Manual standard to average all intersection direction LOS calculations together to get an overall intersection rating. It is common for one turning movement to suffer a lower LOS,while the entire intersection as a whole is.above the threshold for significance;therefore LOS-F is acceptable for individual turn movement,yet not for the intersection as a whole. This is standard practice for new residential developments. 4-48 „ N RESPONSE To GOMMEmMFiNAL EIR CHAPTER 4.COMMEMS AND RESPONSES Abrams&Associates conducted a traffic signal warrant study for the intersections along Stone Valley Road,using the Caltrans Traffic Manual,Chapter 9. No signals are required where they do not currently exist. For those intersections where a signal will be introduced,traffic signal capacity calculations have built in factors that account for pedestrian crosswalk timing. The Humphrey,EIR analysis deals with the Project and alternatives,and the potential impact of a higher density alternative does not require that traffic study be completed for the proposed Project. CEQA does not require equal evaluation of the Project and the alternatives,however it does require fair evaluation of the alternatives,which was presented in the Draft EIR. 85-14 See Master Response 8. See Chapter 7,the Zander report on the Alameda Whipsnake. The biological experts were provided with the information from the Stone Valley Maks EIR. Special status wildlife was addressed in the Draft EIR. Contra Costa County will approve a qualified biologist to conduct the mitigation that is described in the EIR. B5-15 See Master Responses l and 3. Noise measurements were taken during a day when final exams were occurring,but that would'have no impact on the amount of students in school that day. Monte Vista High School requires that all students be present for finals,which occur throughout the day,just like any other school day. It is not common practice to take noise measurement from individual borne owner's private property. Noise measurements are taken at the property line,to avoid the argument of preferential treatment for certain home owners over others. The noise expert who conducted the noise'analysis for the Humphrey EIR has completed similar noise analyses on hundreds of other EIRs,many of which dealt with similar residential development projects. Assumptions are noted in the EIR about how noise travels over distance,and what impact that has on the nearby houses. The Draft EIR does note that the maximum recorded noise levet from the SRVUSD parking lot was 65.1 dB(from the southeast corner). The Draft EIR also notes that single event noise levels.may reach 92 dBA at 50 feet. The 92 dBA is based on a Federal Transit Administration(FTA, 1995)Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment which analyzed a substantially larger parking lot. See Chapter 5, B5-1'6 It is assumed that the SRVUSD would incorporate the same amount of trash and recycle facilities that it does for the rest of its parking lot locations. Please see Master Responses I and 2. B5-1'7 See Master Responses 2 and 6. Abrams&Associates formulated the trip distribution for the Project based on current traffic counts at applicable intersections. In general, the traffic from the Project area heads towards 1-680 during the morning,and comes from 1-680 during the afternoon and evening hours. BS-18 See Master Responses 2,4 and 7. The Double"D"equestrian facility is not an existing land use on the Humphrey property,did not exist when the NOP was issued, and a California Court of Appeal has confirmed that the past uses of the Humphrey property did not obligate the Humphreys to make their private property available for private or public equestrian uses. SRVUSD,as a governmental agency,cannot be 4-49 ........ __ ............ _ ........ _..............._. ........ _..._. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... ....._.. RESPONSE To COMMENT'#$#INAL EIR CHAPTER 4-COMMENTS AND RESPONSES restricted by the County in its use of property it acquires,and the SRVUSD will not be contractually obligated to use the property for parking lot and spurts facility use. The cancellation of a portion of the Williamson Act contracton the residential component of the Project will not affect the SRVUSD's use of the SRVUSD component of the Project. See Master Responses 1,2 and 5. If the SRVUSD does not purchase the property,the property will remain in Agricultural'land use designation and zoning. This EIR does not evaluate whether SRVUSD is likely to pursue the SRVUSD component of the Project,because CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate whether a(Project is likely to be approved and implemented,but only what the impacts would be if the Project were approved and implemented.' The grading plan was developed with the safety of the future residents in mind. See response to comments B 1-19,112-2,133-17,135-4,and B5-20 The commenter is asserting that the Project is inconsistent with General Plan policies related to development on slopes in excess of 26%. First, it is important to,put into context the amount of 26%slope area that is affected by the Project. As depicted in a figure under Appendix N in the Draft EIR,the area with 26%or greater slope,which is within the proposal for the 39-lot residential development,is less than I%of the property. Over 63'acres(66ofo of the total Humphrey land area)is being conserved for open space. Second,in interpreting the 26°lo slope policies in the General flan, it is helpful to review the way in which the policy has been applied historically. The County has never interpreted the policies to prohibit all development on 261/1a slopes. In September 1992;The Office of County Counsel issued a legal opinion that concluded the policy directing that development"protect"slopes over 26oi'fl incorporated under Measure C-1990:The Contra Costa 65/35 Land'Preservation Ordinance does not"mandate a total prohibition of development in the described areas." Contra Costa County has used a combination of three approaches in dealing with development on 26%u slopes: avoidance,minimization,and mitigation. The EIR has evaluated the Project using these criteria and determined that impact on 26% slopes is less than significant because such a small area would be impacted (approximately I%of the Humphrey property). The EIR determined that there were no significant visual impacts'associated with the distribution lines that are above ground along Stone Valley Road. Undergrounding the distribution lines would add considerable time to the construction period, and would increase the negative visual impact of the above ground lines on surrounding communities. It is the goal of this Project to fit in with the surrounding community, and this would oppose that goal.-The cast of undergrounding distribution lines,for a non-significant impact is prohibitive and unnecessary. The Project is intended to be a transition between the smaller lots of the Monte Sereno residential development to the east and the recently completed Sterne Valley Oaks residences to the west,and therefore the zoning should not be increased to R- 40. :. B5-19 CEQA requires evaluation of a No Project alternative,to address what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved. The Project here is the whole of the action,not just the Williamson Act cancellation,and includes open space preservation that serves the public interest. If all approvals necessary to implement the Project are not obtained,the Project will not 4-50 ....... .......:. ww «... w. M ....... orf• RESPONSE To COMMENTs/FmAL OR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES go forward. See Master Responses 1,2,4 and 7,and responses to comments A5-1 through A5-6. B5-20 This Project does not induce significant growth. See Master Response 1. The Projectproposes fewer houses than are allowed under current General Plan land use designations,and proposes