Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01171995 - 1.39 1.39 through 1.43 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 17, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Roger, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.39 LETTER from Associate Planner, Urban Futures, Inc., transmitting documents relative to the commencement of redevelopment activities in the Lafayette area. "REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND COUNTY COUNSEL 1.40 LETTER from D. L. Patrick, Martinez, expressing concerns relative to the modification project at the Shell Refinery. "REFERRED to Environmental Health Department, County Administrator, and Community Development Department, the letter from D.L. Patrick, Martinez, expressing concerns relative to the modification project at the Shell Refinery, for review, contacting the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board, and report to the Board of Supervisors with information for consideration of possible hiring of a consultant relative to the issues involved. 1.41 LETTER from L. Marracci, Lafayette, commenting on access time on cable television. "REFERRED TO CABLE FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATOR 1.42 LETTER from Chair, Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity, requesting a opportunity to meet with the Internal Operations Committee. "REFERRED TO INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 1.43 LETTER from Trident Environmental and Engineering, Inc., expressing concern that a possible conflict of interest exists in the award of the contract for solid waste engineering review for the County. "REFERRED TO HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board ofSuper isors on the date shovyr� ATTESTED: cc: Corres ondents PHIL BATCHELOR, Cle of the Boar p of SupervIdors and County Administrator Counr<- Aamuustrafor r�` Community Development Director Sy � ) J ,Deputy County Counsel Community Development Director Cable Franchise Administrator Internal Operations Committee Health Services Director • F T RES� = _ RECEIVE® December 28, 1994 DEC 3 0 1994 Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Post Adoption Filing Requirement Pursuant to Section 33375 of the Health and Safety Code - In Connection with the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Section 33375 of the Health and Safety Code, transmitted are the following 1. A map indicating the revised boundaries of the Project Area. 2. A copy of the Statement.of Commencement of Redevelopment Activities (filed with the County Recorder pursuant to Section 33373 of the Health and Safety Code) along with a legal description of the Project Area. 3. A copy of Ordinance No. 437 adopting the Project. 4. A copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Cordially, 1 URBAN FUTURES, INC. Advisors to the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency Denyse M. Kielb Associate Planner DMK/dd 051F.1294-LTR-29 Crestview Corporate Center-3111 N.Tustin Avenue,Suite 230,Orange,CA 92665 Tel:(714)283-9334 Fax:(714)283-9319 r' r•� ♦j�%tom �,• '�ra_ �• ,;Una ��•� $4,;�•J m®r No IM ONNI u r ','ir� '�'+•�'. �1 f""".. ■ ra ♦ r �' ► jj� ,ilii � �.+5;. ,:;.•;t;•ArI'i�♦� .""".a ,�ti � ��� �� ���.}I'lJ, �.,<•'o•.,, .mow • +111 /�►sr" ':;Sti 'r;....•r,:�:"��:.s,�a , / ��t � rpt�� MEMO Sams ■IIID��, ':`'fir;$-• 's:J�:�'ov,;�3s � 1 �II�II ? �� '':2'.�'r.J��l• :'"'�.f ■i■■�� ,�IlMill�r �""r' ` � a;�?;•••J�jj: •,<•+�+''hh'�,r+�••�,��H �`M ftp 111 `"'� �1 t � yr�•� ''';••'"•+'•K'.y��;���'�►� .� .�.����+�* ./ � SIM NII► { 1t■/ � *,� ,,,.;;.•. ••;�;yy:��:�s;.J,�• ,mai c;..•.��/■ �' � s y so,,� ��sash✓a�.,;,t x.,; � # l�,,hS�+'.r„v2'.'•��.'-s'�g ;�.i=•-'� of+,^'••''•• �� 12-28-1994 12:Ei9PN FROM CITY of LHFi;`(ETTE iu 17142809319 P.62 ' � I i � l39 CITY COUNCILCOPY j Gayle B. UlIkema,Ma�or .y� Ivor Samson,Vice V.1ycr LAFAYETE `3 .c� ,.08 JudyGarvens ..n.,.,... .r... ,,.,... Anne Gfomn Donaid L Tamil I i Contra �osra County Recorder QLD AT RE OF 730 Las Juntas Street Martine, CA 94553 I After Rcording Return To: 28 1994 City:CleI k AT -CLOCK citylof Lafayette CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REC RDS X SYEPHEN L.WEIR 3675 Mf t. Diablo 81vd. COuNy RECORDER Lafayette, CA 94549-1988 FEE$ STATEMENT OF COMMENCEMENT OF I REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ('NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 33373 of the California Commu ity �Redevelbpment Law, that the City Council of the City of Lafayette adopted Ordinance No. 437 on Decembjw 27, 1994, approving and adopting the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Plan"). I legal description of the boundaries of the area included by the Plan (the "Project Area') is attachel hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. f I i roceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the California Con�mu�ity Redevelopment Law, I filed for recordation with the County Recorder of Contra Costa County by order of the ity ,Council Led: of the City of Lafayette, California. December 28, 1994 ' I tt�f t art M. Jusaitls, Ci rk j I I City of Lafayette I � r�f At*h I ent I ( OS.LA.J29a COMMENCE 1 POST OFFICE BOX 1968 _. .. ..... W,5 AIT.IDL.ABLO BLVD.,SUITE 210, LAFAYETTE,CA 94549.1968 TELEPHONE: (510)284-1968 FAX: (510)284-3169 I 2 PARCEL 1 3 4 THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, 5 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY 6 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 7 8 9 PORTION OF RANCHO ACALANES, RANCHO LAGUNA DE LOS PALOS COLORADOS, 10 AND RANCHO BOCA DE LA CANADA DEL PINOLE, MORE PARTICULARLY 11 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : 12 13 14 BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD AT THE 15 NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED SUNSET 16 VILLAGE, UNIT 1 FILED AUGUST 16 , 1946 IN BOOK 30 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17 24; THENCE NORTH 0°35 ' 40" WEST, 270 .45 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION 18 OF THE NORTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD AND THE WEST LINE OF 19 RISA ROAD AS SAID ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 87-69, CITY 20 OF LAFAYETTE, RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1969 IN BOOK 6021 OF OFFICIAL 21 RECORDS, PAGE 142 ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF RISA 22 ROAD THE FOLLOWING COURSES, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT 23 HAVING A RADIUS OF 172 .00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 24 57047 ' 02" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16017 ' 02" , AN ARC 25 LENGTH OF 48 .88 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO THE LAST CURVE, NORTH 26 48030 ' 00" WEST, 102 . 66 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST BAY 27 MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AQUEDUCT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE ALONG 28 SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 45037 ' 16" EAST, 47 .46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29 79043 ' 00" EAST, 11 . 02 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID RISA ROAD 30 (6021 OR 142) ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF RISA 31 ROAD, NORTH 49°49 ' 33" WEST, 38 .91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38030100" 32 WEST, 251.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10000 ' 00" WEST, 164 .29 FEET; 33 THENCE SOUTH 80000 ' 00" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT 34 CERTAIN PARCEL DESIGNATED PARCEL 3 IN THE GRANT DEED TO JOHNSON 35 CLARK AND LOUISE HARVEY CLARK, TRUSTEES, RECORDED JUNE 7 1991 IN 36 BOOK 16650 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 840; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG 37 SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 10000 ' 00" WEST, 33 . 89 FEET TO THE SOUTH 38LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 24; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 39 OF STATE HIGHWAY 24, SOUTH 81044 ' 19" EAST, 158 . 19 FEET TO AN 40 ANGLE POINT IN SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 69°46148" EAST, 41 609 .82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73°54 ' 39" EAST, 656 .00 FEET; THENCE 42 SOUTH 88003 ' 43" EAST, 177 . 72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 71040131" EAST, 43 410 .87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73°23 ' 37" EAST, 160 . 95 FEET TO THE WEST 44 LINE OF DOLORES STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF 45 DOLORES STREET, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES, SOUTH 02007 ' 22" WEST, 46 77 .35 FEET, AND SOUTH 41°29' 00" EAST, 28.20 FEET; TO THE SOUTHER- 47 LY LINE OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AQUEDUCT RIGHT 48 OF WAY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY, 49 NORTH 73023 ' 37" EAST, 673 . 84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73023133" EAST, 50 851. 38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73023 ' 37" EAST, 379 . 68 FEET; THENCE 51 NORTH 73023 ' 37" EAST, 98 .43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80001157" EAST, 52 1313 . 31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66°13 ' 18" EAST, 103 . 12 FEET, TO THE 53 WEST LINE OF FIRST STREET; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EBMUD RIGHT OF 54WAY AND THE WEST LINE OF FIRST STREET, SOUTH 03°10 ' 51" EAST, 3 .28 55 FEET_; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EBMUD RIGHT OF WAY, NORTH 1 1 79-18 - 24" EAST, 242 .47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70*21 ' 52" EAST, . 121 . 94 2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43'14 ' 48" EAST, 74 . 67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3 75'31 ' 19 EAST, 678 . 30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54045158" EAST, 249 . 08 4 FEET; TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 24 ; THENCE ALONG 5 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 78011 ' 42" EAST, 38 . 15 FEET; THENCE 6 SOUTH 84030 ' 57" EAST, 234 . 22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72036 ' 03" EAST, 7 204 . 33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04001 ' 02" EAST, 19 . 13 FEET; THENCE 8 NORTH 79018 ' 29" EAST, 508 .56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70051 ' 38" EAST, 9 272 .28. FEET; THENCE NORTH 79'18 ' 24" EAST, 345.44 FEET; THENCE 10 ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 24880 .00 11 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2-48 ' 40" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 12 1220 . 69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22054 ' 43" EAST, 45.80 FEET TO THE 13 NORTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD; THENCE NORTH 80*13 ' 13" 14 EAST, 639 . 19 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD; 15 THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD, 16 ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3340 .00 17 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14-04 ' 54" EAST, THROUGH A 18 CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00-14 - 41" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 14 .26 FEET TO THE 19 WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ALAMO- 20 LAFAYETTE CEMETERY DISTRICT RECORDED JULY 21, 1937 IN BOOK 444 OF 21 OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 135; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINES OF 22 SAID ALAMO-LAFAYETTE CEMETERY PARCEL (444 OR 135) , SOUTH 2-29 ' 25" 23 WEST, 317 . 14 FEET; AND SOUTH 87006 ' 25" EAST, 517 . 06 FEET TO THE 24 WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED SUBDIVISION MSL 18- 25 76, FILED DECEMBER 23, 1976 IN BOOK 51 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 9 ; 26 THENCE NORTH 02023 - 35" EAST, 340.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 27 ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A 28 RADIUS OF 520. 87 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 28-37135" 29 WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2-16 ' 05" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 20 . 62 30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19*52 ' 00" WEST, 8 . 97 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST- 31 ERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A 32 RADIUS OF 190 . 00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 45051 ' 38" 33 WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43-12 - 44" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 34 143 .30 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BLVD. ; THENCE 35 EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE 36 RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600 .00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS 37 SOUTH 1041 ' 17" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27011 - 17" , AN ARC 38 LENGTH OF 284 . 71 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED 39 CURVE, SOUTH 64-29 - 58" EAST, 300 .87 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT 40 CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 560 .00 FEET, THROUGH A 41 CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36013 ' 46" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 354 . 10 FEET; THENCE 42 ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 20 .00 FEET, 43 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 99054 ' 12" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 34 .87 44 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD, 45 SOUTH 83047 ' 54" EAST, 154 .58 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE 46 OF STATE HIGHWAY 24 AT THE EAST LINE OF PLEASANT HILL ROAD, 47 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 24, NORTH 48 78-57 ' 09" EAST, 246 . 05 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE 49 LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400 .00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 29058 ' 05" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 209 .22 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG 51 SAID CURVE, ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST LINES OF THAT CERTAIN DEED 52 TO RUSS MICHELSEN AND DIANE MICHELSEN, RECORDED FEBRUARY 27, 1991 53 IN BOOK 16420 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 366, THROUGH A CENTRAL 54 ANGLE OF 4039 ' 04" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 32 .47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55 161041 ' 02" EAST, 48 . 62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3701612611 EAST, 74 . 30 2 1 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53008 ' 48" EAST, 79 . 64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2 14003 ' 37" WEST , 190 .28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 300 33 ' 44" EAST, 3 134 .29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN DEED TO F. 4 WILLIAM DORBAND AND WENDY K. DORBAND, RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1994 IN 5 BOOK 94005 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 884 ; THENCE ALONG THE 6 EAST LINE OF SAID DORBAND DEED ( 94005 OR 884) , SOUTH 29045100" 7 EAST, 23 . 30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17011 ' 00" WEST, 37 . 80 FEET; 8 THENCE SOUTH 35058 ' 00" WEST, 59 . 80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19049130" 9 WEST, 34 . 15 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF OLD TUNNEL ROAD; THENCE 10 WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 85048 ' 44 WEST, 140 . 66 FEET; 11 THENCE NORTH 85048 ' 44" WEST, 121 .55 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT 12 CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 510 . 00 FEET, THROUGH A 13 CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18039 ' 16" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 166 . 05 FEET; THENCE 14 TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED CURVE, SOUTH 75032 ' 00" WEST, 104 . 32 15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE OF OLD TUNNEL ROAD, SOUTH 16 40025 ' 19" WEST, 216 . 36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE 17 OFF RAMP OF STATE HIGHWAY 24 AT THE WEST LINE OF PLEASANT HILL 18 ROAD; THENCE FROM SAID POINT , WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 19 OF SAID OFF RAMP, NORTH 83000 ' 00" WEST, 277 .44 FEET; THENCE 20 ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 265 . 00 21 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63°38 ' 29" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 22 294 . 35 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 23 HAVING A RADIUS OF 197 . 00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 24 10015 ' 29" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°18 ' 22, AN ARC 25 LENGTH OF 49 . 18 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE 26 RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 42 . 00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS 27 NORTH 11039 ' 59" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25016 ' 09" , AN 28 ARC LENGTH OF 18 . 52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2022103" WEST, 2 . 19 FEET 29 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED 30 SUBDIVISION MSL 18-76, FILED DECEMBER 23, 1976 IN BOOK 51 OF 31 PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 9 ; THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND SOUTH LINES OF 32 SAID MAP, SOUTH 2017 ' 25" WEST, 385 . 94 FEET, AND SOUTH 88009 ' 45" 33 WEST, 307 .29 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXTERNAL BOUNDARY OF THAT 34 CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED SUBDIVISION 3821, FILED SEPTEMBER 25 , 1969 35 IN BOOK 128 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 19; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY 36 LINES OF SAID MAP ( 128 M 19) , NORTH 87045 ' 16" WEST, 99 . 16 FEET; 37 SOUTH 2020 ' 24" WEST, 144 . 89 FEET; SOUTH 64058 ' 09" WEST, 133 . 94 38 FEET; SOUTH 65017 ' 54" WEST, 516.49 FEET; NORTH 53001 ' 55" WEST, 39 304 .27 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MARLENE DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID 40 MAP OF SUBDIVISION 3821 ( 128 M 19) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID 41 SOUTH LINE, NORTH 78058 ' 46" WEST, 47 . 61 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY 42 PROJECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID MAP ( 128 M 19) ; 43 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID PROJECTION AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID 44 LOT 1, NORTH 11001 ' 14" EAST, 171 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER 45 OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 11001114" EAST, 94 . 00 46 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNAT- 47 ED AS PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO LAFAYETTE HIGHLANDS INVESTMENT, 48 RECORDED MARCH 24, 1993 IN BOOK 18377 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT 49 PAGE 864, AND ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL A AS SAID PARCEL IS 50 SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED MSL 154-67, FILED 51 NOVEMBER 24, 1967 IN BOOK 2 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 5; THENCE 52 CONTINUING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL A (2 PM 53 5) , NORTH 7050 '57" WEST, 152 .57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2017 ' 17" 54 EAST, 32 . 13 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 55 SAID PARCEL A (2 PM 5) , SOUTH 66044 ' 14" WEST, 146 . 39 FEET TO THE 3 1 EAST LINE OF CAROL LANE AS SHOWN. ON SAID PARCEL MAP ( 2 PM 5) ; 2 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A 3 RADIUS OF 919 .90 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH . 78004 '22" 4 WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3035.' 08" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 57 .57 5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74029 ' 14" WEST, 60 . 00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE 6 OF CAROL LANE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 7 15°30 ' 46" WEST, 5 .20 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL 8 OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO GEORGE H. BLOCK, RECORDED APRIL 9 16, 1973 IN BOOK 6915 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 599; THENCE 10 SOUTH 65043 ' 00" WEST, 200 . 00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 11 SAID BLOCK PARCEL (6915 OR 599) AND PARCEL ONE AS DESCRIBED IN 12 THE DEED TO RICHARD L. MC INTYRE AND MARION LEE MC INTYRE RECORD- 13 ED JANUARY 11, 1963 IN BOOK 4280 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 14 459; THENCE NORTH 16°32 ' 00" WEST, 50 .00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE 15 OF SAID MC INTYRE DEED (4280 OR 459) TO THE SOUTH LINE THAT 16 PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO GREGORY JOHN COONS AND 17 TERESA PIERCE COONS RECORDED FEBRUARY 17 , 1984 IN BOOK 11660 OF 18 OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 185; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID COONS 19 DEED AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN 20 THE FOLLOWING THREE DEEDS: 21 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 22 23 COONS NOVEMBER 30, 1977 8609 OR 863, 24 25 COONS NOVEMBER 18, 1992 18037 OR 509, 26 27 GARCIA JULY 6 , 1988 14435 OR 688, 28 29 SOUTH 65043 ' 00" WEST, 255.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT 30 CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED LAFAYETTE GARDENS, FILED NOVEMBER 21, 1941 31 IN BOOK 25 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 860; THENCE NORTH 38°19135" WEST, 32 60 . 01 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF DYER DRIVE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY 33 LINE OF THE GRANT DEED TO HOWARD L. ADLER, ET UX. , RECORDED 34 SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 IN BOOK 15332 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1; 35 THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 65052 ' 25" WEST 71.38 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID ADLER DEED ( 15332 OR 1) ; 37 THENCE SOUTH 65052 ' 25" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINES DYER DRIVE AND 38 WALNUT COURT AS SHOWN ON THOSE CERTAIN MAPS DESIGNATED LAFAYETTE 39 GARDENS, FILED NOVEMBER 21, 1941 IN BOOK 25 OF MAPS, PAGE 860 40 ,AND FRIENDSHIP FARMS, FILED NOVEMBER 7, 1941 IN BOOK 25 OF MAPS, 41 AT PAGE 858, AND RE--SUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LAFAYETTE ORCHARDS, 42 FILED FEBRUARY 6, 1941 IN BOOK 24 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 799, A 43 DISTANCE OF 814 .20 FEET TO A POINT AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF 44 THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 44 AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED RE- 45 SUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LAFAYETTE ORCHARDS (24 M 799) ; THENCE 46 SOUTH 74007 ' 29" WEST, 209 . 04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 47 LOT 49 (24 M 799) ; THENCE SOUTH 65052125" WEST, 166 . 10 FEET 48 ALONG THE SOUTH LINES OF LOTS 49, 50, AND 51 (24 M 799) TO THE 49 EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ONE 50 IN THE DEED TO THE ROSSI TRUST RECORDED MAY 18, 1992 IN BOOK 51 17510 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 446 ; THENCE ALONG THE 52 EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID DEED ( 17510 OR 446) , SOUTH 24°30 ' 00" 53 EAST, 15 .00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65043100" WEST, 45 .00 FEET TO THE 54 EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE 55 SCHWEIN 1987 FAMILY TRUST, RECORDED OCTOBER 14, 1987 IN BOOK 4 1 13959 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 462; THENCE ALONG THE 2 EXTERIOR OF SAID SCHWEIN DEED ( 13959 OR 462) , SOUTH 24030 - 00" 3 EAST, 10 .00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65043 ' 0011 WEST, 65 .00 FEET TO THE 4 EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PROPERTY FIVE, 5 PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO THE BRUDIGAM FAMILY TRUST, RECORDED MAY 6 21, 1992 IN BOOK 17523 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 244; THENCE 7 ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID BRUDIGAM PARCEL ( 17523 OR 244) , SOUTH 8 24031100" EAST, 15 .00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE 9 OF SAID BRUDIGAM PARCEL AND THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS 10 PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO ANNA KOO RECORDED OCTOBER 8 1991 IN 11 BOOK 16928 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 405, SOUTH 65-43 ' 00" 12 WEST, 106 .24 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 13 DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO LUCILLE 0. GERACE RECORDED 14 NOVEMBER 7, 1973 IN BOOK 7085 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT, PAGE 856; 15 THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID GERACE PARCEL, SOUTH 25-15 ' 00" 16 EAST, 25. 