residential development on a lot that already carries a 16- acre residential land use designation. The SRVLJSD component will only accommodate an existing school,and help alleviate some of the problems to which the commenter refers. The Project does not open up a new area to development,but fills in an agricultural property surrounded by non-agricultural lands;already developed for residential uses,approved for residential development,or permanently dedicated to open space and park uses. The Project site is inside the Urban Limit Line. The Project does not trigger the need to construct new community service facilities,or remove obstacles to population growth. Its wastewater can be accommodated within capacity already planned and approved by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,and does not surpass CCCSD's threshold for further capacity analysis. The residential component is outside CCCSD's current service area, but within CCCSD's Sphere of Influence and therefore already considered within CCCSD's probable future boundaries. The location of watersheds and mitigated downstream impacts are not relevant to a growth-inducing analysis. By law, impacts on school facilities must be considered fully mitigated by payment of school impact' fees,and the payment of fees does not induce growth. B5-21 See Master Reponses 1,2 and 5. The commenter provided several attachments,some of which do not comment on this EIR. The responses are as follows: a. (Background Facts and Circumstances) Please see Master Responses 1,2 and 5. b. (Petition for Tentative Partial Cancellation and Request for Authorization of General Plan Amendment Study) Please see Master Responses 1,2 and 5. c. (Discussion of Williamson Act Cancellation Findings Required for Tentative Partial Cancellation of Humphrey Land Conservation Contract.) Please see Master Responses 1,2 and 5. d. (Comments) Please see Master'Responses 1,;2 and 5. e. (Section 111,Items''12a through 12ii) Please see Master Responses 1,2 and 5. f. (Item 13) Please see Master Response 5. g. (Item 16) Please see Master Response 5. h. (Item 16(g)) Please see Master Response 5 i. (Item. 16(h)) Please see Master Response 5. 4-SI t : @ p, $� 6' t ! A 4' Aat M # � 4 6 4.r W d #" d i ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........1....111. .. .... ....... ............ ......... ......... _........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _ _. ._.. .........._...._... Patrick it May is, Page • Owisiderr less intense and obtrusive school usedr other than a 400+ pati tit. and: field. R Wder some type ofequestriart tadilty ti'tet wot�id be Ink with the ltisttu'1Cai usage Ortiw ip�dr. B - • Consider a*M~of the proposed'Site uses,by,putting the paw lot on thevest side orthe propwV and a is Irdense rectwitidnSt us's affiJacent to the wMng Mrd rano horn • Cac ider ahing a SWng area and tragi"d icor pedestrian and eques sn acoeM to the MW ftRisigWal Trrrtl rtt. i am sure that ire+are many Oer aftwn Live um that t*C" ersd for this but t wiii' iea to tip p h is to propose and consider.I The point is that the cement Draft EiR is detiernt in t�atOM addit, al a�xat user and thin needs to,beton ted. MSNA world tie p1leased to the opporttunky`to provide our 60wunity lnptA on this subJect Thankyou vary much for your attention and ODnSbSM#On Of my¢tomrrsents: Sin P� ortte ono Neighborhood Marco RESPoNse To COMMENTs/FiNAE E1R CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPGNSES LETTER B6: MONTE SERENO NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE B6-1 Please see Master Responses I,2,4 and 7. See response to comment A5-39. A staging area or tralhead is not necessary to mitigate any potentially significant impacts, 4-53 ETTER "fib Jl t #*MO*W P.O.%w 34A7lxavW#,CASM 73%-W9 Aja 27, paxcd May 2�.2 3„ M-335-1=FAX Mr- Brick ft&k Varuses' CQNT'ttA C=A GW+lose AbV fC'W P MNING IDIVMQ►N MwtWez,GA%SS3 Re: SOt#4 4 -120 Kinn ftopany.2" r Val*R044 moo,CA Dept Sir. We am* m you offtRw-md f 4tl ftvpL"y Ommera Asw k4wofAlmmoOut a ba-shp Dori f*o(Ow 397 h *W and propeM,ownen IoMW,to dse of to Vstltay? , jtt�t�of tltt"�Rd�r+oje�c. �PVet Its�tnwxti�r oI'c�rtc�ca� t� ems! �tty�Catrsrntvtttatf i;npt M er�tlto pure: mr id4 wo aro very,hex!AwA the pimps corttatg.aut of 6et vrillissutatsxat 1ict p rfO r l:Cr 7004 mod Gse rad Pbsr 4= t A►pprowl of a 4enwW Phm wrmWmmt to x=nc Ott pr r`from its Agckui ual mit to p unit d+eved�t and Opm S stators is a tr7atP+c�'ctamty--wido cancan. . t, Dm Ws open this door fair any pa rverl to dmp ftm the 8enwal ,? � Aft as to m tft s a oto t otter U=err*ds?` 2. wi we veer Intw attcd tet Ianenv the:pyo by,V*jch,*e County ,w ttuatte4&C row trluoitmpausts d"mpai9d CWWW NO aotts rs+ wee ld,taws ow dos l tlttexfitstttrto 1c i on. , ilf parr scrsod ps cot., ti.z�i ental B7-2 prvjoi*it induces trAve on the,qty Of filo apt,lliml besrdm on vw ed*e ns,bolt Iacutlly And -vv e a ror oto it r o atpmaa long Bee Wbrey'viviat MR Coad.- 1 s A mar ameft is*e isnpaot thfs wIII brave►OU Alm*ocat teed . cat this t itiex�ti'Y tltc c ufati t+ d rclop tt ttpt.etor Aid theyr'inch 414000 int+c xions w0wom be:���Is�►ip ae! �'� i 'w" Y ttWyiaa' btst G>ta �Isllesy tere►d rxls sdtiflcant " '.. , -fu orb(hod�of pmt.and a W* on ae on SMO VgW . timsvwy Iowa"> tm viw% mkily dwinpmk OMM het tt ocpit t. 2 A dte; ,rod vd a�rot now in wr air ibll [ odmic hfame Vratm t SGS l*Com,Stme �2e:yta�ctt$ [ i'7— 'I"hr po> r eartfe:ral pre+d n Clem l R+r gtr at6io►WNkiw WON is to Owmt flue c�tisss�aed tesr a vtrluitass s�� ito m+�ct �;��ntlas�rutaitturtt ta}* Iexc I vat#e>t't�pry~wo tort s t> t+ a w POW. so" ,-Aa ppmmt - ci`tttet it tiitttr ex�dud Rete rt y ter temtdte: +� spa,rape�Com:IiZuadiat►s. Votes tl�irt tlte�G ���tto vain,ff 7t sty Itred. ...... _......_. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ ....... ....._... ......._ ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........._..... ......................._........____.. Umd P! `fit MaY 17,M � > �lYp � D&m om- d MY ,ng WCwojdmaqftwpftftmittg Ct tnWon and tlao.Bot►td of Sapavims to Witte a f zit*W a#' coomaas prier to swovo ofuty cavi amen Its P4 road row4inq the waw. * hank ym fay Y=tweet and rev"vo +naaa*mfm of d matom We ka*f=wwd to tin& RESPONSE TO COMM£NTWINAL EIR CHAPTER 4:COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 137: ROUND MILL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION B7-1 The General Plan and the initiative measure that enacted the original Urban Limit Line already contemplate conversion of Agricultural lands within the ULL to urban uses. The Project increases the residentialland use designation by approximately 7 acres(from 16 acres to 23 acres). The Project isnot growth-inducing,as explained in the Draft EIR and in response to comment B5-20. The comments regarding endorsement for other projects quality of life and fiscal burden require remote speculation and are not required to be evaluated in the EIR. B7-2 The process for evaluating,growth-inducing impacts is preparation,consideration, and certification of this EIR. The environmental impacts'of the Project are discussed throughout this EIR. B7-3 See Master Responses 1 and 6. Cumulative traffic impacts are analyzed in the Draft EIR. B7-4 See Master Response 2: B7-5 Comment noted. The issue of increased papulation due to this Project was addressed in the Draft EIR. 4-55 ___ _ __ ' t P• ! 2 4 i T rr d „s >r 6.;-�9+� b'. M d'N: b o- d t (N o'. &(' :{�;•:& '8 Y: t�' P� �o#� N WOO 0^:: S �: b-.H" r; f 'y+F b. o_= 4.-n;-. P : ;;. ,'7� z..'N. C,. ;1r: P N si Yrl 4.: E■ � z;.�'a3� f'se: d t P .b ♦fr.'.h. ♦4 . N,:-R^::. - _ '>rtm }• o: `.�N'H'' A`- �,i i..,'. 0 �I 4•.'is". tee,^ :d �::P'P N7� LN ! :.N' {T17,K. y! {.: it!^P 9::.H • f [. ;. s` JRs Wr i t _ { ;t'i:r,. ao �'IF; � i; i P.i'�:1 IP d ib N�.f b 'DI M •b,T { b f':fit iy P'R. }iF f ,.y '.A r.d'»-h" '4= !0 - Nb. � �♦ J :.A iP',;' !: �:9 1 1.: 9 .b 6; ;.N b• 4 4 P b.. 9 : :..f. -b bt'' r��'. :*jK,1:1LAI- bYi fll-. ILL =77 M 00 i sAARk IM" 7 7.1 777W,71 IL-A -A 1; 1.