92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65*43100" WEST, , 158 .61 FEET; 17 THENCE NORTH 25015 ' 00" WEST, 50- 97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6504310011 18 WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINES OF THE PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN 19 THE FOLLOWING THREE DEEDS: 20 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 21 22 CASAURANG APRIL 8, 1982 10737 OR 537, 23 24 LAZZARESCHI DECEMBER 3, 1975 7701 OR 371, 25 26 HARELSON APRIL 7, 1988 14258 OR 955, 27 28 A DISTANCE OF 175 .55 FEET TO A ANGLE POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF 29 THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ANTONIO COPENE AND 30 KAREN LYNN DRAPER-COPENE RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1991 IN BOOK 16363 31 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 821; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF 32 THE COPENE PARCEL, SOUTH 2052 -58" WEST, 42 . 18 FEET; THENCE 33 86053 ' 45 WEST, 71.24 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 34 DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 10A AND 10B IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA 35 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL' AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORDED 36 NOVEMBER 2, 1992 IN BOOK 17992 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 623; 37 THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID PARCELS ( 17992 OR 623) , SOUTH 38 2-50' 00" EAST, 35 .76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87010100" WEST, 45 . 07 39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11043 ' 30" WEST, 11.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40 87010 ' 00" WEST, 25 .83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11043 ' 30" EAST, 54.76 41 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 9 OF THAT CERTAIN 42 MAP DESIGNATED MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES FILED OCTOBER 6, 43 1914 IN BOOK 12 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 266 , SAID POINT BEING ON THE 44 CENTERLINE OF WALNUT CREEK AS SAID CREEK IS DESIGNATED ON SAID 45 MAP NO. 11 LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG 46 SAID CENTERLINE OF WALNUT CREEK AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF 47 SAID CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL PARCEL ( 17992 OR 623) AND 48 THE PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING SEVEN DEEDS: 49 50 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 51 52 CAREY FEBRUARY 1, 1990 15634 OR 510, 53 54 CITY OF LAFAYETTE JULY 17 , 1972 6746 OR 692, 55 5 • 1. �� 1 GOLDEN GATE ASSOC. JANUARY 29, 1990 15624 OR 617, 2 3 GOLDEN GATE ASSOC JANUARY 29, 1990 15624 OR 615, 4 5 MATIC DECEMBER 12, 1973 7111 OR 238, 6 7 WAGLEY JULY 3, 1975 7556 OR 425, 8 9 R'' A.P. LAND CO. OCTOBER 5, 1962 4217 OR 209, 10 11 NORTH 86053 ' 45" WEST, 84 .45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46036100" WEST, 12 125 .58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°31100" WEST, 125 . 81 FEET; THENCE 13 SOUTH 79021 ' 30" WEST, 79 .50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62053100" WEST, 14 54 . 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55032 ' 00" WEST, 49 .91 FEET; THENCE 15 SOUTH 22006 ' 30" WEST, 60 . 77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68940145" WEST, 16 119 . 77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33018 ' 00" WEST, 31 . 13 FEET; THENCE 17 SOUTH 89054 ' 45" WEST, 25 . 93 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL 18 OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO PEDDER, ET AL, RECORDED JUNE 23, 19 1993 IN BOOK 18680 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 97; THENCE SOUTH 20 4028 ' 00" EAST, 58 . 61 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND THE WEST LINE 21 OF THIRD STREET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PEDDER PARCEL 22 ( 18680 OR 97 ) AND LOT 10, BLOCK 7 OF SAID MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE 23 HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE SOUTH 85°32 ' 00" WEST, 134 . 59 FEET 24 ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PEDDER PARCEL AND LOTS 10,9, 8, BLOCK 25 7 OF SAID MAP ( 12 M 266 ) TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 26 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO JND WHIRLWINDS RECORDED JUNE 1, 1987 IN 27 BOOK 13677 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 77, AND THE EAST LINE OF 28 LOT 5, BLOCK 7 OF SAID MAP NO. 1 ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE ALONG THE 29 EXTERIOR OF SAID LOT 5 SOUTH 4028 ' 00" EAST, 50 . 00 FEET; THENCE 30 SOUTH 85032 ' 00" WEST, 134 .59 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SECOND 31 STREET; THENCE SOUTH 66026 ' 11" WEST, 53 . 15 FEET TO THE 32 CENTERLINE OF WALNUT CREEK AS SAID CREEK IS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE 33 MENTIONED MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE ALONG 34 THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCELS OF 35 LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS TO GEORGE R. MARCOTTE AND LILLIAN 36 MARCOTTE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1967 IN BOOK OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, 37 AT PAGE 336 AND TO DAVID P. NELSON RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1989 IN 38 BOOK 15275 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 507, SOUTH 78049 ' 45" 39 WEST, 152 . 33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78059130" WEST, 91. 70 FEET; 40 THENCE NORTH 67029 ' 30" WEST, 10 . 05 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 41 16, BLOCK 6 OF SAID MAP NO. 1 ( 12 M 266) AND THE EAST LINE OF THE 42 PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE GRAY REVOCABLE LIVING 43 TRUST RECORDED OCTOBER 13, 1993 IN BOOK 19040 OF OFFICIAL 44 RECORDS, AT PAGE 259; THENCE SOUTH 4028100" EAST, ALONG THE 45 SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 16, 14 .09 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE 46 EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD 47 CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORDED AUGUST 22, 1955 48 IN BOOK 2596 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 222; THENCE WESTERLY 49 ALONG SAID CENTERLINE (2596 OR 222) AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE 50 PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS TO GRAY ( 19040 OR 259) AND 51 TO THE SMITH FAMILY 1991 TRUST RECORDED NOVEMBER 8, 1991 IN BOOK 52 17002 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 741, SOUTH 79055 ' 55" WEST, 53 150 . 69 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN 54 THE DEED TO LINCOLN PARTNERSHIP RECORDED APRIL 9, 1986 IN BOOK 55 12824 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 213; THENCE ALONG THE 6 1 EXTERIOR OF SAID LINCOLN PARTNERSHIP PARCEL ( 12824 OR 213) , SOUTH 2 4028 ' 00" EAST, 7 .20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73045 ' 00" WEST, 43.00 3 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33045 - 00" WEST, 96 .63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4 4028 - 00" EAST, 25 . 81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38019 ' 1511 WEST, 12 .95 5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86126 ' 30" WEST, 6 .47 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF 6 WALNUT CREEK AS SAID CREEK IS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED MAP 7 NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE 8 CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK AND THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LINCOLN 9 PARTNERSHIP PARCEL ( 12824 OR 213) AND THE PARCELS OF LAND 10 DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING THREE DEEDS: 11 12 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 13 14 RICHARD H. LINCOLN JANUARY 7, 1972 6559 OR 33, 15 16 WILEY JULY 6, 1989 15179 OR 880, 17 18 STUART,ET AL APRIL 5, 1989 14984 OR 140, 19 20 SOUTH 63057 ' 00" WEST, 115 . 77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7902510011 WEST, 21 267 . 04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55'37 ' 00" WEST, 123 . 30 FEET; THENCE 22 SOUTH 57058 ' 00" WEST, 15 .81 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT 23 PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO LAFAYETTE SENIOR HOUSING 24 ASSOC. RECORDED MAY 26, 1977 IN BOOK 8349 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT 25 PAGE 134; THENCE SOUTH 3033 ' 30" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 26 378.87 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF MORAGA BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON MAP 27 NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE SOUTH 86*26130" 28 WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 325 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3033 ' 30" 29 EAST, 160 . 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2 OF 30 MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12'. M 266) ; THENCE SOUTH 86'2613011 31 WEST, 68 .28 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF MORAGA ROAD; THENCE 32 SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 5056 - 34" EAST, 450 . 36 FEET; 33 THENCE SOUTH 603433" EAST, 165. 17, FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF 34 SCHOOL STREET; THENCE SOUTH 82003 '.54" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH 35 LINE, 424 . 73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7'36 ' 05" WEST, 36 .29 FEET MORE 36 OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 15 ON THE MAP OF PARADISE 37 ACRES UNIT 2 FILED AUGUST 9, 1950 IN BOOK 41 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 27; 38 THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID MAP, SOUTH 03053 ' 31" WEST, 39 47 . 31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57*57 ' 31" WEST, 24 .76 FEET; THENCE 40 SOUTH 34025 ' 29" EAST, 68.61 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3900213111 WEST, 41 23 .06 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 8 ON THE MAP ENTITLED 42 PARADISE ACRES - UNIT NO. 1, FILED DECEMBER 8, 1948 IN BOOK 36 OF 43 MAPS, AT PAGE 41; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID MAP (36 M 44 41) , SOUTH 89035 - 05 WEST, 91 .73 ' FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14002 ' 28" 45 WEST, 75 . 14 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF ROSEDALE AVENUE; THENCE 46 SOUTH 23026 ' 59" WEST, 50 .00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF ROSEDALE 47 AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARADISE 48 ACRES - UNIT NO. 1 (36 M 41) , SOUTH 33-14 ' 41" WEST, 86 .27 FEET; 49 THENCE SOUTH 10024 ' 55" EAST, 50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11049 ' 21". 50 WEST, 87 .00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19*53 ' 36 WEST, 85.32 FEET; THENCE 51 SOUTH 33010 ' 38 EAST, 101.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00024 ' 5511 EAST, 52 165 . 12 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAINT MARY'S ROAD; THENCE 53 WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 69031' 15" WEST 170 .21 54 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING 55 A RADIUS OF 125 .00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 82018 ' 20", AN 7 #, 1 ARC LENGTH OF 179 .56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86011 ' 02" WEST, 66 . 33 2 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE MAP ENTITLED BROOKS 3 TRACT FILED MARCH 30, 1939 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 703; 4 THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE; NORTH 85055 ' 00" WEST, 293 .21 FEET 5 TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL TWO IN 6 THE DEED TO LAFAYETTE PROFESSIONAL CENTER, INC. , RECORDED OCTOBER 7 17, 1972 IN BOOK 6775 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 213; THENCE 8 NORTH 05030 ' 00" WEST 196 . 20, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF O'CONNOR DRIVE; 9 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 87°00 ' 00" EAST, 10 50 . 31 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°00 ' 00" EAST, 78 .60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 05030 ' 00" WEST, 40 .26 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF O'CONNOR DRIVE; 12 THENCE NORTH 05030 ' 00" WEST 256 . 65 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THAT 13 CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED BROOKS TRACT, FILED MARCH 30, 1939 IN BOOK 14 23 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 703; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 15 SOUTH 78000 ' 00" WEST, 875 .23 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF OAK STREET; 16 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 31°49 ' 00" WEST, 17 81 . 86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°08 ' 00" WEST, 30 . 38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18 77°37 ' 00" WEST, 30 .00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF OAK STREET AND THE 19 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 9 OF THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED 20 BICKERSTAFF TRACT, FILED DECEMBER 5, 1918 IN BOOK 17 OF MAPS, AT 21 PAGE 355; THENCE SOUTH 77°37100" WEST, 271.26 FEET TO THE WEST 22 LINE OF DEWING AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 2012130" EAST, 122 .53 FEET; 23 ; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 24 10. 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 123°34 ' 30", AN ARC LENGTH 25 OF 21 .57 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BROOK STREET AS SHOWN ON 26 THE MAP OF BICKERSTAFF TRACT ( 17 M 355) ; THENCE SOUTH 58038100" 27 WEST, 64 .45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25050 ' 00" WEST, 40.20 FEET TO THE 28 NORTH LINE OF SAID BROOK STREET; THENCE NORTH 25050100" WEST, 29 117 .68 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17, BLOCK 4 OF SAID BICKER- 30 STAFF TRACT ( 17 M 355) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES 31 OF LOTS 17 THROUGH 25 OF BLOCK 4 OF SAID MAP, SOUTH 44022 ' 00" 32 WEST, 30 .00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67050 ' 00" WEST, 321 .99 FEET; 33 THENCE SOUTH 74022 ' 00" WEST, 88 .84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22010100" 34 WEST, 65 .27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54036 ' 00" WEST, 87 . 96 FEET; 35 THENCE SOUTH 79038 ' 00" WEST, 89 .92 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT 36 CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED LAFAYETTE HEIGHTS, FILED JUNE 17, 1912 IN 37 BOOK 7 OF MAPS AT PAGE 163; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST 38 LINE, NORTH 01014 ' 35" WEST, 7 .50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 39 THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED TRACT 2240, FILED OCTOBER 3, 1955 IN 40 BOOK 61 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY 41 LINE OF SAID TRACT 2240 (61 M 17) , NORTH 1014 ' 35" WEST, 284 . 61 42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE MAP ENTITLED LAFAYETTE CRES- 43 CENT FILED JUNE 7 , 1945 IN BOOK 27 OF MAPS,AT PAGE 51; THENCE 44 " ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID MAP ( 27 M 51) , NORTH 1050 ' 30" WEST, 45 530 .32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84027130" WEST, 451.45 FEET TO THE EAST 46 LINE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE; THENCE NORTH 2048 ' 00" EAST, 15 .45 47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 9039 ' 15" WEST, 51 . 87 FEET TO THE EASTERLY 48 PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 49 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO DAVID E. OBERA AND BEVERLEY IRENE OBERA 50 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 819; 51 THENCE SOUTH 81046 ' 30" WEST, 201.01 FEET ALONG THE SAID 52 PROLONGATION AND NORTH LINE OF SAID OBERA PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 53 7039 ' 00" EAST, 50 .00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81041 ' 30" EAST, 162 .42 54 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 55 12048 ' 00" WEST, ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, 694 . 04 FEET TO THE 8 1 ; NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN- THE DEED TO , 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 1939 IN BOOK 518 OF 3 OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 395; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL, SOUTH 2048 ' 00" WEST, 24 .00 FEET; 5 THENCE NORTH 87012 ' 00" WEST, 18 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2048100" 6 EAST, 16 .61 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 30 OF THE MAP ENTITLED 7 LAFAYETTE HEIGHTS FILED JUNE 17, 1912 IN BOOK F OF MAPS, AT PAGE 8 163; THENCE SOUTH 74037 ' 30" WEST, 183 . 33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 9 02047 ' 30" EAST, 104 . 90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70041130" WEST, 73 . 70 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48019 ' 40" WEST, 93 .50 FEET TO A POINT ALONG 11 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT MAP DESIGNATED SUBDIVISION 4726, FILED 12 MAY 9, 1975 IN BOOK 178 OF MAPS AT PAGE 4; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG 13 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 37054 ' 40" WEST, 141 . 30 FEET; THENCE 14 NORTH 60023 ' 20" WEST, 62 .40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23014155" EAST, 15 94 .08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08006155" WEST, 94 . 96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16 66059 ' 20" WEST, 16. 50 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID MAP ( 178 M 17 4) ; THENCE NORTH 67°32 '45" WEST, 63 .54 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 18 CORNER OF LOT 34 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED SUNSET 19 VILLAGE UNIT NO. 1, FILED AUGUST 16, 1946 IN BOOK 30 OF MAPS, AT 20 PAGE 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUNSET 21 VILLAGE UNIT NO. 1 (30 M 24) , NORTH 81°56 ' 20" WEST, 146 .42 FEET; 22 THENCE NORTH 06030 ' 00" WEST, 11 . 34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81056120" 23 WEST, 131 .61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53053120" WEST, 110 . 99 FEET; 24 THENCE SOUTH 80005 ' 10" WEST, 202 .24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67056 ' 20" 25 WEST, 83 . 72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67054 ' 20" WEST, 47 . 62 FEET; THENCE 26 NORTH 87026 ' 20" WEST, 44 .26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 08002 ' 00" EAST, 27 22 . 69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11057 ' 00" EAST, 31 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28 83027 ' 00" WEST, 106. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74043 ' 00" WEST, 100 . 00 29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42029 ' 00" WEST, 41 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 70050 ' 00" WEST, 25 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 03034100" WEST, 35 . 00 31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69009 ' 00" WEST 151 . 33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 61033 ' 30" WEST, 179 .58 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE 33 RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2110 . 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 34 OF 01021 ' 25" , AN ARC LENGTH. OF 49 . 97 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER 35 OF LOT 19 OF SAID SUNSET VILLAGE UNIT NO. 1 ( 30 M 24) ; THENCE 36 SOUTH 23025 ' 00" EAST, 105 .22 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF MOSSWOOD 37 DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 40055159" EAST, 76 . 11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 38 WEST LINE OF LOT 54 OF SAID MAP (30 M 24) ; THENCE SOUTH 23025 ' 00" 39 EAST, 211 . 99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02000 ' 35" WEST, 80 .21 FEET TO THE 40 SOUTH LINE OF SUNDALE ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH 41 LINE, SOUTH 66035 ' 00" WEST, 250 .00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44035 ' 53" 42 WEST, 85 .80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 65 OF SAID 43 MAP (30 M 24) ; THENCE NORTH 23025100" WEST, 210 . 00 FEET; THENCE 44 NORTH 9022 '50" WEST,. 82 .46 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 45 OF SAID MAP ( 30 M 24) ; THENCE NORTH 23025100" WEST, 105 .22 FEET 46 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; 47 48 CONTAINING 290 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 9 ORDINANCE NO. 437 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lafayette (the "City Council") proposes to adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is a duly constituted redevelopment agency under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed Redevelopment Plan from the Agency, together with the Agency's Report to the City Council (the "Report to Council") required pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. (the "Community Redevelopment Law"), which includes the reasons for the selection of the territory proposed to be included within the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area"), a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area, an implementation plan describing the specific goals and objective's of the Agency with respect to the Project Area, an explanation of why the elimination of blight and, the redevelopment of the Project Area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, a plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Lafayette (the "City") as to the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan with the City's General Plan, the minutes of meetings with the Project Area Committee (the "PAC") and a summary of the record of all information presented to or by the PAC, an environmental impact report on the Redevelopment Plan (the "Final EIR"), the report of the county fiscal officer and the Agency's analysis thereof, a Neighborhood Impact Report describing the impact of the Redevelopment Plan upon the residents in the Project Area and the surrounding areas, and a summary of consultations with taxing agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lafayette (the "Planning Commission") has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations concerning the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on November 28, 1994, on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and Pu8L:21136 2 391 1 B2821.0 December 19, 1994 WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and an affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area at his-or her last known address as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Conta Costa; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to all residents and businesses in the Project Area at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City have each independently found and determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Final EIR, mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan therefor have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which avoid or substantially lessen such effects; and WHEREAS, the Agency and City have each independently found and determined that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan (including the "No Project" alternative) were rejected as infeasible based upon specific economic, legal, social;technological or other considerations as set forth in the Final EIR and the "Statement of Overriding Considerations;" and WHEREAS, the Agency, as the lead agency, and the City, as`a responsible agency, have certified the adequacy of the Final EIR submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Report to Council, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, and the Final EIR, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner and taxing entity filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for such joint public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area are to accomplish the following: A. To eliminate blighting influences which exist in the Project Area, including, without limitation, dilapidated and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and PUBL:21136 2 1 391 I B2821.0 2 December 19, 1994 uneconomic land uses, subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness that are in multiple ownership, depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, residential overcrowding and other physical and economic deficiencies. B. Encourage the redevelopment of the Project Area subject to and consistent with the City's General Plan and/or Specific Plans as may be adopted from time to time through the cooperation of private enterprise and public agencies and to promote the goals and policies of the General Plan. C. Enhance the long term economic well-being of the community. D. Provide for the rehabilitation of commercial structures and residential dwelling units located within the Project Area. E. Provide public infrastructure improvements and community facilities, such as the installation, construction, and/or reconstruction of streets, utilities, public buildings and facilities (such as facilities for pedestrian circulation, bikeways and parking facilities), storm drains, utility undergrounding, or structures, street lighting, landscaping and other improvements which are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area. F. Promote the enhancement of the Mt. Diablo Boulevard corridor to achieve the concepts envisioned by the General Plan. G. Provide for participation in the redevelopment of property in the Project Area by owners who agree to so participate in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan. H. Encourage joint efforts and cooperative efforts among property owners, businesses and public agencies to satisfy off-street parking requirements. I. Increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of affordable housing. J. To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization and enhancement of the community. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Report to Council and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan that: A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the following conditions which characterize the Project Area: PUBL:21136 2 391 1 B2821.0 3 December 19, 1994 I. Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to dive or work due to serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical conditions or faulty or inadequate utilities; and 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots due to.substandard design, inadequate size under present standards and market conditions, and lack of parking; and 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the Project Area; and 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership; and 5. Depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments; and 6.. Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, and excessive vacant lots; and 7. A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions; and 8. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare; and 9. The existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities or utilities. Such conditions are causing and will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment, thus requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and the State. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and costs of euaL:21136 2 391 1 82821.0 4 December 19, 1994 the public improvements and facilities and other actions required to correct the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the City and cannot be undertaken or borne by private enterprise acting alone or in concert with available governmental action. B. The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan; by the elimination of the physical and economic blighting conditions which exist in the Project Area; by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of all appropriate means. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including property tax increment, interest income, Agency bonds, loans from private institutions, proceeds from the sale or lease of property, financial assistance from the City, County, State of California, Federal Government or any other public agency, or any other legally available source; that the nature and timing of redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment, generated by new investment in the Project Area; and that the financing plan included within the Report to Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the Redevelopment Plan. D. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City, including, but not limited to, the housing element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the report of the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan. E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employment opportunities within the City. PusL:21136_2f391f82821.0 5 December 19, 1994 F. The condemnation of real property to the extent provided for in the Redevelopment Plan is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. Evidence supporting this finding includes the need to assemble sites in connection with the provisions of certain public facilities and the avoidance of the creation of uneconomic remnants, the ability to obtain sites as may be necessary for the provision of required affordable housing; and the fact that the Agency will comply with all applicable laws regarding payment for property acquired by eminent domain. G. The Agency has adopted a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced temporarily or permanently from housing facilities in the Project Area. The Agency also has a feasible method and plan for its relocation of businesses. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Agency has adopted a method of relocation for the. Project Area which sets forth a plan for relocation of families and persons who may potentially be displaced by Agency projects, and upon the fact that the Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance according to law, and the fact that such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a feasible method for relocation. H. There are, or are being provided, within the Project Area or within other areas -not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and" commercial facilities and at rents or prices within.the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information contained in the Report to Council that no persons are expected to be displaced as a result of the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, and that even if some persons were to be displaced there are sufficient existing dwellings which would be available to persons displaced by the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. I. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Amended Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to adopt such a plan prior to any such displacement. J. All noncontiguous areas of the Project Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for their inclusion. This finding is based upon the information set forth in the Report to Council and other evidence in the record. PUBL:21136 21391 182821.0 6 December 19, 1994 I K. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that all properties within Project Area boundaries were included because they were underutilized because of blighting influences, or were affected by the existence of blighting influences, or were necessary either to accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Redevelopment Plan or because of the need to impose uniform requirements on the Project Area as a whole. Such properties will share in the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan. L. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Evidence supporting this finding includes the existence of blighting influences as set forth in the Report to Council, and the inability of individual owners and developers to economically remove these blighting influences without substantial public assistance. M. The Project Area is a predominantly urbanized area. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information set forth in the Report to Council and the Preliminary Report for the Redevelopment Plan, which demonstrates that not less than eighty percent (80%) of the property in the Project Area: 1. Has been or is developed for urban uses; or 2. Is characterized by the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership; or 3. Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been developed for urban uses. N. The time limitation and the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the Redevelopment Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency reflects the anticipated costs of the public improvement projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and the time limitation contained in the Redevelopment Plan reflects the anticipated time for the Agency to undertake such projects. PUBL:21136 2 391 I 82821.0 7 December 19, 1994 Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. Evidence supporting this finding includes the City Council's finding that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and.ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. Section 4. Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing having,been considered and, in the case of written objections received from Project Area property owners and affected taxing agencies, having been responded to in writing, are hereby overruled. Section 5. The Final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency and/or the City pursuant to or in implementation of the Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Final EIR, and the Agency shall undertake such additional environmental review or assessment as necessary at the time of the proposed implementation of such activities. Section 6. That certain Redevelopment Plan for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project, the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incorporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof, and as so incorporated is hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. Section 7. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area.likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. PUBL:21136 21391 I B2821.0 8 December 19, 1994 rr<LA'l t.! I f of U-it-H) C W 17142839319 P.23 Se6oa 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to retard with'the County Rozorder of C a Codd County a description of the laid within the Frojea Area and a ratetrient ihat R!�edbW for the redevelopment of the Projoct Area have been instituted under the Commaik eeftMlo t law. Section 10. The BuiWing Deparunent of the City is hereby direCird for a pcHod of two (2) y#azs xfta the Wealve date of this Ordirwee to advise all applicants'for building permitswift,i the ProjectArea tb* the 6U for which a building permit is sought for the construction of build nVe or for odd i:n%;Kvvcnvm Is within a redovdopinant, pMjCCE area, Section It. The M Clot is hmvft directed to ftwutnit a aWy of the description and 11 recorded by the City Clcrk pwsuant to Section 9 of this Ordinmce, a copy of dils ikd mid a map or plat indicafing the boundaries of the Project Ares, to A [ter and Assewr of the County of Contra Cantu, to the govcrr*g body of each of th.e agencies which receives taxes front property in the Project'Area, and to the Sum Vowof lkuaiimtiorc, within thitiy M days fbilowln,% ilia adoption of rhe V4ftveloptr=A Plan. Spedoo 12. 'Ate City Clerk is hereby anthodzed and directed to emify to the passage of this C nflnu=and to wase the=nc to be published in a newspaper of geftm) circulation which is'Pu4ished WW ci=lsfed in the City. Sedwd 13. If any part of this Ordinatft or the RadevokVment Plan which it approves is hold to be invalid for arty reason, awh decision shao rat affect: the validity or"remaining pordoi of this Ordinance or of die Redovelopme, Plan, and this City Council hereby declares dat it would have passW the TanalrAer of the Ordinam.or apprnvt%d the remainder of the Redft slqpment Plan if isuch tayWid portion thereof W been deleted. Stdhm U. 'n1s Ordiumme OWI be in fall toroe;and drect thirty (30)days aftr Introduced and ftm read at a rquiar rooting of the City C=41 of the Cky of 124held ft 21 s t da of Dwember, 1994. and thereafter PASSED ATM ADOPTED at 4"C - a r-ep*rneeft of said City Council Meld the 27th day of December, 1994, by the foulgrW ng lot CA Tft: *YE&- COUNCIL HERS: Garvens, Grodi n & Mayor Ui]kema NM- COUNCIL 1+l1tI RgRS: None A&9 FNT,. COUNCIL ABM. Councilmembers Samson 9 Tatzin WR AWTAIN: COUNCM Mcomms-. None i ayor j;j3qj(WM.* 9 id'GJ-1'.7•+ 1MJ•�IGMI'I rKiJ:'i Ll I 1 OT LhtrMI=i I c 1 U j � I ATT FSP. ierk j APPVED As To FOMLSOd ' i g, Yoma, Carlwn & Rauth. a Prcfessiorml Cuporsdon i I I � I ASS peCLd Coamet I j i i I i i I i i i i j I i ew[.21 i 213911 WC1.0 10 D-Nnow 27. 1904 I _ I I - I �G'GO-1774 10.4-)W rmLQ'l I 1 Ot LM'+t Hltl ,C iu 1'�l•iGtfJ�J1' r.�s t 171 i I { STA OF CALDK)RNU } CO OF CONTRA COSTA i OF LAFAYET E !Swan M. J �i s 1 I; �krk of the City of Laffa euo, do hereby certify that the forego4v Q No. A,7w-g introduced is a regular meedag of the City Council of the City of Wd on the 21_ss day of December', 1994, and that the um was duly passed xW ad at a replar wA@ tg of said City Cou:acU Wd oa tt* 27th-day of tuber, 1594, by th follow* vote o!'the meenecs Lherwf: 1 a jGarvens, Grodin & Mayor Uilkema ! A!YE$: GOUNCa, iBRS: j N61!j: COUNCIL,MEMMS: None I AWONT; COUNCIL MBart13ERS: Samson & Tatzin i COUNCIL 3M- None ANF rtr'rrF.i x t:m 'iZiry tut ttte Mayor of the City of Lafayette signed said Ordtnaetce No.4 7 oat the 28 day of DecavibCC, 1994.. IN'Vi 11'11E S WHEREOF, I have heratto se my hand and affixod rhe officio! sea!of'tlse City of e#te this 28 day of Decrtttber, 1994. 1 � i ITy C t68 CIrY'C}F i LAFAYE j ' I h t . I , I 1 I,Sorsa Mbit� C�iof yrthe City of Lafayette, do hexebyr certify that the foregoing is the ' ort In Otarmae No. wand was pubdshed oaace in tbeCC Sun on the-AtWq of i a ,lit. 1995. IC&f CLERK OF CTt'Y OF LAPAY'lJ'TT:E f i , j I ' *U-1.1 136 213911AM.0 11 iAxcf�cr2T.i94i i TO T P.l_ P.25 f :.UKIJAIN $UTU�ZES, NCDRPV �D RECEIVED December 28, 1994 DEC 301994 CLERK BOARS?OF SUPERVISORS Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA CO. Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Post Adoption Filing Requirement Pursuant to Section 33375 of the Health and Safety Code - In Connection with the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Section 33375 of the Health and Safety Code, transmitted are the following 1. A map indicating the revised boundaries of the Project Area. 2. A copy of the Statement.of Commencement of Redevelopment Activities (filed with the County Recorder pursuant to Section 33373 of the Health and Safety Code) along with a legal description of the Project Area. 3. A copy of Ordinance No. 437 adopting the Project. 4. A copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Cordially, URBAN FUTURES, INC. Advisors to the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency Denyse M. Kielb Associate Planner DMK/dd 06.0.1294-LTR-29 Crestview Corporate Center-3111 N.Tustin Avenue,Suite 230,Orange,CA 92665 Tel:(714)283-9334 Fax:(714)283-9319 � i�i ftp •.yfr�, ��� �; . �,,�� ���� �� ,f, • j•:•''°' si�1 ��♦ � rw tie R 5�7;.;.«,..1 � ♦ rte.. � • � t�,�� • r� r�••:1r.� •i' gra pp� . J'�,�r��1 • � /� '�'�yn's,;J.:i'-r•.fi:+.�;;jiy`1� hr �♦ *II�M �i ' alr� y •�'�'•r«?"'=s,"''/'�..I rlhj i�!.•'�,M �r��rr'♦� �rr1� .4 t+,` t �+' s�;f,J•�y���;:i`-:• •.rv.�.:;s' ��,�%ft'� ,� ��t s�'"'r� ��"�,��' ,•'1� '±.;,;,.;�;F••;...,�rf•"rr:•"�'•':fry'��,' 1,f r, ��, 1.'1.4•"••,•' ��_� 4i,:�`�.. :�••4•�•,.11.•/•;,7.41••".'.:4 u',w't�• �• �.' 1 y�`�► ' �'.'.,;'i�: r• r.�.r�•:,..•-•�@ 1.,,r ► � I )' �1 ', .d1 ♦ ,yl•',wt w :;•:�;arti;��• sem".. �� *►� lip- Ross 1�—�t3-19y4 1? bSPM FRUP1 (:ll'i of LHFH`r'ETTE TO 17142839319 P.02 COPY CITY COUNCIL j Gayle B.Ullkema.Magor ZAi 9 Ivor Samson,Vice Marcr V Q�?c•,� Judy Garvens LAFAY ETT E a .en.,. .» ",cww.Jro,... ••.� Anne G/OC:n Qonaid L Tatzin ! Contra Lsra County Recorder QED AT RE OF. 730 Las Juntas Street Martinez, CA 94553 ' After R�cording Return To: OE 281994 iCity.Cloirk AT / 'CLOCK IClty+of �afayette CONM COSTA COUNTY RECORDS 13675 Ot. Oiablo Blvd. STEPHEN L WEIR + COUNTY RECORDER Lafayette, CA 94549-1968 FEE j I � I I STATEMENT OF COMMENCEMENT OF i REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 33373 of the California Commu�ity Redevelbpment Law, that the City Council of the City of Lafayette adopted Ordinance No. 437 on IDecemt)6r 27, 1994, approving and adopting the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Plan-). I j4 legal description of the boundaries of the area included by the Plan (the "Project Area'+) is !attach hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the California ICor MUS ity Redevelopment Law. I + I Filed for recordation with the County Recorder of Contra Costa County by order of the ity Council Led: of the City of Lafayette, California. December 28, 1994 i i� an M. Jusaitls, Ci rk I City of Lafayette I Atta�h I errt I ; i I h1 !oS.L 9.12941 c G wow v mcr; + POST OFFICE BOX 1968 W.VLABLO BLVD.,SUITE 210,LAFAYE17E,CA 94549.1968 i TELEPHONE: (510)2841968 FAX: (1%0)254-3169 I 1 2 PARCEL 1 3 4 THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, 5 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY 6 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 7 8 9 PORTION OF RANCHO ACALANES, RANCHO LAGUNA DE LOS PALOS COLORADOS, 10 AND RANCHO BOCA DE LA CANADA DEL PINOLE, MORE PARTICULARLY 11 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 12 13 14 BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD AT THE 15 NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED SUNSET 16 VILLAGE, UNIT 1 FILED AUGUST 16 , 1946 IN BOOK 30 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17 24; THENCE NORTH 0°35 ' 40" WEST, 270 .45 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION 18 OF THE NORTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD AND THE WEST LINE OF 19 RISA ROAD AS SAID ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 87-69 , CITY 20 OF LAFAYETTE, RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1969 IN BOOK 6021 OF OFFICIAL 21 RECORDS, PAGE 142; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF RISA 22 ROAD THE FOLLOWING COURSES, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT 23 HAVING A RADIUS OF 172 . 00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 24 57047 ' 02" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16017 ' 02" , AN ARC 25 LENGTH OF 48 .88 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO THE LAST CURVE, NORTH 26 48030 ' 00" WEST, 102 .66 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST BAY 27 MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AQUEDUCT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE ALONG 28 SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 45037 ' 16" EAST, 47 .46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29 79043 ' 00 EAST, 11.02 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID RISA ROAD 30 (6021 OR 142) ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF RISA 31 ROAD, NORTH 49049 ' 33" WEST, 38 .91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38030 ' 00" 32 WEST, 251. 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10000 ' 00" WEST, 164 .29 FEET; 33 THENCE SOUTH 80000 '00" WEST, 20 .00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT 34 CERTAIN PARCEL DESIGNATED PARCEL 3 IN THE GRANT DEED TO JOHNSON 35 CLARK AND LOUISE HARVEY CLARK, TRUSTEES, RECORDED JUNE 7 1991 IN 36 BOOK 16650 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 840; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG 37 SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 10000 ' 00" WEST, 33.89 FEET TO THE SOUTH 38 LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 24; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 39 OF STATE HIGHWAY 24, SOUTH 81044 ' 19" EAST, 158 . 19 FEET TO AN 40 ANGLE POINT IN SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 69046148" EAST, 41 609 .82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73054139" EAST, 656 .00 FEET; THENCE 42 SOUTH 88003 '43" EAST, 177.72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 71040131" EAST, 43 410.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73023 ' 37" EAST, 160.95 FEET TO THE WEST 44 LINE OF DOLORES STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF 45 DOLORES STREET, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES, SOUTH 02007 '22" WEST, 46 77 .35 FEET, AND SOUTH 41029 ' 00" EAST, 28 .20 FEET; TO THE SOUTHER- 47 LY LINE OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AQUEDUCT RIGHT 48 OF WAY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY, 49 NORTH 73023 ' 37" EAST, 673.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73023133" EAST, 50 851.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73023' 37" EAST, 379 .68 FEET; THENCE 51 NORTH 73023 ' 37" EAST, 98.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80001 '57" EAST, 52 1313.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66013 ' 18" EAST, 103. 12 FEET, TO THE 53 WEST LINE OF FIRST STREET; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EBMUD RIGHT OF 54 WAY AND THE WEST LINE OF FIRST STREET, SOUTH 03010 '51" EAST, 3 .28 55 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EBMUD RIGHT OF WAY, NORTH 1 1 79018 '24" EAST, 242 .47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70021152" EAST, 121.94 2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43014 '48" EAST, 74 .67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3 75031 ' 19 EAST, 678 . 30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54045158" EAST, 249 . 08 4 FEET; TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 24; THENCE ALONG 5 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 78011 ' 42" EAST, 38 . 15 FEET; THENCE 6 SOUTH 84030 ' 57" EAST, 234 .22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72036 `03" EAST, 7 204 . 33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04001 ' 02" EAST, 19 . 13 FEET; THENCE 8 NORTH 79018 ' 29" EAST, 508 .56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70051138" EAST, 9 272 .28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79018 ' 24" EAST, 345 .44 FEET; THENCE 10 ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 24880 . 00 11 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2048 ' 40" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 12 1220 .69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22054 ` 43" EAST, 45.80 FEET TO THE 13 NORTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD; THENCE NORTH 80013 ' 13" 14 EAST, 639 . 19 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD; 15 THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD, 16 ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3340.00 17 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14004 '54" EAST, THROUGH A 18 CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00014 ' 41", AN ARC LENGTH OF 14 .26 FEET TO THE 19 WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ALAMO- 20 LAFAYETTE CEMETERY DISTRICT RECORDED JULY 21, 1937 IN BOOK 444 OF 21 OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 135; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINES OF 22 SAID ALAMO-LAFAYETTE CEMETERY PARCEL (444 OR 135) , SOUTH 2°29 ' 25" 23 WEST, 317 . 14 FEET; AND SOUTH 87°06125" EAST, 517 .06 FEET TO THE 24 WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED SUBDIVISION MSL 18- 25 76, FILED DECEMBER 23, 1976 IN BOOK 51 OF 'PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 9; 26 THENCE NORTH 02023 ' 35" EAST, 340. 