+.;i ?k 1,.,,i t-11 Mr"7 '*I sf lilt*Lst 177117 _. .................................................................................. . . RESPONSE To COMMENTS/FINAL 9IR CHAPTER 4.COMMENTS Am Respo es IND1WIDUALS LETTER Cl: ERWIN DURRER' C1-1 Resource areas that could,potentially affect neighboring properties were evaluated in the Humphrey EIR. Best Management Practices will be used during the construction period to reduce impacts. CI-2 The issue of liability is not a CEQA required issue. In general,the land owner has all responsibility unless otherwise assigned;to another party. C1-3 The County cannot guarantee any future geotechnical conditions. The geotechnical study is prepared by a licensed geologist/geotechnical engineer,which assures that any studies and recommendations will comply with requirements and standards of the practice. C 1-4 Hazardous materials have been researched,and nothing was identified by the registered environmental assessor that would warrant a significant impact. C1-5 investigation of past complaints is out of the scope of this EIR. Impacts on the vicinity of the Project have been addressed in the EIR. Response for potential damages is a legal issue rather than an environmental``issue;therefore,it is not addressed in the EIR. CI-6 The impact,of traffic is addressed in this EIR. The only new traffic being produced by this development is based on the 39 unit residential development. Nuisance and speculations about increased crime do not constitute a basis for mitigation for this Project. Legal recourse of nearby residents is not an environmental issue. C 1-7 Standard noise methods and impact criteria were used for preparing this EIR. There is no evidence to suggest that an increase in noise would result from the Project. While some nuisance dust potentially could be,generated by construction,best management practices for construction would occur as stipulated in grading and construction permits. Impacts of construction.would be short-term events. Cl-8 The numbers used for calculation purposes are those that were required by EBMUD. C1-9 Comment noted. CI-10 Comment noted. 4-57 1..ETTER ;'r 1895 Monte Sereno Drive Aland, CA 94507 w w May 27, 2003 Contra Crista County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 2"d Floor, North Wing Martinet CA 94553 Attention: PotriO Ro.che Draft Env1ronnrwwW It"pt t R, for the Hun ph rey Propwty.EM Deor .Mr. Ruche, The following Comments are r made in respons to the draft EIR prepared for the Humphrey Property In Alamo Caffbrnia. These comments:address the completeness and+adequacy of the Draft fER dated March 2003,dndare based on my experiences and observations a a resident of Monte Serena Drive. Chapter 4.21Hydrology andtater Quality The I EIR dues not address drainage;on the EeWem, side of the I Project. perties on Monte Sereno thrive and Canyon Vista Place'hove concrate dr nage ditches that taccommodote o runoff -1 from the uplands In the Humphrey Property. The effects of extensive grading on the current runoff ftow patterns are not considered.. Chapter°4.3 Geolog4 bnd Sebmicity teeccy pkth that a 4.3.2 ai on Canyon Ma Place and Monte Sereno Drtye Arte placed on artificial fill, fihere are no reptarts dere ori the eftects o°f ext6osive grading.to these properties. As mentioned red in the'DEIR p414.3-14,"Deposits:of undocurnentedAl have the potential to consolidate and oar press Under the imposed leads of the proposed tills and:structures. Thiscouid result in differentia,I movement and �o�#unit damage to t o rop $ improvements.'" This statement should hold true these propertlet adjoining the Eastern side of the Humphrey Property and should hove __ _ ... ......... ........... ....._............_............._..... ......... ___ ___ _ _ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... .._.......__........ ...................................................................... .......... . . Chapter 4.4 Hazardous Materioh In ,my letter on the NOP dated Feb. 11,2002, 1 indicated there was a welding and sandblasting operation on the Humpl^rrey's property as X31, - as underground storage'tanks While still was tested for some toxic materials, further tested.should have been done in this area. The traffic study Is not bread enough. Green Valley Road,Rlemer Road, send Diablo Boulevard should have been"ina�luded as well its a of Stone Vailey Road West to 680. The studies dd not indlude the cumulative C2-4 effects of neva housing, new signal tient at Miranda, additional king spaces`tri the proposed parking lots and new facilities at'the Monto Asia Hlgh Schcxl Chapter 4.6Biological Resources � Q j not Included.a yj( + h{ u �Dnt � .... Chapters 4.9 Aesthetics and Visual esources The effect of a soccer field. parking lot and housingr development on the aesthetics:c nd visuol"a un ty df my. neighborhood is significant. The mitigation suggested is not sufficient to remedy this;impact. The view from 2"6 llwtatge szevalmy honepfo facttx t'� itoak will be replaced with a i�at carr# Inlr a tw -story home. Chapter 5 Alternatives The alternatives suggested oreinsufficient. Instead of a,por ing lot, the school district shouto consia natrer"environnerrtal stupes area. Nth the natural recces bf pounds, rna�sh and nat#ve tree ,such can ored could be devled"that atrl+d atrgnrent th esicletice Instruction ost lVIS. Ih conclusion.the!DEIR has prowid+ed inadequate,data to substantlote its conclusions and has failed tp study;alted#ivy tc the proposed prefect,dnd has ger�era�y f$aii ed to deol'substdntivoly w h the stated concerns and recommendations of the community s undlr�g the proposed prod. Sincerely. ar aret reen and P. undo n x ..t.. t ,,A.,........ ,,, RESPONSE To COMMENTSMINAL OR CHAPTER 4-COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER CZ: MARGARETGREEN & P. SUNDARARAMAN C2-1 The northern 63 acres of the Humphrey property is not proposed for any development. The area proposed for development(and almost all of the northern 63 acres)will be designed to drain into the Project drainage system,which will include the detention basin. No additional runoff will affect the Monte Sereno residential development to the east of the Project site. C2-2 The Project would not affect fills on adjacent properties. A grading permit could not be issued if grading would endanger the stability of adjacent properties. C2-3 Results of the hazardous materials tests were presented in the Draft EIR. No underground storage tanks were found. See response to comment$3-9. C2-4 Please see Master Response 6(Traffic). C2-5 The May 7,2003 Zander Associates Alameda Whipsnake study can be found in Chapter 7. See Master Response 8 C2-6 The Draft EIR discloses how the visual environment is affected. The existing open space will be altered if the Project were approved. Comment noted. C2-7 The alternatives discussed are compliant with CEQA requirements and guidelines. See Master Response 7. 4-59 !i rs s 9k*,. ! E x4 4" a i £ E x : EY � Y<: xr d•x # # S 3 b ' YE Y.i1 #< Y b $k - .. t $ a '�k: «. -: - : ! Y :. '•' 9 • .,.: E x .0 i*: 4 6E : 4 i. 4 s kf - a w,, ;. 4. i. '' R►i.p::' ... h% 9. ! £ $ 9: B i - # B/ Lt +«- a � f $ £ is ° 4 9-x i b £.:.x m t aa • $•s ,. -; 4 '. f$8 i. i f / Y � ' wtk... A f S# ® • Y '$ bkY4 #; x gill a ♦:. # s # :tet B w tF a i t $ :" # R d :.� f." '$..$ #+"E t 3 a. 9 £ice t; «3#iew# ;£ . t a^' 4 $,.-. $; a R#'.+'£ $ "i :• #r# £ A ir.$; b.. : - $ t £tA 3., kf« #�# E ; � girt :►• ID 'vo,. B Atl.- -.. $ $ $ $:: ; ? :.#. - i «+:. 3i... a $ Will-, $: si s # s s a $ # Bir ►� t t w $ m o• :t ! % 6.i a'0 .4.; 4 f t R.- t - t'.8. ;! #+ :«� ,:.LR ;. $ - :.wt ;..$ : t $ ; $ a # $ 3." nw•; i #2F: tlf if: $.$'. $# ;. •..# $ - B*ttf#Of 94110# 9 3 $ 3tl.; $` a $ ::#. �"> v'$ $ 4:,;.. A•:f ,$ f + i $i $pit"" R 4 rY ,+i: i i.# # i. �a ! $ !.'£ ;t+•i.' <# $' R 3 774 B#.- $ 8 ."•# p R - ., � #. 4 # a'3 A Bf6 %t' $:3 ;� i " a t #r: R } $; ! R e^t.$ eti t $#:". $ t'#a•«£ :;7# t+ '»ti #•` $ °JI # $ p 14 .$ R` skis 's #,—t 3' pr:t ......... ...........-_....... _ ................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _.... ......... ......... ......... ......... .............................................................. ........................................................ issues, end rectats sear Ycd to s tantivety wst i the staked su recce ms of -' sut� � p►je�t. Thook you for the crmorWa*to respondtwlto voice y ooncems ft&*4 the Hu rVbM DM, Mrs.,Giles'Day ►,Cit+ 7 plow M*to MY lmfinvmess: ma a D Box iI 165 Alma,tom.945,07 RESPONSE To COMMENTSITI A SR CHA R 4s Cot4mws AND RwomsEs LETTER G3: GILES DAY C3-1 As no designated heritage trees are present on the Project site,and with the mitigation measures proposed in this EIR,the removal of these trees does not warrant a determination ofsignificant impact. C3-2 See Chapter 7 for the information on transplanting tree 48. See response to comment B1-15. C3-3 Comment noted. Chapter 7 notes the possibility of tree transplanting,particularly number 48. See response to comment B 1-15. C3-4 A hazardous materials report was conducted by a registered environmental assessor on the Humphrey property. No underground storage tanks were found. The required tests were completed for the Humphrey property.. See response to comment B3-9. C3-5 Comment noted. See Master Responses 1 and 2. C3-6 It will be the responsibility of the SRWSU to provide maintenance to the new parking lot and play field. See Master Responses`l and 2. C3-7 Comment noted, 4.61 .... ......... ......... . _.. ......... ......... ......... ......... .... ......._ _..... ..... .. ..................................................................... LETTER 'T`o, Patrick Rode. Community Development� pamnent: Contra Cost&county , 65,1 Pine g Martinez,CA May" 2W Dear Mr.Roebe. I ris letter i�written in Wspo a the EIR for� lunplarey Propety: In, particular,I would like,to ad conducted ?whole"issuevf trafc in ft Monte Vista ares.1 he conclusion of Droft E,R Uaf&study is tl t theft is no problem now in:tbearm and that by hill a traffic signal on Stacie Valley load s thoproposed tet a vow . area them W It no tree;moble in the future. I find that both in theAM and n4 whon.studentsarrive an&dcpaxt the Monte Vi to sous,there is aftencomplete gridlock in front of the school'on Stone 44 Valley Road.A md&signal to allow trafffic flow i _.._ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _ ._....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......_... ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... __. .. _. ......... LErrER RE COM C: , 1965 Monte S=W Drive C Alamo,tA 94507 AGENDA#T #� � I wish to.formally state on racord Sky,oWe on to the Notice of�biic Hearing mailed to onr hou"on,M20,2001by Dennis X.Bad, Community Development Director.The notes stats that, "Ifyou chane a the prq*j In coprt,you in ay be limited to ram only thou issaft you or someone,else wed at Me public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence deitvered to the County at,or prior to,the pubes ring."' Since the county had granted an extension in tJmeUijtffAjmy2k 203 for Cha- responses to be seattoPatrickTioche at the Cc�n munisty'Development Department,it is illogical and unreasonable tote required to vow any, and ail concerns regarding theDraftEIRI .today.This would negate the purpose of theextension,which was grahted prior to the ma iling of this node on Ma ,2003. 'The Draft EIR is a y docuument which rr+egWress our timeand diligence to Wiest n its to1jW * Uour full response is dqe today,we are den the Us+e of of the g rate - eaters n.'Thus,the'lgotice of o PONcc Hearing should be noted asi "erroneous." _..... _ _ _ ........_. _.. ._. _.. Rgsplo u To Comme4TISMmAt Elft CHAPTER 4;CommEN m.Am.D REspoNsts LETTER C4 C4a: KATHY S.<LEVITT C4-1 Please see Master Response 6(Traffic) C4a-I Comment noted. 4-b3