85 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 27 ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A 28 RADIUS OF 520 .87 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 28037 ' 35" 29 WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°16 ' 05" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 20 .62 30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19°52 ' 00" WEST, 8 .97 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST- 31 ERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A 32 RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 45051 ' 38" 33 WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43012 ' 44" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 34 143 .30 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT !DIABLO BLVD. ; THENCE 35 EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE 36 RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS 37 SOUTH 1041 ' 17" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27011' 17" , AN ARC 38 LENGTH OF 284 .71 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED 39 CURVE, SOUTH 64029 ' 58" EAST, 300.87 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT 40 CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 560,00 FEET, THROUGH A 41 CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36013 '46", AN ARC LENGTH OF 354 . 10 FEET; THENCE 42 ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, 43 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 99054 ' 12", AN ARC LENGTH OF 34 .87 44 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF MOUNT DIABLO BOULEVARD, 45 SOUTH 83047 '54" EAST, 154 .58 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE 46 OF STATE HIGHWAY 24 AT THE EAST LINE OF PLEASANT BILL ROAD, 47 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 24, NORTH 48 78057 ' 09" EAST, 246 .05 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE 49 LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 29058 ' 05" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 209 .22 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG 51 SAID CURVE, ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST LINES OF THAT CERTAIN DEED 52 TO RUSS MICHELSEN AND DIANE MICHELSEN, RECORDED FEBRUARY 27, 1991 53 IN BOOK 16420 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 366, THROUGH A CENTRAL 54 ANGLE OF 4039 ` 04" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 32 .47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55 61041 ' 02" EAST, 48.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37016126" EAST, 74 . 30 2 1 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53008 '48" EAST, 79 .64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2 14°03 ' 37" WEST , 190 .28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30° 33 '44" EAST, 3 134 .29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN DEED TO F. 4 WILLIAM DORBAND AND WENDY K. DORBAND, RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1994 IN 5 BOOK 94005 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 884; THENCE ALONG THE 6 EAST LINE OF SAID DORBAND DEED (94005 OR 884) , SOUTH 29045 ' 00" 7 EAST, 23 .30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17011 ' 00" WEST, 37 . 80 FEET; 8 THENCE SOUTH 35058 ' 00" WEST, 59 . 80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19°491301" 9 WEST, 34 . 15 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF OLD TUNNEL ROAD; THENCE 10 WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 85°48 '44 WEST, 140 . 66 FEET; 11 THENCE NORTH 85048'44" WEST, 121.55 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT 12 CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 510.00 FEET, THROUGH A 13 CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18039 ' 16" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 166 .05 FEET; THENCE 14 TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED CURVE, SOUTH 75032 ' 00" WEST, 104 .32 15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE OF OLD TUNNEL ROAD, SOUTH 16 40025 ' 19" WEST, 216 .36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE 17 OFF RAMP OF STATE HIGHWAY 24 AT THE WEST LINE OF PLEASANT HILL 18 ROAD; THENCE FROM SAID POINT , WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 19 OF SAID OFF RAMP, NORTH 83000 '00" WEST, 277 .44 FEET; THENCE 20 ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 265 .00 21 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63038 '29" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 22 294 .35 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT 23 HAVING A RADIUS OF 197 .00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 24 10015 ' 29" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14018 ' 22, AN ARC 25 LENGTH OF 49 . 18 FEET; THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE 26 RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 42 .00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS 27 NORTH 11039 '59" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25016 '09" , AN 28 ARC LENGTH OF 18.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2°22 ' 03" WEST, 2 . 19 FEET 29 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED 30 SUBDIVISION MSL 18-76, FILED DECEMBER 23, 1976 IN BOOK 51 OF 31 PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 9; THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND SOUTH LINES OF 32 SAID MAP, SOUTH 2017 ' 25" WEST, 385.94 FEET, AND SOUTH 880091451' 33 WEST, 307 .29 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXTERNAL BOUNDARY OF THAT 34 CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED SUBDIVISION 3821, FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 1969 35 IN BOOK 128 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 19; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY 36 LINES OF SAID MAP (128 M 19) , NORTH 87045 ' 16" WEST, 99 . 16 FEET; 37 SOUTH 2020 '24" WEST, 144 .89 FEET; SOUTH 64058109" WEST, 133.94 38 FEET; SOUTH 65°17 '54" WEST, 516 .49 FEET; NORTH 53001155" WEST, 39 304 .27 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MARLENE DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID 40 MAP OF SUBDIVISION 3821 (128 M 19) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID 41 SOUTH LINE, NORTH 78058'46" WEST, 47 .61 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY 42 PROJECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID MAP ( 128 M 19) ; 43 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID PROJECTION AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID 44 LOT 11 NORTH 11001' 14" EAST, 171.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER 45 OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 11°01' 14" EAST, 94.00 46 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNAT- 47 ED AS PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO LAFAYETTE HIGHLANDS INVESTMENT, 48 RECORDED MARCH 24, 1993 IN BOOK 18377 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT 49 PAGE 864, AND ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL A AS SAID PARCEL IS 50 SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED MSL 154-67, FILED 51 NOVEMBER 24, 1967 IN BOOK 2 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 5; THENCE 52 CONTINUING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL A (2 PM 53 5) , NORTH 7050'57" WEST, 152 .57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2017 ' 17" 54 EAST, 32. 13 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 55 SAID PARCEL A (2 PM 5) , SOUTH 66044 ' 14" WEST, 146 .39 FEET TO THE 3 1 EAST LINE OF CAROL LANE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP ( 2 PM 5) ; 2 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A 3 RADIUS OF 919 .90 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 78004 '22" 4 WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3035 ' 08", AN ARC LENGTH OF 57 .57 5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74029 ' 14" WEST, 60.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE 6 OF CAROL LANE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 7 15030 ' 46" WEST, 5.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL 8 OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO GEORGE H. BLOCK, RECORDED APRIL 9 16, 1973 IN BOOK 6915 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 599; THENCE 10 SOUTH 65043 ' 00" WEST, 200.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 11 SAID BLOCK PARCEL (6915 OR 599) AND PARCEL ONE- AS DESCRIBED IN 12 THE DEED TO RICHARD L. MC INTYRE AND MARION LEE MC INTYRE RECORD- 13 ED JANUARY 11, 1963 IN BOOK 4280 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 14 459; THENCE NORTH 16032100" WEST, 50.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE 15 OF SAID MC INTYRE DEED (4280 OR 459) TO THE SOUTH LINE THAT 16 PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED . IN THE DEED TO GREGORY JOHN COONS AND 17 TERESA PIERCE COONS RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 1984 IN BOOK 11660 OF 18 OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 185; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID COONS 19 DEED AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN 20 THE FOLLOWING THREE DEEDS: 21 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 22 23 COONS NOVEMBER 30, 1977 8609 OR 863, 24 25 COONS NOVEMBER 18, 1992 18037 OR 509, 26 27 GARCIA JULY 6, 1988 14435 OR 688, 28 29 SOUTH 65043 ' 00" WEST, 255.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT 30 CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED LAFAYETTE GARDENS, FILED NOVEMBER 21, 1941 31 IN BOOK 25 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 860; THENCE NORTH 38°19 ' 35" WEST, 32 60. 01 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF DYER DRIVE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY 33 LINE OF THE GRANT DEED TO HOWARD L. ADLER, ET UX. , RECORDED 34 SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 IN BOOK 15332 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1; 35 THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE., SOUTH 65052 ' 25" WEST 71.38 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID ADLER DEED ( 15332 OR 1) ; 37 THENCE SOUTH 65052 '25" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINES DYER DRIVE AND 38 WALNUT COURT AS SHOWN ON THOSE CERTAIN MAPS DESIGNATED LAFAYETTE 39 GARDENS, FILED NOVEMBER 21, 1941 IN BOOK 25 OF MAPS, PAGE 860 40 ,AND FRIENDSHIP FARMS, FILED NOVEMBER 7, 1941 IN BOOK 25 OF MAPS, 41 AT PAGE 858, AND RE-SUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LAFAYETTE ORCHARDS, 42 FILED FEBRUARY 6, 1941 IN BOOK 24 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 799, A 43 DISTANCE OF 814 .20 FEET TO A POINT AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF 44 THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 44 AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED RE- 45 SUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LAFAYETTE ORCHARDS (24 M 799) ; THENCE 46 SOUTH 74007 ' 29" WEST, 209 .04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 47 LOT 49 (24 M 799) ; THENCE SOUTH 65052125" WEST, 166 . 10 FEET 48 ALONG THE SOUTH LINES OF LOTS 49, 50, AND 51 (24 M 799) TO THE 49 EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ONE 50 IN THE DEED TO THE ROSSI TRUST RECORDED MAY 18, 1992 IN BOOK 51 17510 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 446; THENCE ALONG THE 52 EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID DEED (17510 OR 446) , SOUTH 24030 '00" 53 EAST, 15.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65043100" WEST, 45.00 FEET TO THE 54 EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE 55 SCHWEIN 1987 FAMILY TRUST, RECORDED OCTOBER 14, 1987 IN BOOK 4 1 13959 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 462; THENCE ALONG THE 2 EXTERIOR OF SAID SCHWEIN DEED ( 13959 OR 462) , SOUTH 24°30 ' 00" 3 EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65043'00" WEST, 65 .00 FEET TO THE 4 EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PROPERTY FIVE, 5 PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO THE BRUDIGAM FAMILY TRUST, RECORDED MAY 6 21, 1992 IN BOOK 17523 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 244; THENCE 7 ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID BRUDIGAM PARCEL ( 17523 OR 244 ) , SOUTH 8 24031 ' 00" EAST, 15. 00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE 9 OF SAID BRUDIGAM PARCEL AND THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS 10 PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO ANNA KOO RECORDED OCTOBER 8 1991 IN 11 BOOK 16928 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 405,' SOUTH 65043 '00'- 12 5°43 '00"12 WEST, 106 .24 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 13 DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ONE IN THE DEED TO LUCILLE O. GERACE RECORDED 14 NOVEMBER 7, 1973 IN BOOK 7085 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 856; 15 THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID GERACE PARCEL, SOUTH 25015100" 16 EAST, 25 . 92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65043100" WEST, 158 . 61 FEET; 17 THENCE NORTH 25015 " 00" WEST, 50. 97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65043100" 18 WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINES OF THE PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN 19 THE FOLLOWING THREE DEEDS: 20 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 21 22 CASAURANG APRIL 8, 1982 10737 OR 537, 23 24 LAZZARESCHI DECEMBER 3, 1975 7701 OR 371, 25 26 HARELSON APRIL 7, 1988 14258 OR 9551 27 28 A DISTANCE OF 175.55 FEET TO A ANGLE POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF 29 THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO ANTONIO COPENE AND 30 KAREN LYNN DRAPER-COPENE RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1991 IN BOOK 16363 31 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 821; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF 32 THE COPENE PARCEL, SOUTH 2052 '58" WEST, 42 . 18 FEET; THENCE 33 86°53'45 WEST, 71.24 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 34 DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 10A AND 10B IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA 35 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORDED 36 NOVEMBER 2, 1992 IN BOOK 17992 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 623; 37 THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID PARCELS (17992 OR 623) , SOUTH 38 2050' 00" EAST, 35.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°10100" WEST, 45.07 39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11043 ' 30" WEST, 11.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40 87010 ' 00" WEST, 25 .83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11043130" EAST, 54 .76 41 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 9 OF THAT CERTAIN 42 MAP DESIGNATED MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES FILED OCTOBER 6, 43 1914 IN BOOK 12 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 266, SAID POINT BEING ON THE 44 CENTERLINE OF WALNUT CREEK AS SAID CREEK IS DESIGNATED ON SAID 45 MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG 46 SAID CENTERLINE OF WALNUT CREEK AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF 47 SAID CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL PARCEL (17992 OR 623) AND 48 THE PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING SEVEN DEEDS: 49 50 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 51 52 CAREY FEBRUARY 11 1990 15634 OR 510, 53 54 CITY OF LAFAYETTE JULY 17, 1972 6746 OR 692, 55 5 r . 1 GOLDEN GATE ASSOC. JANUARY 29, 1990 15624 OR 617, 2 3 GOLDEN GATE ASSOC JANUARY 29, 1990 15624 OR 615, 4 5 MATIC DECEMBER 12, 1973 7111 OR 238, 6 7 WAGLEY JULY 3, 1975 7556 OR 425, 8 9 R.A.P. LAND CO. OCTOBER 5, 1962 4217 OR 209, 10 11 NORTH 86053 '45" WEST, 84.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46036 ' 00" WEST, 12 125.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°31 ' 00" WEST, 125. 81 FEET; THENCE 13 SOUTH 79021 '30" WEST, 79 .50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62053100" WEST, 14 54. 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55032 ' 00" WEST, 49 . 91 FEET; THENCE 15 SOUTH 22006 ' 30" WEST, 60.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68040145" WEST, 16 119 .77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33018' 00" WEST, 31 . 13 FEET; THENCE 17 SOUTH 89°54 '45" WEST, 25 .93 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL 18 OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO PEDDER, ET AL, RECORDED JUNE 23, 19 1993 IN BOOK 18680 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 97; THENCE SOUTH 20 4028 ' 00" EAST, 58.61 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND THE WEST LINE 21 OF THIRD STREET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PEDDER PARCEL 22 ( 18680 OR 97) AND LOT 10, BLOCK 7 OF SAID MAP N0. 1, LAFAYETTE 23 HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE SOUTH 85032 ' 00" WEST, 134 .59 FEET 24 ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PEDDER PARCEL AND LOTS 10,9,8, BLOCK 25 7 OF SAID MAP ( 12 M 266) TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 26 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO JND WHIRLWINDS RECORDED JUNE 1, 1987 IN 27 BOOK 13677 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 77, AND THE EAST LINE OF 28 LOT 5, BLOCK 7 OF SAID MAP NO. 1 (12 M 266) ; THENCE ALONG THE 29 EXTERIOR OF SAID LOT 5 SOUTH 4028 ' 00" EAST, 50. 00 FEET; THENCE 30 SOUTH 85032 ' 00" WEST, 134 .59 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SECOND 31 STREET; THENCE SOUTH 66°26 ' 11" WEST, 53 . 15 FEET TO THE 32 CENTERLINE OF WALNUT CREEK AS SAID CREEK IS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE 33 MENTIONED MAP NO. I, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE ALONG 34 THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCELS OF 35 LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS TO GEORGE R. MARCOTTE AND LILLIAN 36 MARCOTTE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1967 IN BOOK OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, 37 AT PAGE 336 AND TO DAVID P. NELSON RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1989 IN 38 BOOK 15275 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 507, SOUTH 78049 '45" 39 WEST, 152 .33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°59130" WEST, 91.70 FEET; 40 THENCE NORTH 67029 ` 30" WEST, 10.05 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 41 16, BLOCK 6 OF SAID MAP N0. 1 ( 12 M 266) AND THE EAST LINE OF THE 42 PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE GRAY REVOCABLE LIVING 43 TRUST RECORDED OCTOBER 13, 1993 IN BOOK 19040 OF OFFICIAL 44 RECORDS, AT PAGE 259; THENCE SOUTH 4028100" EAST, ALONG THE 45 SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 16, 14 .09 FEET TO THE' CENTERLINE OF THE 46 EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD 47 CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORDED AUGUST 22, 1955 48 IN BOOK 2596 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 222; THENCE WESTERLY 49 ALONG SAID CENTERLINE (2596 OR 222) AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE 50 PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS TO GRAY ( 19040 OR 259) AND 51 TO THE SMITH FAMILY 1991 TRUST RECORDED NOVEMBER 81 1991 IN BOOK 52 17002 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 741, SOUTH 79055'55" WEST, 53 150 .69 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN 54 THE DEED TO LINCOLN PARTNERSHIP RECORDED APRIL 9, 1986 IN BOOK 55 112824 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 213; THENCE ALONG THE 6 t 1 EXTERIOR OF SAID LINCOLN PARTNERSHIP PARCEL ( 12824 OR 213) , SOUTH 2 4028 '00" EAST, 7 .20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73045' 00" WEST, 43 .00 3 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33045 '00" WEST, 96 .63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4 4028 '00" EAST, 25. 81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38019 ' 15" WEST, 12 .95 5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86026130" WEST, 6 .47 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF 6 WALNUT CREEK AS SAID CREEK IS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED MAP 7 NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE 8 CENTERLINE OF SAID CREEK AND THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LINCOLN 9 PARTNERSHIP PARCEL ( 12824 OR 213) AND THE PARCELS OF LAND 10 DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING THREE DEEDS: 11 12 GRANTEE DATE BOOK & PAGE 13 14 RICHARD H. LINCOLN JANUARY 7, 1972 6559 OR 33, 15 16 WILEY JULY 6, 1989 15179 OR 880, 17 1$ STUART,ET AL APRIL 5, 1989 14984 OR 140, 19 20 SOUTH 63057 ' 00" WEST, 115.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79025100" WEST, 21 267 .04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55037 ' 00" WEST, 123.30 FEET; THENCE 22 SOUTH 57058 ' 00" WEST, 15 .81 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT 23 PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO LAFAYETTE SENIOR HOUSING 24 ASSOC. RECORDED MAY 26, 1977 IN BOOK 8349 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT 25 PAGE 134; THENCE SOUTH 3033 ' 30" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 26 378.87 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF MORAGA BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON MAP 27 NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES ( 12 M 266) ; THENCE SOUTH 86026130" 28 WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 325.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3033130" 29 EAST, 160.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2 OF 30 MAP NO. 1, LAFAYETTE HOMESITES (12 M 266) ; THENCE SOUTH 86026130" 31 WEST, 68 .28 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF MORAGA ROAD; THENCE 32 SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 5056 ' 34" EAST, 450 .36 FEET; 33 THENCE SOUTH 6034 ' 33" EAST, 165. 17 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF 34 SCHOOL STREET; THENCE SOUTH 82003 ' 54" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH 35 LINE, 424 .73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7036 ' 05" WEST, 36 .29 FEET MORE 36 OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 15 ON THE MAP OF PARADISE 37 ACRES UNIT 2 FILED AUGUST 9, 1950 IN BOOK 41 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 27; 38 THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID MAP, SOUTH 03053 ' 31" WEST, 39 47 .31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57057131" WEST, 24 .76 FEET; THENCE 40 SOUTH 34025' 29" EAST, 68 .61 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39002' 31" WEST, 41 23.06 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 8 ON THE MAP ENTITLED 42 PARADISE ACRES - UNIT NO. 1, FILED DECEMBER 8, 1948 IN BOOK 36 OF 43 MAPS, AT PAGE 41; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID MAP (36 M 44 41) , SOUTH 89035' 05 WEST, 91.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14002 ' 28" 45 WEST, 75. 14 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF ROSEDALE AVENUE; THENCE 46 SOUTH 23026 '59" WEST, 50.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF ROSEDALE 47 AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARADISE 48 ACRES - UNIT NO. 1 (36 M 41) , SOUTH 33014 '41" WEST, 86 .27 FEET; 49 THENCE SOUTH 10024'55" EAST, 50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11049 '21" 50 WEST, 87 .00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19053136 WEST, 85.32 FEET; THENCE 51 SOUTH 33010' 38 EAST, 101.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00024 '55" EAST, 52 165. 12 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAINT MARY'S ROAD; THENCE 53 WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 69031115" WEST 170.21 54 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING 55 A RADIUS OF 125 .00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 82018 '20", AN 7 r 1 ARC LENGTH OF 179 .56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86011' 02" WEST, 66 .33 2 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE MAP ENTITLED BROOKS 3 TRACT FILED MARCH 30, 1939 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 703; 4 THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 85055 ' 00" WEST, 293 .21 FEET 5 TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL TWO IN 6 THE DEED TO LAFAYETTE PROFESSIONAL CENTER, INC. , RECORDED OCTOBER 7 17, 1972 IN BOOK 6775 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 213; THENCE 8 NORTH 05030 ' 00" WEST 196 .20, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF O'CONNOR DRIVE; 9 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 87°00 ' 00" EAST, 10 50 .31 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°00 ' 00" EAST, 78 . 60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 05030 ' 00" WEST, 40 .26 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF O'CONNOR DRIVE; 12 THENCE NORTH 05030 ' 00" WEST 256 .65 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THAT 13 CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED BROOKS TRACT, FILED MARCH 30, 1939 IN BOOK 14 23 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 703; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 15 SOUTH 78000 ' 00" WEST, 875.23 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF OAK STREET; 16 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 31049 ' 00" WEST, 17 81.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°08 ' 00" WEST, 30 . 38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18 77037 ' 00" WEST, 30.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF OAK STREET AND THE 19 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 9 OF THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED 20 BICKERSTAFF TRACT, FILED DECEMBER 5, 1918 IN BOOK 17 OF MAPS, AT 21 PAGE 355; THENCE SOUTH 77°37 ' 00" WEST, 271 .26 FEET TO THE WEST 22 LINE OF DEWING AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 2012 ' 30" EAST, 122 .53 FEET; 23 ; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 24 10. 00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 123034 ' 30", AN ARC LENGTH 25 OF 21.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BROOK STREET AS SHOWN ON 26 THE MAP OF BICKERSTAFF TRACT ( 17 M 355) ; THENCE SOUTH 58038100" 27 WEST, 64 .45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25050 ' 00" WEST, 40.20 FEET TO THE 28 NORTH LINE OF SAID BROOK STREET; THENCE NORTH 25050100" WEST, 29 117 . 68 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17, BLOCK 4 OF SAID BICKER- 30 STAFF TRACT ( 17 M 355) ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES 31 OF LOTS 17 THROUGH 25 OF BLOCK 4 OF SAID MAP, SOUTH . 44022 ' 00" 32 WEST, 30 .00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67050100" WEST, 321.99 FEET; 33 THENCE SOUTH 74022 ' 00" WEST, 88 . 84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22010100" 34 WEST, 65.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54036 ' 00" WEST, 87 .96 FEET; 35 THENCE SOUTH 79038 ' 00" WEST, 89 .92 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT 36 CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED LAFAYETTE HEIGHTS, FILED JUNE 17, 1912 IN 37 BOOK 7 OF MAPS AT PAGE 163; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST 38 LINE, NORTH 01014 ' 35" WEST, . 7 .50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 39 THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED TRACT 2240, FILED OCTOBER 3, 1955 IN 40 BOOK 61 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY 41 LINE OF SAID TRACT 2240 (61 M 17) , NORTH 1014 ' 35" WEST, 284 .61 42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE MAP ENTITLED LAFAYETTE CRES- 43 CENT FILED JUNE 7, 1945 IN BOOK 27 OF MAPS,AT PAGE 51; THENCE 44 ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID MAP ( 27 M 51) , NORTH 1050 ' 30" WEST, 45 530.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84027130" WEST, 451.45 FEET TO THE EAST 4.6 LINE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE; THENCE NORTH 2048 ' 00" EAST, 15.45 47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 9039 ' 15" WEST, 51. 87 FEET TO THE EASTERLY 48 PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND 49 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO DAVID E. OBERA AND BEVERLEY IRENE OBERA 50 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 819; 51 THENCE SOUTH 81046 ' 30" WEST, 201 .01 FEET ALONG THE SAID 52 PROLONGATION AND NORTH LINE OF SAID OBERA PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 53 7039 ' 00" EAST, 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81041 ' 30" EAST, 162 .42 54 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 55 2048 ' 00" WEST, ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, 694 .04 FEET TO THE 8 1 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 1939 IN BOOK 518 OF 3 OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 395; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF SAID 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL, SOUTH 2048 ' 00" WEST, 24 .00 FEET; 5 THENCE NORTH 87012 ' 00" WEST, 18 .00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2°48 ' 00" 6 EAST, 16 .61 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 30 OF THE MAP ENTITLED 7 LAFAYETTE HEIGHTS FILED JUNE 17, 1912 IN BOOK F OF MAPS, AT PAGE 8 163; THENCE SOUTH 74°37130" WEST, 183 .33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 9 02°47 ' 30" EAST, 104 . 90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70041 ' 30" WEST, 73 .70 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48019140" WEST, 93.50 FEET TO A POINT ALONG 11 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT MAP DESIGNATED SUBDIVISION 4726, FILED 12 MAY 9, 1975 IN BOOK 178 OF MAPS AT PAGE 4; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG 13 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 37°54 ' 40" WEST, 141. 30 FEET; THENCE 14 NORTH 60023 ' 20" WEST, 62 .40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23014 '55" EAST, 15 94 . 08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08006155" WEST, 94 .96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16 66059 '20" WEST, 16 .50 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID MAP ( 178 M 17 4) ; THENCE NORTH 6703245" WEST, 63 .54 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 18 CORNER OF LOT 34 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATED SUNSET 19 VILLAGE UNIT NO. 1, FILED AUGUST 16, 1946 IN BOOK 30 OF MAPS, AT 20 PAGE 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUNSET 21 VILLAGE UNIT NO. 1 (30- M 24) , NORTH 81056 '20" WEST, 146 .42 FEET; 22 THENCE NORTH 06030 ' 00" WEST, 11.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81°56 '20" 23 WEST, 131 .61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53053120" WEST, 110 .99 FEET; 24 THENCE SOUTH 80005 ' 10" WEST, 202 .24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67056120" 25 WEST, 83 .72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67054 '20" WEST, 47 .62 FEET; THENCE 26 NORTH 87026 '20" WEST, 44 .26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 08002100" EAST, 27 22 .69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11°57100" EAST, 31. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28 83027 ' 00" WEST, 106 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74043 ' 00" WEST, 100.00 29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42029 ' 00" WEST, 41.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 70050 ' 00" WEST, 25 .00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 03°34100" WEST, 35 .00 31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69°09 ' 00" WEST 151.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 61033 ' 30" WEST, 179 .58 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE 33 RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2110.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 34 OF 01021 '25" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 49 . 97 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER 35 OF LOT 19 OF SAID SUNSET VILLAGE UNIT NO. 1 (30 M 24) ; THENCE 36 SOUTH 23025 ' 00" EAST, 105 .22 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF MOSSWOOD 37 DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH 40055 '59" EAST, 76 . 11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 38 WEST LINE OF LOT 54 OF SAID MAP (30 M 24) ; THENCE SOUTH 23025100" 39 EAST, 211 .99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02000135" WEST, 80.21 FEET TO THE 40 SOUTH LINE OF SUNDALE ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH 41 LINE,, SOUTH 66035' 00" WEST, 250.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4403553" 42 WEST, 85 .80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 65 OF SAID 43 MAP (30 M 24) ;. THENCE NORTH 23025100" WEST, 210.00 FEET; THENCE 44 NORTH 9022 '50" WEST, 82 .46 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 45 OF SAID MAP (30 M 24) ; THENCE NORTH 23025100" WEST, 105.22 FEET 46 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; 47 48 CONTAINING 290 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 9 ORDINANCE NO. 437 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lafayette (the "City Council") proposes to adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is a duly constituted redevelopment agency under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed Redevelopment Plan from the Agency, together with the Agency's Report to the City Council (the "Report to Council") required pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment,Law, California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. (the "Community Redevelopment Law"), which includes the reasons for the selection of the territory proposed to.be included within the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area"), a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area, an implementation plan describing the specific goals and objectives of the Agency with respect to the Project Area, an explanation of why the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, a plan for the relocation of families and persons who.may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Lafayette (the "City") as to the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan with the City's General Plan, the minutes of meetings with the Project Area Committee (the "PAC") and a summary of the record of all information presented to or by the PAC, an environmental impact report on the Redevelopment Plan (the "Final EIR"), the report of the county fiscal officer and the Agency's analysis thereof, a Neighborhood Impact Report describing the impact of the Redevelopment Plan upon the residents in the Project Area and the surrounding areas, and a summary of consultations with taxing agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lafayette (the "Planning Commission") has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations concerning the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on November 28, 1994, on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and PueL:21136_2 391 I B2821.0 December 19, 1994 WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and an affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area at his or her last known address as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Conta Costa; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to all residents and businesses in the Project Area at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City have each independently found and determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Final EIR, mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan therefor have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which avoid or substantially lessen such effects; and WHEREAS, the Agency and City have each independently found and determined that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan (including the "No Project" alternative) were rejected as infeasible based upon specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations as set forth in the Final EIR and the "Statement of Overriding Considerations;" and WHEREAS, the Agency, as the lead agency, and the City, as a responsible agency, have certified the adequacy of the Final EIR submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Report to Council, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, and the Final EIR, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner and taxing entity filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for such joint public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area are to accomplish the following: A. To eliminate blighting influences which exist in the Project Area, including, without limitation, dilapidated and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and Pueu21136 21391 182821.0 2 December 19, 1994 uneconomic land uses, subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness that are in multiple ownership, depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, residential overcrowding and other physical and economic deficiencies. B. Encourage the redevelopment of the Project Area subject to and consistent with the City's General Plan and/or Specific Plans as may be adopted from time to time through the cooperation of private enterprise and public agencies and to promote the goals and policies of the General Plan. C. Enhance the long term economic well-being of the community. D. Provide for the rehabilitation of commercial structures and residential dwelling units located within the Project Area. E. Provide public infrastructure improvements and community facilities, such as the installation, construction, and/or reconstruction of streets, utilities, public buildings and facilities (such as facilities for pedestrian circulation, bikeways and parking facilities), storm drains, utility undergrounding, or structures, street lighting, landscaping and other improvements which are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area. F. Promote the enhancement of the Mt. Diablo Boulevard corridor to achieve the concepts envisioned by the General Plan. G. Provide for participation in the redevelopment of property in the Project Area by owners who agree to so participate in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan. H. Encourage joint efforts and cooperative efforts among property owners, businesses and public agencies to satisfy off-street parking requirements. I. Increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of affordable housing. J. To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization and enhancement of the community. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Report to Council and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan that: A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the following conditions which characterize the Project Area: PUBL:21136 2 1 391 I B2821.0 3 December 19, 1994 1. Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work due to serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical conditions or faulty or inadequate utilities; and 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots due to substandard design, inadequate size under present standards and market conditions, and lack of parking; and 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the Project Area; and 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership; and 5. Depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments; and 6. Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, and excessive vacant lots; and 7. A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions; and 8. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare; and 9. The existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities or utilities. Such conditions are causing and .will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment, thus requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and the State. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and costs of PUBL:21136_21391 I B2821.0 4 December 19, 1994 the public improvements and facilities and other actions required to correct the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the City and cannot be undertaken or borne by private enterprise acting alone or in concert with available governmental action. B. The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan; by the elimination of the physical and economic blighting conditions which exist in the Project Area; by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of all appropriate means. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including property tax increment, interest income, Agency bonds, loans from private institutions, proceeds from the sale or lease of property, financial assistance from the City, County, State of California, Federal Government or any other public agency, or any other legally available source; that the nature and timing of redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment, generated by new investment in the Project Area; and that the financing plan included within the . Report to Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the Redevelopment Plan. D. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City, including, but not limited to, the housing element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division I of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the report of the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan. E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employment opportunities within the City. PUBL:21136�21391 I B2821.0 5 December 19, 1994 F. The condemnation of real property to the extent provided for in the Redevelopment Plan is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. Evidence supporting this finding includes the need to assemble sites in connection with the provisions of certain public facilities and the avoidance of the creation of uneconomic remnants, the ability to obtain sites as may be necessary for the provision of required affordable housing; and the fact that the Agency will comply with all applicable laws regarding payment for property acquired by eminent domain. G. The Agency has adopted a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced temporarily or permanently from housing facilities in the Project Area. The Agency also has a feasible method and plan for its relocation of businesses. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Agency has adopted a method of relocation for the Project Area which sets forth a plan for relocation of families and persons who may potentially be displaced by Agency projects, and upon the fact that the Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance according to law, and the fact that such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a feasible method for relocation. H. There are, or are being provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information contained in the Report to Council that no persons are expected to be displaced as a result of the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, and that even if some persons were to be displaced there are sufficient existing dwellings which would be available to persons displaced by the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. I. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Amended Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to adopt such a plan prior to any such displacement. J. All noncontiguous areas of the Project Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for their inclusion. This finding is based upon the information set forth in the Report to Council and other evidence in the record. PueL:21136_2 391162821.0 6 December 19, 1994 K. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that all properties within Project Area boundaries were included because they were underutilized because of blighting influences, or were affected by the existence of blighting influences, or were necessary either to accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Redevelopment Plan or because of the need to impose uniform requirements on the Project Area as a whole. Such properties will share in the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan. L. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Evidence supporting this finding includes the existence of blighting influences as set forth in the Report to Council, and the inability of individual owners and developers to economically remove these blighting influences without substantial public assistance. M. The Project Area is a predominantly urbanized area. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information set forth in the Report to Council and the Preliminary Report for the Redevelopment Plan, which demonstrates that not less than eighty percent (80%) of the property in the Project Area: 1. Has been or is developed for urban uses; or 2. Is characterized by the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership; or 3. Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been developed for urban uses. N. The time limitation and the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the Redevelopment Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency reflects the anticipated costs of the public improvement projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and the time limitation contained in the Redevelopment Plan reflects the anticipated time for the Agency to undertake such projects. PUBL:21136_21391 I B2821.0 7 December 19, 1994 Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. Evidence supporting this finding includes the City Council's finding that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or. families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. Section 4. Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing having been considered and, in the case of written objections received from Project Area property owners and affected taxing agencies, having been responded to in writing, are hereby overruled. Section 5. The Final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency and/or the City pursuant to or in implementation of the Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Final EIR, and the Agency shall undertake such additional environmental review or assessment as necessary at the time of the proposed implementation of such activities. Section 6. That certain Redevelopment Plan for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project, the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incorporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof, and as so incorporated is hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. Section 7. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. PUBL:21136_2 391 I B2821.0 8 December 19, 1994 rmul,l L 1 I 'i of LHrH) I U 17142839319 P.^3 ~ I I Setetiai 9. The City CWrk is limy directed to reg orcl with `the County Reorder of C a► Coram County a description of the land within the Project Area and a rateznent the pmce edinp for the redevelopment of the Prot Area have been instituted under the Commtrrsity RRedf eclopment Law. I Seedon 10. Tto Building Departz wd of the City is hereby directed for a period of two E (1) ykars wear the e; tive doe of MIS Ord"utanCe to advise all applicants for building permits with the Projea Area that the site for which a building permit is sotight for the construction of , bu ld yr fcsr o&er iw4Kvvcrn4tus is "a*rtfiin a redeve)opuumt project area. Section 1t. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transtrsit a copy of the description and j s t r m=lead by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinanrt, a copy of this OidiraaM and a anal, or prat indicatipS the boundaries of the Project Ares,, to the A.itdi -Cowrolter send Assemr of the County of Contra Costa, to the gcavet nin body of each of the ta King agencies which receives tam from prgxr y in the Prc,ect'Area, and to ft State &earn of Rqualimtion, within thirty {3rb) days foitowhir, sties actor of the 6zrdeve1QPtr=t Plata. Section U. Tho City Clerk is .hereby autnori=1 and dir"ed to certify to the passage of this Crdbw=and to cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation which is' fished and cintisted in the City. i Sedw 13. Tf arty part of this Ordimrsee or the Redevotnpment Plan which it approves m hold ti be iev%lid for any reman, such decision sthan not a ffcct the v aJ.id,ity of the re:raWa ng pardo i of this Ordinance or of the Recicvelopnwnt Flan, aid this City Council hereby declares that it waild have passed the remainder of the Ordi=m or apprnvfti the rev atirmler of the lopmemt Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. i Stc&w 14. 'This Ordiimme shall be in frill force and e#kd thirty (34)clays dwr papt " produced and first read at a regular nesting of the City Council of the City of j Lafheld the 21 s t 4W of December, 1994. and thereafter PASSED. ANM ADOPTED ;t a reggu�meeting of said City Council held the 27th _day of pec".ernbex, 1991, by the � foRowu tort call vote: I i I AYJS,S; COUNCIL M1x'MERS: Garvens, Grodin & Mayor Ui1kema l NoRst COUNCIL Ng&%ag .S: hone A$,9F1�I. COUNCIL hiM1 M. Councilmembers Samson & Tatzin i ABSTAIN: COUNC L MJ31WE st None i � I R ayor i ivm�ztt3�a)99yr8 ?f,d 9 OvcomhorIT. Iqu w i i ie—c7 177 + I 1cFit'I rt[ :'i l l I t �t V rrHlCi 1C Ys j i { 1 i AT { �'P V 0 TO FORM: , g, Yo ca, Carlaan &Utch. aro e�slorr�il Corporation Agi Y wrist co+Mei I { j { I I { { { t 1 i 1 1 t { { i i t 1 ptw.! 113 ,213911BMI.0 10 Dc+�+Jtiec27. t994 s 1 i I U r MJ% STA OF CAL11KANIA 1Q0 TY OF CONTRA COSTA OF LAPAYETM ;;Sun M. J I Vlerk of the City of Lafayette, do hereby cevjf� that the foregoins Na. 0. 437vu j*r�� at a regular nweftg of the City Council of the Op of mi, ImIdonithe 21st day of De&urtW, 1994, and that the um was duly pais. and C76bi 4tt 1191K I ad at 2 regular MMdng Of MW City Ca4rxil geld on tt* -ILtb—day of D==ber, f(Jjj0W* Vole 0(*8 fneeteM thereof: COUNCIL MEMBERSt: "ave ns, Grodin & Mayor Uil trema COUNCIL bwx4ms: None Samson & Tatzin AWRANT-. CWNCIL MWWRS: . A94m: COUNCIL HEMERS. Non�e AN,V11rURTHEIR CERIM %t tv Mayor of the City of Lafayette signed said Ordinaam. No.4 7 on the 28 day of Decearka, 199* IN W1 TNM WBFJMF, I have hereunto set my ham affixed ft offi6al mal of the City of etre ft-28 day of December, 1994, /--exry makJOWIT-HE Cm OF LAFAYE Sjasa M. Jusaitis City Cterk of the City of Lakyeft, do hereby certify drat tfie foregoing is the jorlain OWI�n=w No. La7uid was Pubtl%W once in dwCC Sun—0" the-AtW* of Jan iaa JM. 1995. C C OF CITY/ Y Y OF. LAPAYM-M TOTAL P.25 .......... RECEIVED DEC 3 0 1994 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCH #94033001 F1 N A;L ENVLRONM.ENTAL Prepared For or The LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I!UlPAGT i REPORT Prepared By URBAN FUTURES, INC. 3111 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 230 Orange, CA 92665 NOVEMBER 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCH #94033001 Prepared For The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency I� Prepared By URBAN FUTURES, INC. 3111 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 230 Orange, CA 92665 NOVEMBER 1994 1 REVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE TEXT PREVIOUSLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE DRAFT EIR TO ACCOMMODATE ALL DRAFT EIR RESPONSES. ALL INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN ADDED WITHIN THE FINAL EIR IS RI1 ALL INFORMATION THAT WAS DELETED HAS BEEN � 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 1 t 1 1 1 i 1 N � TABLE OFCONTENTS 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page E.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 E.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 E.1.1 Land Use 1 E.1.2 Demographics 2 E.1.3 Noise 2 E.1.4 Air Quality 4 E.1.5 Earth Resources 7 E.1.6 Transportation and Circulation 8 E.1.7 Biological Resources 10 E.1.8 Public Services and Utilities 10 E.1.9 Cultural Resources 14 E.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 15 iE.3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY 16 E.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY KNOWN TO THE LEAD AGENCY 17 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 18 1.1 Introduction, Authority and Approach 18 1.2 Location and Boundaries 20 1.3 Environmental Settings 20 1.4 Project Objectives and Characteristics 24 1.5 Purpose and Intended Use of this Document 25 1.6 Relationship to General Plan Build-Out 26 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) 28 2.1 Land Use 28 2.2 Demographics 34 2.3 Noise 38 2.4 Air Quality 47 2.5 Earth Resources 57 2.6 Transportation and Circulation 66 2.7 Biological Resources 76 2.8 Public Services & Utilities 82 2.8.1 Water Resources 82 2.8.2 Wastewater 86 2.8.3 Solid Waste 89 2.8.4 Police Protection 91 2.8.5 Fire Protection 93 2.8.6 Schools 95 2.8.7 Parks and Recreation 98 2.8.8 Flood Control/Drainage 101 2.8.9 Utilities 106 2.9 Cultural Resources 108 02A.LF.12(08(94-EIR ii , TABLE OF CONTENTS ' (Continued) Pa" 3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 111 3.1 No Project 11'1 3.2 Alternative Project Areas 112 3.3 Limited Redevelopment Activities 114 3.4 Financing Alternative 115 , 4.0 TOPICAL ISSUES 117 4.1 Irreversible and/or Unavoidable Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action, Should it be Implemented 117 4.2 Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts 118 4.3 Effects Found Not to be Significant 121 5.0 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS DOCUMENT 122 6.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 123 7.0 FINAL DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 124 ..::..::H 1.:::..:..::::.....::: H:E.:pp. ET.:A. ::...................:....................................:............:::::::::::::::.::::::::::.::::::::. . 1. ............S.E : : # A1 .......TS.:€3i~ i~( fEL : .i€:. iE:.iQrRRT.:EI€R......:.:.....:..:.:.........:::::::.::::::::::.:: :::.::::::::..SB ................................................................. 'i....... APPENDICES A PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS/PROGRAMS LIST ' B NOTICE OF PREPARATION C RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION D NOISE DATA LE .......................................................................... 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR III LIST OF TABLES Table No. paae 1 Statistical Abstract 27 2 Existing Land Use Acreage 28 3 General Plan/Zoning Land Use Acreage 32 4 Proposed Project Area Demographic Statistics 36 5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise (dBA) 42 6 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 48 7 Number of Days in Violation of Current Standards at Monitoring Stations Within the Lafayette Air Basin 50 8 Projects of Significance 52 9 Arterial Streets and Existing Daily Traffic 67 10 Level of Service Designations 68 11 Intersections Which Do Not Meet Service Level Standards 69 12 Level of Service at Selected Unsignalized Intersections 71 13 Proposed Added Territory Average Weekly Vehicle Trip Ends by Land Use 73 14 Subregional Growth Forecast - County of Contra Costa 119 15 Subregional Cumulative Impacts 121 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR iv ,LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page 1 Regional Location Map 21 2 Ma of the Proposed Project Area P P 1 22 3 Existing Land Use Map 29 4 General Plan and Zoning Land Use Map 30 5 Location of Noise Measurement 40 6 Location of Noise Sensitive Receptors 44 7 Regional Fault Map 58 8 Local Fault Map 60 9 Liquefaction Potential Within the Project Area 63 10 Potential Dam Inundation Map 103 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR v � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 E.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General Overview The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is' proposing establishment of the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Plan" or "Project"). The Agency, as part of its broader purpose, proposes to establish the Plan for the purpose of carrying out activities related to upgrading public facilities and improving the quality of life for residents within the territory to be included within the Project (the "proposed Project Area"). The proposed Project Area consists of approximately 294 acres located in the commercial district along the Mt. Diablo Boulevard Corridor (the "Corridor Area") in the City of Lafayette (the "City"). The need to revitalize and upgrade the proposed Project Area is necessary in order to increase sales, business and property tax revenues, provide adequate roadways and related infrastructure,provide employment opportunities,provide improvements to communityfacilities, improve public utility infrastructure deficiencies, assure social and economic stability, and promote aesthetic and environmental actions and improvements. The specific location and boundaries of the approximately 294 acre proposed Project Area are presented in Section 1.2 of this report. Currently, the proposed Project Area consists of urbanized, unimproved and previously urbanized land. The following existing land uses are found within the proposed Project Area: residential,commercial, public, quasi-public, parkland, previously urbanized, unimproved, and public rights-of-way. The following General Plan land uses are designated within the proposed Project Area: residential, commercial, office, and public rights-of-way. E.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is a brief summary of Project impacts and recommended mitigation measures that are described in Chapter 2.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR. E.1.1 LAND USE Impacts The adoption of the Plan, in and of itself, will involve no significant negative impacts to existing land uses within the proposed Project Area. Generally, all impacts to land use are expected to be positive in nature. The Plan and related projects may be the catalyst for future private development and investment upon currently underutilized residential and undeveloped properties in accordance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. ' Infrastructure and rights-of-way improvement projects will result in improved circulation and traffic conditions within the proposed Project Area (see Appendix A). Existing and future land uses within the proposed Project Area will also be complemented by projects that will improve deficient and inadequate gutters, water 1 lines, storm water and drainage control systems, streets, curbs, and sidewalks. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. 02A.LF.12108194-EIR 1 Implementation of redevelopment projects, by encouraging orderly development that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, will serve to alleviate the existing negative economic and physical trends which presently impact the proposed Project Area's land resources. E.1.2 DEMOGRAPHICS Impacts All impacts resulting from implementation of the Plan are expected to be positive. The Plan will increase the City's affordable housing stock, be the catalyst for new commercial development and rehabilitation and provide funding for the improvement of public facilities. , Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of Project approval. The Plan proposes housing and community development programs and public facilities/works projects which are consistent with, and conform to, the City's General Plan. The proposed projects generally described in Appendix A are measures to alleviate existing deficiencies as described in Section 1.4 of this document and within the Preliminary Report, and are intended to facilitate future economic and physical development within the proposed Project Area and the City as a whole. The location of land uses and densities shall reflect those in the current General Plan, and as the General Plan is , amended from time to time by due process. E.1.3 NOISE Impacts Short-Term . Implementation of the Plan will generate,directly or indirectly,a variety of construction projects. These projects will include, but not be limited to, construction and/or rehabilitation of residential and commercial facilities, and roadway and utility infrastructure improvement projects. Development of these projects will generate, to varying degrees, an increase in short-term noise levels caused by construction equipment and related processes. Long-Term An increase in the proposed Project Area's ambient noise levels could occur over the long-term caused by increased growth and activity within the proposed Project Area. Any long-term increase in ambient noise levels will be at levels permitted within the , City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; these increased noise levels are generally seen as acceptable conditions within the existing parameters of the proposed Project Area's urban setting. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: Short-Term 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 2 1. All Plan-related structures orro erties involved in r h p p e abilitation/development activities shall comply with the policies outlined in the Noise Element of the Lafayette General Plan. 2. All Project related construction projects shall be reviewed on a'project-by- project basis by the appropriate City department to determine possible short- term noise impacts upon identified sensitive noise receptors and to determine the need for Project specific acoustical analysis. Impacts determined to be significant in Project specific acoustical analysis shall be appropriately mitigated. ' 3. All construction equipment used for Project related construction activities shall be fitted with exhaust muffling and noise control filter devices to reduce noise impacts. Long-Term 1. All Plan-related structures or properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall comply with the policies outlined in the Noise Element of the Lafayette General Plan. 2. All development projects shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by the appropriate City department to determine possible long-term noise impacts upon identified sensitive noise receptors and the need for Project specific acoustical analysis. Impacts determined to be significant shall be appropriately mitigated. 3. Future developments initiated through implementation of the Project shall be allowed only in the areas as designated for that particular land use by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility which will lessen noise impacts upon sensitive noise receptors. As a basis for -general compliance, all related long-term site specific land use activities shall adhere to the policies outlined in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. 4. Building setbacks and noise barriers shall be considered and used where appropriate in conjunction with specific development proposals in the proposed Project Area to limit stationary and vehicular long-term noise impacts upon sensitive noise receptors. While not recommended as conditions of Project approval, the following policies are suggested for the decision making body's consideration as ways to further reduce long-term noise impacts: • Separate residential uses and truck routes so that noise impacts will be contained without unnecessarily lengthening truck trips. • Restrict trucking hours in residential neighborhoods. ' •. Minimize stop signs and signals along truck routes; set speed limit based on safety and noise limitation standards. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 3 Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant E.1.4 AIR QUALITY Impacts �• Short Term Temporary impacts will result from Project related construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Because the specifics of future Plan related projects are not known at this time, dust generated by grading or other construction activities cannot be adequately determined at this time; redevelopment of the proposed Project Area will occur over the next 30 years. Long-Term Impacts The main source of emissions generated by the Plan's implementation will be from motor vehicles. City-wide, personal commuting, office worker andretail site customer travel will add to City-wide trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local air shed. Locally, project related traffic, especially at a.m. and p.m. peak hours, will be added to the local roadway system. Other emissions will be generated from the residential and commercial combustion of natural gas for space heating and other uses as well as the generation of electricity. Mitigation Measures The fojlowing.mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: Short-Term 1. All Plan-related structures and. properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the affected policies pertaining to air quality as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 2. To minimize dust generation during grading operations AQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving operations. 3. In order to reduce pollutant emissions from construction equipment it shall be properly maintained and tuned. Long-Term 1. All Plan-related structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the affected policies pertaining to air quality as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 2. To ensure all future Plan related development and/or construction projects meet emissions standards set by the BAAQMD, all projects shall be subject to air quality analysis on a project-by-project basis if that Project meets or , exceeds the potentially significant air quality 'impacts shown on Table 8 in 02A.LF.12108194-EIR - 4 Section 2.4, Air Quality. Such analysis shall determine specific project Y Y p c p ie t impacts and establish adequate,long-term measures to mitigate impacts if any are determined to exist. 3. The design and development of pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails shall be encouraged within the Project Area as a means for reducing motor vehicle traffic and air pollution emissions. While not recommended as conditions of Project approval the following recommendations, where applicable and feasible, are presented as examples for the decision making body's consideration to further reduce potential short-term and long- term impacts to air quality: Short-Term a. Minimize Construction Activity Emissions: • Water site and clean all equipment in the morning and evening. • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas; re- establish ground cover through seeding and watering. • Employ activity management techniques: increase the distance between the emission sources; reduce or change the hours of construction; schedule activity during off-peak-hours; and require a phased-schedule for construction activities to even out emission peaks. • Remove silt by paving construction roads, and sweeping streets, and wash trucks leaving construction site. • Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Use low-sulfur fuel for equipment. • Avoid using temporary power; use power from the grid instead. b. Reduce Construction-Related Traffic Congestion • Provide rideshare incentives, and transit incentives for construction personnel. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interferences. • Minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. • Provide a flagperson to guide the traffic properly. • Schedule operations affecting traffic during off-peak-hours. C. Limit Emissions From Architectural Coatings and Asphalt Usage. • Use low-coating systems where possible. • Substitute reactive solvents with nonreactive solvents. • Improve transfer efficiency when solvent-based paints are used. • Use high-solid or water-based coatings. • Finish exterior walls of buildings with light-colored materials. Long-Term Support and compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the City and the surrounding areas is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 5 AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included. Specific measures which may be appropriate for the proposed Project include: a. Limit Emissions From Vehicle Trips • Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities. • Provide mass transit accommodations;such as bus turnout lanes,park and ride areas, and bus shelters. • Provide energy.conserving street lighting. • Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible. • Provide sufficient service establishments within the office area. • Encourage formation of van-pools with company vehicles or subsidy and encourage public transit passes. • Provide rlandscaping with native drought resistant plant species to shade buildings during summer. • Operate a Trip Reduction Plan. Establish telecommuting programs, alternative work schedules, and satellite work centers. , • Schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours. • Provide local shuttle and regional transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle lanes, storage areas, and amenities, and ensure efficient parking management. • Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate. • Encourage a telecommuting center outside the Central Business District to reduce VMT. • Include energy costs in capital expenditure analyses. • Minimize power distribution losses by using dry transformers, high voltages, three phases, and step-downs, where necessary. • Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels. b. Minimize Energy Requirements of Buildings: • Improve thermal integrity of buildings, and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. • Introduce glazed windows, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods; install window-systems to reduce thermal gain and loss. • Introduce efficient heating and other appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. • Incorporate appropriate passive solar design and solar heaters. • Replace incandescent indoor lighting with fluorescent lamps, and outdoor lighting with halogen lights. • Capture waste heat and re-employ this heat, in nonresidential buildings; where feasible. • Limit installed lighting loads to an average of about 2.3 watts per square feet ofconditioned floor area. • Recycle lighting system's heat for space during cool weather; and the exhaust system through plenums during warm weather. • Install low- and medium-static-pressure terminals in air distribution systems. • Ensure proper sealing of all buildings, where applicable. • Design facility entrances with vestibules, where possible. 02A.LF.12/08194-EIR 6 , • Install individual) -controlled light switches and thermostats to permit Y 9 individual adjustments. • Control mechanical systems, or equipment with time clocks or computer systems. C. Minimize Potential Exposure of the Public to Air Toxic Emissions: • Integrate additional mitigation measures into site design such as the creation of buffering areas between a potential sensitive receptor's boundary and potential pollution sources. • Minimize population-exposure to asbestos emissions and take precautions including, but not limited to, those recommended in Rule -1403. Level of Significance After Mitiqation Less-than-significant E.1.5 EARTH RESOURCES ' Impacts It is probable that portions of the proposed Project Area will be subjected to one or more significant groundshaking events during its lifetime. Damage to structures could occur and public safety could be threatened if new structures are not constructed to withstand anticipated maximum ground shaking events. However, this is an impact ' inherent to most areas of California. As such, it is not anticipated that the Plan will exacerbate existing public safety concerns. Implementation of the Plan should beneficially affect existing structures and supportive infrastructures within the proposed Project Area by providing rehabilitation programs for upgrading deficiencies where such improvement is warranted. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Proiect approval: 1. Geotechnical and soils engineering reports shall be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of preliminary design layouts and grading plans for Plan- related development projects within the proposed Project Area. These studies will determine specific areas of hazardous soil conditions in those areas generally identified under A. Existing Conditions herein. These reports will provide specific mitigation measures for the treatment of potential geological hazards including seismic shaking, liquefaction and other hazardous soil conditions. 2. There are four related initial actions which the City of Lafayette and the Agency shall follow to ensure mitigation of seismic related hazards: a. Utilize geologic and seismic data in land planning so that identified risk areas, if any, are avoided or structures and landforms treated and designed to reflect local site conditions; 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 7 t b. Make sure that local grading and building codes reflect measures to minimize possible seismic damage; C. Inspect older buildings and improve earthquake design features when possible; d. Maintain a disaster preparedness plan. 3. All Plan-related rehabilitation/development activities shall be subjected to the policies as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 4. The faults identified in A. Existing Conditions are considered to be seismically active and capable of generating major earthquakes. The direct impacts of these faults upon proposed projects shall be considered during preliminary r planning processes, as deemed necessary by Project specific environmental impact analysis. 5. The geotechnical and soils report recommendations as stipulated in C. Mitigation Measures, 1., of this Section, shall be incorporated into the design of new building foundations and roadways. , 6. All rehabilitation and new development projects implemented as a result of the proposed Project, shall be built in accordance with current and applicable Uniform Building Code standards and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws,regulations and guidelines,which may limit construction and site preparation activities such as grading,and make provisions for appropriate land use restrictions, as deemed necessary, to protect residents and others ' from potential environmental safety hazards, either seismically induced or those resulting from other conditions such as inadequate soil conditions, as generally described under A. Existinq Conditions, which may exist in the proposed Project Area. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant i E.1.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impacts Long-Term Assuming General Plan build-out, Project implementation could result in the generation of increased traffic volumes within the proposed Project Area and its surrounding environs due, in part, to an increase in the proposed Project Area's economic viability , and improved employment base. Project implementation will, as part of its broader purpose, serve to mitigate existing circulation deficiencies within the proposed Project Area through the implementation of traffic/circulation improvement projects. Such projects will be consistent with the General Plan and .will include, but may not be limited to, improved signalization and lighting, resurfacing programs and installation of curbs, gutters and.sidewalks and landscaping. The expected degree of impact can be successfully mitigated to a level of insignificance. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 8 The Bay Area Rapid Transit and the local public transit system could increase in rideship due to the potential intensification of land uses in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan in and around the BART station and the Mt. Diablo Blvd. corridor area in general. IShort-Term Temporary traffic disruptions could occur as a result of roadway improvement projects. Mitigation Measures Vehicular Transportation The following mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of Project approval: Long-Term 1. Projected Plan-related increases in ADTs upon proposed Project Area roadways ' are not expected to significantly impact existing roadway Levels of Service over the long term in most instances. However, since project related site specifics are not known, such as type, size and location of potential developments, all impacted roadway segments as a result of proposed Plan- related projects shall be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine specific r sec c o ect impacts is ::>"`<>::>::;:....:>:......::;>. :»,<::.;:: ;<<:>:<::. ::>«:;:;::: ;«>< ;;:::>, p...,..,.,:...p.... P i n I Uid rng art evial a £�o p the urttul at�v . Diams ofi eprit upon those roadway segments. Analyses shall include intersection capacity analysis and roadway segment trip assignment rates as necessary. Projects found to cause significant impacts to the existing LOS shall include measures to lessen project related impacts. 2. All Plan-related structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the Lafayette General Plan. 1 Short Term 1. Short term impacts to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists shall be mitigated ' with the use of standard safety precautions generally employed during project construction, e.g., rerouting of traffic, use of flagmen, public notice of route closures and detours and other precautions and safeguards as may be deemed applicable by the appropriate City regulating body. Public Transit No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant 02A.1F.12108/94-EIR 9 r r E.1.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impacts Future development and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area, in accordance with the City's General Plan, City Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws, guidelines and regulations, could result in the elimination and/or displacement of assorted native and non-native plant species (primarily weeds) and some small rodents and mammals located in the proposed Project Area. However, this potential disruption to existing biological resources will not have a significant impact on the proposed Project Area's biotic communities due to their exiting degree of urbanization and amount of vacant/unimproved land within the proposed Project Area.! i Mitigation Measures j The following mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of project approval: 1. Discretionary development which could potentially impact biological resources , shall be evaluated prior to project approval by a qualified biologist to assess impacts and if necessary, to develop mitigation measures. This evaluation shall include a complete assessment of all biological resources within the adjacent to the affected portions of the proposed Project Area with particular emphasis placed upon identifying endangered, threatened and locally unique species and sensitive and critical habitats. 2. Discretionary development shall be sited and designed to incorporate all feasible measures to mitigate any significant impacts to biological resources. If the impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, findings of overriding considerations must be made by the decision-making body. ' 3. The California Department of Fish and Game, shall , be consulted when discretionary development may affect significant biological resources. Notice shall be made to the Department of Fish and Game after the lead Agency has approved any project that will cause the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or cause changes in the riverbed, channel or ' bank of any river, stream or lake. An agreement with the Department of Fish and Game must be made prior to initiating any such changes consistent with the Department of Fish and Game statutory authority. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant E.1.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Impacts The following significant impacts could occur as a result of the Plan's implementation: 1) Increased demand upon! police and fire services; 2) the potential for increased growth,thereby, impacting City schools; 3) Increased demand upon water distribution I r02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 10 r facilities; 4) Increased demand on sewage treatment facilities; 5) Increased demand upon solid waste landfill facilities; and 6) Increased demands for service placed upon electrical and gas service purveyors. Assuming General Plan build-out at maximum development densities (Table 1 of Section 1.6), the following impacts could affect related public services and utilities over the long-term: Water: 23,892 additional gallons per day Sewage: 13,200 additional gallons per day Solid Waste: 136 additional tons per year Schools: 69 school age children (approximately 2 new students per year over the life of the Plan) Evaluation of each of these areas of concern has shown that while increases would be ' present over the long-term, no significant long-term negative impacts will be affected by the Plan's long-term implementation. The evaluation was undertaken using General Plan build-out at maximum development densities (reference Section 1.6); build-out 1 impacts were.assessed from year one and prorated over the life of the 30-year Plan. Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of Project approval for parks and recreation, wastewater, solid waste, schools, and public utilities. The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Proiect approval for water resources, police protection, fire protection, and flood control/drainage. Water Resources While the average yearly proposed Plan-related increase in water consumption is not projected to be significant as described above, conditions could change significantly over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. As such,the following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. All Plan-related growth inducing projects shall be evaluated by Agency staff working with City staff a€ EB 11 D of it as on aproject-by-project basis to determine their impact upon local water resources. No project shall be approved unless available water resources are adequate to meet projected demand. ;:usttur: Ert :::v : F>::.>. :: ; ct.:st ;:.;;;::.:>::<:.::.:�3.:.;<..; .;>;: �t .sCff rd .................................�cals �rsr tkat (€ P[a lat : :;l s e s;�€ ::r i> ::a t::e clst€xlIstn.:U.: ttiire . P �..<.; :::: ::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::.::::..:::: .................................................................... A::It_;cc r str ct n ;a t rEt�e. The conservation of water should be of significant concern to all citizens in California, and some conservation proceedings are presently mandated by state legislation. While not recommended as a condition of Project approval, the following measures should 02A.LF.12108/94-El 11 be implemented for all proposed Plan related construction projects when appropriate to comply with state legislation: • Plumbing fixtures that reduce water usage should be utilized (i.e., low volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets and shower heads) in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative ' Code. • The use of drought-tolerant plant species and drip irrigation systems shall be in conformance with AB 325 (1992) in order to reduce water usage. • Installation of ultra-low flush toilets in all new construction: in >� accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 should occur three gallons per flush. • Installation of low flow showers and faucets in accordance with California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F should occur. • Future developers should be assessed a water capacity fee for ' importation and distribution facilities. Recommendations to be implemented where applicable: Interior: • Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 psi ' be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of pressure-reducing valve. • Flush valve operated water closets: recommend three gallons per flush or less if possible. • Drinking fountains: recommend installation of self-closing valves. • Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling units be insulated to provide hot water quickly with less water and to prevent , hot pipes from heating cold pipes. • Restaurants: use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters and serving of water at patron request only. • Hotel rooms: conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms. Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for ' bath/shower. • Laundry facilities: water-conserving models of washers be used. Exterior: • Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied to top soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 12 , i 1 • Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water ' needed to establish replacement vegetation. • Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible. • Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. • Group plants of similar water use to reduce over-irrigation of low- water-using plants. • Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water- using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. • Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. • Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge. ' • Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. • Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. • Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. • Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the ' incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge. ' • To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. Po/ice Protection The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Proiect approval: ' 1. All proposals shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by the Lead Agency in conjunction with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department to determine the need for specific project environmental impact analysis. 2. In the event an analysis is deemed necessary, and said analysis shows evidence of significant negative impact to existing police services-facilities, appropriate mitigations shall be incorporated into the project(s) by the project proponent prior to project(s) approval. Fire Protection 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR The following f II ' o mitigation measures are a condition of Prosect approval: 1. All growth inducing Projects shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by , the Lead Agency in conjunction with fire department officials to determine the need for specific project environmental impact analysis. 2. In the event an analysis is conducted and said analysis shows evidence of ' significant negative impact to existing fire services/facilities,such that existing levels of service and emergency response times deteriorate beyond acceptable levels, the Project proponent shall work with Agency/City staff to develop appropriate mitigation measures which shall be incorporated into the project(s) prior to the project(s) approval. While not recommended as conditions of Project approval the following , recommendation is presented as an example for the decision making body's consideration: • There is a need to address inadequate fireflow and access problems. New construction should not be allowed without adequate fireflow and access. , Flood Control/Drainage The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. All Plan-related, growth-inducing projects shall be evaluated by Agency staff working with City staff on a project-by-project basis to determine their impact on flood control/drainage and water quality. No project shall be approved unless there is adequate on-site drainage and no significant impacts to water quality. While not recommended as a condition of Project approval, the following recommendations are presented for the decision-making body's consideration to further reduce potential flood impacts to proposed Project Area people and structures: • All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. • At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be , available during a 100-year flood. • The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside developments. • Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. Level of Significance After.Mitigation Insignificant E.1.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 14 1 Impacts Future Plan-re)ated development has the potential to adversely affect historic sites and structures in the proposed Project Area. Development occurring under the proposed Plan has the potential to disturb unknown archaeological resources and could result in ' the destruction of these resources. Based upon the significance thresholds, the proposed Plan will have potential significant impacts upon historic and archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval ' and shall apply in the event significant cultural resources are found during implementation of the Project. 1. In the event presently unknown archaeological or historical resources are discovered during development of specific projects, work shall be terminated until such time that a certified archaeological/historical consultant can investigate the findings. In such a case, the investigating archaeologist/ historian shall determine appropriate future actions that must be taken prior to continuation of all affected project(s). 2. All structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall be evaluated for historic significance in accordance with the historic resources guidelines set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 6-21). 3. The existing condition of all historic structures that are approved for demolition,removal from existing site and/or modification shall be documented with photographs and written descriptions prior to commencement of the ' approved action. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant E.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the proposed Project include; 1)the no project alternative; 2) alternative project areas; 3) limited redevelopment activities; and 4) alternative methods of financing. 1. The no project alternative would require that the redevelopment action initiated by the Redevelopment Agency be terminated. The no project alternative would, for an indeterminable period of time, prevent many of the potential side effects that could be generated from proposed redevelopment projects,such as incremental traffic increases, noise generated, increased air contaminants, public safety liabilities, and increased water consumption and wastewater generations. However, without redevelopment authority and financial mechanisms, the adverse conditions in the proposed Project Area may increase, thereby, further contributing to a continuing decline of the area, as well as negatively affecting physical and economic conditions in surrounding areas. 2. An alternative project area does not take into consideration that the proposed Project Area was selected based upon existing conditions and the need for redevelopment. A reduction in the proposed Project Area's size caused by elimination of various 02A.LF.1 V08194-EIR 15 developed or undeveloped assessed property or an extension of proposed Project Area boundaries would diminish the redevelopment program's ability to address conditions of deficiency and disuse within the area. ' 3. The limited redevelopment activities alternative would require the reduction of Agency activities and/or authority within the proposed Project Area. Such a limitation would ' reduce the likelihood that needed improvements and facilities would be provided. Additionally, tax increment funding would be severely restricted. Also, if activities were limited, problems of blight would continue, which would adversely effect and discourage investment in the proposed Project Area. 4. The financing alternative is the fourth alternative. Financing alternatives might include Industrial Development and Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Community Development Block ' Grant(CDBG)funds, Economic Development Administration (EDA) funds,Assessment Districts and other county, state, and federal assistance and funding programs. Although each of these programs may be used as a supplement to tax increment financing, each has inherent limitations and disadvantages and reliance on any of these ' sources as a sole financing tool, to a large degree, is not considered feasible. Existing disadvantages associated with these financing alternatives would jeopardize the Plan's long-term implementation and prevent the Redevelopment Agency from being able to affect positive economic and physical changes within the proposed Project Area. Therefore, use of this alternative would allow existing conditions of deficiency, which negatively affect the proper utilization of the proposed Project Area, to continue without a substantial means of abatement. In contrast, adoption of the Plan,will lead to availability of funding source and tax increment and additionally provide the Agency with the ability to encourage the assembly of parcels into economically viable units. In the final analysis, none of the alternatives is environmentally or fiscally superior to the proposed Plan. E.3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY As the Lead Agency for the Plan, the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency will be required to ' resolve a number of complex issues that may affect the proposed Project Area, the City of Lafayette and the region. How the Agency resolves the following issues, and.others as they are brought forth, will determine the long-term impacts of the Plan upon local and regional resources. The issues that have been identified which the Agency must resolve are as follows: 1. The Agency must determine the applicability/effectiveness of the Project Alternatives as described,in detail within section 3.0 of this report. 2. The Agency must find that implementation of the Plan will not cause significant negative impacts to the following areas of concern. As such, mitigation measures will ' not be required. • Land Use • Demographics • Public Services and Utilities(Wastewater, Solid Waste,Schools, Parks and Recreation, and Public Utilities) 3. The Agency must determine whether or not the recommended mitigation measures included in section 2.0 of this report represent adequate and appropriate mitigation for 02A.LF.12108t94•EIR 16 ' the adoption of the Project with regard to the following areas of concern: ' • Air Quality • Noise • Earth Resources ' • Transportation and Circulation • Biological Resources • Public Services and Utilities (Water Resources, Police Protection, Fire Protection and Flood Control/Drainage) • Cultural Resources 4. The Agency must find that this EIR has been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements established within the California Environmental Quality Act,as Amended. E.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY KNOWN TO THE LEAD AGENCY No controversial environmental issues relative to the Plan are known to the Lead Agency at this time. i 1 1 1 ' 02A.LF.1 2/08/94-EIR 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This Page Left Intentionally Blank ' 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 1.1 Introduction, Authority and Approach The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is proposing the establishment of the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Project" or "Plan"). The territory proposed to be included (the "proposed Project Area") within the Project consists of approximately 294 acres located along the Mt. Diablo Boulevard Corridor (the "Corridor Area") in the City of Lafayette (the "City"). ' This Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Plan has been prepared in accordance with.the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). The determination that the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency is the Lead Agency for the Project has been made in accordance with Section 21165 of the Public Resources Code. Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code defines "Lead Agency" as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. According to the State EIR Guidelines, (Section 15180), "all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project, ' which shall be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the legislative body". CEQA Guidelines, Section 15180, state that "an EIR on a redevelopment plan shall be treated as a program EIR with no subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 15163." The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168, describe a "program" EIR as follows: A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans,or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. ' Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: (1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, ' 02A.1F.12108/94-EIR 18 (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-b -case , 9 Y analysis, (3) Avoid duplicate reconsideration of basic policy considerations, (4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide , mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and (5) Allow reduction in paperwork. ' Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. ' (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. ' (2) If the agency finds that, pursuant to Section 1 5162,'no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as ' being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed ' in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations,the agency should use ' a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with ' the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found , to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents for later' parts of the program. The program EIR can: (1) Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have ' any significant effects. (2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole. (3) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which , had not been considered before. When a law other than CEQA requires public notice or when the agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity within the program and to rely on the program EIR for CEQA ' compliance, the notice of the activity shall include a statement that: 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 19 ' (1) This activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier, and ' (2) The program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. The following is the discussion on the uses of the program EIR by the California State Office ' of Planning and Research: The program EIR can be used effectively with a decision to carry out a new governmental program or to adopt a new body of regulations in a regulatory program. The program EIR ' enables the agency to examine the overall effects of the proposed course of action and to take steps to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental effects. Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as the project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual activities within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the individual ' activities in the program EIR. If the activities would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, the agency could assert that the activities are merely part of the program which had been approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be required. This approach offers many possibilities for agencies to reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and ' still achieve high levels of environmental protection. 1.2 Location and Boundaries ' The proposed Project Area, in its regional context, is shown in Figure 1. The City of Lafayette encompasses approximately 15 square miles in the western portion of Contra Costa County. The City is bordered by the Town of Moraga to the south, the Briones Regional Park to the north, the City of Orinda to the west, and the City of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill to the east. The City of Lafayette is located approximately 17 miles east of San Francisco, 6 miles south of Concord, and 45 miles north of San Jose. Primary access to the City is provided by State Route 24 and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. Secondary access is provided ' by such roadways as Pleasant Hill Road, Reliez Station Road, Moraga Road, St. Mary's Road, Olympic Boulevard and Happy Valley Road. The specific location and boundaries of the approximately 294 acre proposed Project Area are presented in Figure 2. ' 1.3 Environmental Setting The climate of Lafayette is typical of sheltered inland locations in California. Daytime temperatures in summer average near 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Summer diurnal range is high, with temperatures dropping to the low 50s by morning. Daytime temperatures in winter vary little from the more coastward locations, with maxima in the mid-50s. Winter minima, however, are some ten degrees lower on the average than stations on the coast, with morning temperatures in the low to middle 30s. Sunshine is plentiful in summer, with clear skies most of the time. Summer stratus does sometimes penetrate into Lafayette, particularly at night. ' Winds are not measured in Lafayette. The closest wind measurement locations are in Oakland to the west and in Concord to the northeast and east. Under typical weather conditions, winds are from the west at Lafayette, but wind strength is less than at more exposed locations such as Oakland. Wind is highest on average during summer and spring afternoons. During fall and winter, light winds are more common, particularly in the night and morning hours. Calm conditions are relatively frequent. The frequency of calm winds at Concord exceeds 32 percent ' of the time. 02A.LF.1 2/08/94-EIR 20 ' VALLEJO o dP MARTINEZ PITTSBURG SAN RAFAE ANTIOCH RICHMOND �O ' Q LAFAYETTE a 0 HwY 2 ' AL A OAKLAND X6, D 80 SAN RANCISCO /S e0 HAYWARD i0 ' 00 ' SAN MATEO ' SAN CARLOS �2 80 PALO ALTO ALVISO SANTA CLARA SA JOSE Regional Re Location Ma Lafav' ette � p ' Redevelopment, Prepared By: N Urban Futures Inc. 3111 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 230 Proiect Orange, CA 92665 Na to Scale Figure 1 zl. j tri ii • `,�i '� • 3 tri 1 ... ' • db Iva is 111■ ���r + � 1 11� 11 ■ s` sOL oil s R IN... ■ r �7� ■ ill■ '�'• ■ / � /� ��/IIi_�ii� ■V■iii ��� /fill I WON ��, , lrt• li rur►���1 y, y oil�_��. MIN Ir G �► �'�...�iii ■ v _ ii11� �� �i� ss ! �: • � , This Page Leff Intentionally Blank 1 ' The potential for air pollution in the Lafayette area is relatively high compared to other portions of the Bay Area. Surrounding elevated terrain in conjunction with temperature inversions ' frequently restrict vertical and horizontal dilution of pollutants during periods of calm winds. Abundant sunshine and warm temperatures in summer are ideal conditions for the formation of photochemical oxidant, and the East Bay valleys are a frequent scene of photochemical pollution even in the absence of local sources, due to sea breeze transport of contaminants from westward urban areas. Lafayette is located in the Coast Range of California. In Contra Costa County, the Coast Range ' is-dominated by several northwest trending fault systems which divide the County into large blocks of rock. Within each block, the rock sequence consists of a basement complex of rock of the Franciscan Complex (pre-Tertiary rocks of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic origins). In the Lafayette areas, this complex is overlain by various rock units of Tertiary age (e.g., Cierbo sandstone, the Orinda Formation, and the Neroly Formation); these units are primarily hard, marine-generated sandstones and shales overlain, in turn, by softer, non-marine (Pliocene) units. In addition to these depositional formations, there are occasional intrusions of younger (Pleistocene) volcanic basalt. Lafayette consists of a mosaic of ridges and valleys. Past development has focused on the ' lowlands or more gentle slopes of the various ridges within the City while steeper slopes and higher portions of ridges have been often lightly developed or remain in an undeveloped state. Elevations range from 1,433 feet in the Briones Hills at the north end of the City to elevations ' of about 200 feet along streams in the eastern portion of the City. As noted above, there are a number of distinct ridges in the City, most of which generally follow the basic northwest trending nature of the area's geology (though there are spur or independent ridges which are not oriented in this direction). Suburban development, the last phase of landscape transformation, has been the most rapid and dramatic force in altering the Lafayette environment. In the past 50 years, there has been ' unprecedented tree planting. With the cessation of cattle grazing and the suppression of fires, the native trees and the chaparral community have expanded. Today, the City is a mosaic of plant communities with native woodland and grasslands interspersed with suburban development and its associated landscaping. The basic natural vegetation communities include ' Grassland, Oak Woodland, Chaparral, Riparian Woodland, Transitional Landscape or Edge Habitat, and Developed Landscape. Numerous prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified along Lafayette's creeks, where foothills meet valleys and at vegetation ecotones. There is the possibility of unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources in the City of Lafayette. 1 Historically, there has been activity in the area since the granting of Rancho Acalanes and establishment of the City of Lafayette. Therefore, there is the possibility, in many areas, of historical cultural resources associated with the settlement and subsequent occupation of the t Lafayette area. The City Zoning Ordinance provides for the designation of historical landmarks within the City. Historic buildings can be nominated for such designation by the owner of the property or the Lafayette Historical Society. Nominations are reviewed, and those structures that meet the criteria may be designated historical landmarks by the City Council. Once a structure is so designated, anyone owning, renting, or occupying the structure must procure a certificate of ' appropriateness from the City Council before making any environmental change to the property. 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 23 1 1.4 Project Objectives and Characteristics ' Negative conditions existing within the proposed Project Area have generally contributed to 1) t the physical deterioration of certain structures and infrastructure; 2) a loss of the highest and best use of some properties included within the proposed Project Area 3) a decline in the economic productivity of the proposed Project Area and; 4) impaired investments in the proposed Project Area. The described conditions will, for the remainder of this report, be generally referred to as "conditions of deficiency" or "blight." The primary objective of the Plan is to improve the quality of life by lessening or removing the ' existing negative conditions over the long term. As part of its primary objective, the Agency seeks to revitalize and upgrade the properties within the proposed Project Area in accordance with the City's General Plan and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws, restrictions and guidelines, as well as to utilize existing underutilized and nonproductive vacant parcels, in order to increase sales,property and business tax revenues, provide low to moderate income housing opportunities, improve roadways, parking areas, provide a high level of City services, create additional jobs for area residents, increase social and economic stability, and ' promote aesthetic and environmental actions and improvements. The purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law could be achieved within the ' proposed Project Area through the provision of housing programs;the installation,construction, reconstruction, redesign, or reuse of streets, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other associated public improvements as permitted by the Lafayette General Plan and Zoning ' Ordinances; the assemblage of land into parcels suitable for modern integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and the development and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area in a manner consistent with the policies and goals of the General Plan. »::,;:,<;:;.;:>:::;:: > ::>:<:>.: :;.::,:,:. <«.:>;>:;;::::<:,<::<.:>:; :«;_<>,::; > >:«::;. ;::»<::<: .,:>:> ;>:.>:><:<: :><;::>.; :.;,.htxufd be rued mat the #srretly spdat�ng tenereVV fr�i wft�r a draft � ti <<:'`':. .a> c# ::avl(.:: e.::sr =tted:: o.:: ie.: ..,:: ulc€I.::�.n.:. e::: .:I ..�s .::.; : ?d :::.::::::: : : :. ::.::::.:::.:tY,.:.......................................1 ... .....:.::.1 f :..;:...... <Rt ateli ...... i f ` 1 t.a.< z.<a_:;:s:'>'>>< ':`<'.«`<'<< '`::<::::,:<:<.; ,:.,,. .>:.;::;<:.::: Pte ..:: f? ::::::::.:::::::::: :.:::::I.::.:::::::::;:.:..:;:. ...:.: ent.:Geral:: a ;:ural::tie: .dtnr P....:......... :fie €arid€���s �......rr1....:..:�....:..............................................................................................:�..:..:..t...::1'1.:an.:�3�fia::I�as�.:kausa.s��h � f as:::o . .Deed€t�s�€fiedilrrel3f> ie�ter�zfa� �at��asl� aim"�dcf>13`3' Incorporation by Reference ' This Program EIR incorporates, by reference, the following documents: • All elements of the Lafayette General Plan and related EIR prepared for the City of Lafayette including the updated General Plan Data Base. The city's General Plan and related EIR provide goals, objectives and policies which govern the City's ultimate ' growth potential and the related environmental analysis. • The EIR prepared for the Lafayette Town Center located within the proposed Project ' Area along Mt. Diablo Blvd. This EIR addresses the construction of office and commercial uses on a 3.75 acre parcel. • The Lamorinda Traffic Study prepared for the communities of Lafayette, Moraga, and ' Olinda and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The purpose of this traffic study was to address transportation problems by identifying actions and measures to mitigate the impacts of traffic congestion between Highway 24 and the Town of ' Moraga. 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 24 ' • The Transportation Background Report prepared for the Lafayette General Plan by Robert L. Harrison. This report is intended to summarize the existing conditions found on the transportation system in Lafayette and to relate these conditions to the major issues which face the city today. Incorporation by reference allows for the reduction of repetitious paperwork and information thereby expediting the CEQA process. Copies of the aforementioned documents are available for public review at the Office of the Lafayette City Clerk located at 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210, Lafayette, CA 94549. 1.5 Purpose and Intended Use of this Document The purpose of this Program EIR is to provide an accurate and concise information document that will inform local decision-makers and the general public of the environmental effects of the proposed Project. The report discusses the existing environmental conditions within the City of Lafayette and the proposed Project Area, the potential significant impacts of the Plan on the physical environment,evaluates alternatives to the Plan and identifies measures for reducing or avoiding any identified significant adverse impacts. In addition, comments solicited from local agencies and organizations during the preparation of the report are included. This Program EIR is intended for use by the general public, officials of the City of Lafayette and other,interested agencies wishing to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Plan. It is designed to be a full disclosure document that will accompany the Plan through its adoption process. The following agencies will be responsible for granting approvals for the Plan: 1) Lafayette Planning Commission: evaluates Plan conformity with City's General Plan and adopts resolution; 2) Lafayette Redevelopment Agency: approves and recommends the Plan's adoption; 3) Lafayette City Council: approves and adopts the Plan by City ordinance. The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency and the Lafayette City Council may use the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Plan to tier EIRs which they prepare for future separate, but related Projects should additional EIRs be required pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15163 of the Guidelines. The following Responsible Agencies have received the Notice of Preparation (CEQA Section 15082) and the subject EIR. Each of these Agencies, at their discretion, can participate in the CEQA review process mandated as part of the proposed Plan's adoption process. • Acalanes Union High School District • Alamo/Lafayette Cemetery • Association of Bay Area Governments • Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Bay Area Rapid Transit • California State Department of Fish & Game • California State Department of Housing & Community Development • California State Office of Planning & Research 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 25 • Canyon Elementary School District • Central Contra Costa Sanitary District • City of Concord • City of Lafayette • City of Orinda • City of Pleasant Hill • City of Walnut Creek • Contra Costa County Building Department • Contra Costa County Community College District • Contra Costa County Community Development Department • Contra Costa County Fire Protection District • Contra Costa County Flood Control District • Contra Costa County Library • Contra Costa County Mosquito Abatement • Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools • East Bay Municipal Utilities District • East Bay Regional Parks District • Lafayette Elementary School District • Moraga School District • Orinda Union School District • Pacific Gas & Electric • Pleasant Hill Parks & Recreation • Town of Moraga • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Walnut Creek School District 1.6 Relationship to General Plan Build-Out It is anticipated that, for the most part, the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Plan will be beneficial in that conditions of blight in the proposed Project Area will be eliminated. Relative to the proposed Project Area, implementation of the proposed Plan will occur over a 30-year period; implementation will be generally guided by market demand, property and business owner participation, and availability of funding sources. No specific development projects are known to the Agency at this time, hence, there is no way for the Agency to forecast or predict with great detail what degree of impact the proposed Project will have upon the long-term growth of the proposed Project Area. The Agency can only project, based upon the success of most other redevelopment projects within the State of California, that the Plan will be the catalyst for positive, long-term economic and physical growth within the proposed Project Area. It is difficult therefore, to determine at what degree of specificity to calculate potential growth and possible related negative impacts affected by the Project's implementation. The Agency has determined that, because the Plan is a tool that can be used by the City of Lafayette to affect implementation of the City's General Plan,the appropriate measurement of Project impact is best evaluated in terms of General Plan build-out of the proposed Project Area. As such, the Agency will base all projections within the EIR upon a General Plan build-out scenario. The exact degree of the Plan's influence upon ultimate General Plan build-out within the proposed Project Area is indeterminable, but it does allow the Agency to quantify, within parameters established by existing General Plan Policy guidelines, potential long-term Project related impacts. All growth statistics relative to General Plan build-out used within this EIR to evaluate long-term environmental impact are resented on Table 1. t<s ">"" "`"` '" ` 9 P P .. t r lx. .T.Kit�rj:�tlat:t�e:r� rfs�M1. 02A.1F.1 2/08/94-EIR 26 eweloprl�ent wh�c)1 �s ellf3wabje fanner 2f1e r�eraj.;: ?ian:;.;s ::;a[te€era by tf1 ........... At this time, only the nature of the redevelopment activities or projects are known. These include the rehabilitation and improvement of existing structures and infrastructure, the construction of needed public facilities such as community buildings, affordable housing, infrastructure, circulation improvements and grants, and/or loans to encourage economic development. TABLE 1 STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 13ased upon General Plan Build Out* Lafayette Redevelopment PMJ...ct Resultants Percent Existing Potential Long-Term Build-Out Increase Over Conditions* Growth Statistics* Statistics* Existing Housing (Dwelling Units) 1,845' 1576 2,002 8 Population (People) 3,4322 1322 3,564 4 Commercial/Office Floor Area (Square Feet) 1,593,1383 639,0705 2,232,208 40 Employment (Jobs) 6,3724 2,5564 8,928 40 Water Consumption (Gallons Per Day) 621,1927 23,8927 645,084 4 Waste Water Generation (Gallons Per Day)+ 343,2006 13,2006 356,400 4 Solid Waste Generation (Tons Per Year)+ 3,5399 1369 3,675 4 Traffic Generation (Trips Per Day)+ 60,29010 18,38670 78,676 30 " Within the proposed Project Area Source: Urban Futures, Inc., 1994 Taken from Consultant Field Surveys 2 Calculated by multiplying single family/multi-family residential dwelling units x 2.76/1.76 (average household size, U.S. Census, 1990). 3 Estimated existing commercial/office floor area within the proposed Project Area based on the Lafayette General Plan. 4 Based upon an Industry Standard of one(1)job per 250 net square feet of commercial floor area. 5 Based upon the change of existing land uses in conformance with the Lafayette General Plan and Zoning Code. 6 Existing conditions added or subtracted from the potential long-term proposed Project Area growth statistics. 7 Based upon an estimate of 181 gallons per day per capita (persons x 181 gallons = GPD). 6 Based upon an estimate of 100 gallons per day per person(persons x 100 = GPD). 9 Based upon an estimate of 5.65 lbs./person/day(5.65 lbs. x population x 365 days - 2,000 lbs = TPY). t0 Based upon Institute of Traffic Engineer trip generation factors for residential, commercial and office. + All generation factors for solid waste, waste water and water consumption for the proposed Project Area were provided by the database prepared for the Lafayette General Plan. GPD = Gallons Per Day. TPY = Tons Per Year. '� 02A.LF.12/08/94.EIR 27 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) 2.1 LAND USE A. Existing Conditions The proposed Project Area consists of one contiguous area located along Mt. Diablo Boulevard in the City of Lafayette. The overall location and boundaries of the approximately 294-acre proposed Project Area have been previously presented in Figure 2. The breakdown of existing land uses within the proposed Project Area by approximate acreage is shown in Table 2. The proposed Project Area is presently composed of a mixture of residential, commercial, public and quasi-public land uses interspersed with parcels that are parkland, previously urbanized, unimproved and public rights-of-way. Existing land use and General Plan/Zoning land use designations are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The proposed Project will be in conformance with the City's Zoning Code and General Plan Land Use Element as they presently exist and as they may be amended from time to time. ,I TABLE 2 EXISTING LAND!USE ACREAGE Percent of Land Use Acres Proiect Area Residential 93.86 31.9 Commercial 125.85 42.8 Public 5.72 1.9 Quasi-Public 8.14 2.8 Parkland 1.80 0.6 Previously Urbanized 1.63 0.6 Unimproved 4.18 1.4 Rights-of-Way 52.82 18.0 (Streets and Flood Control) TOTAL 294.0 100.0 Source: Urban Futures, Inc., 1994 02A.LF.12/08/94.EIR 28 'P7 ................... C4 Z as 90 ......... LA LLLII ............ IY, ,f/Z ct q) 4 4) u AP 0 PA 11 fl I xak- ILI 1-111-IN Threshold of Significance The following significance thresholds have been established by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)" as a general guideline for land use impacts. A project will have significant land use impacts if: • Inconsistency/conflict with the environmental goals, objectives, or guidelines of a community or general plan occurs. • Inconsistency/conflict with an adopted land use designation of intensity and indirect or secondary environmental impacts occur (for example, development of a designated school or park site with a more intensive land use could result in traffic impacts). • Substantial or extreme use incompatibility, for example, a rock crusher in a residential area. • Development or conversion of general plan or community plan designated open space to a more intensive land use occurs. ' • Inconsistency/conflict with adopted environmental plans for an area. Development of a non-designated use within the boundaries of park master plan. B. Impacts The proposed Project will comply with, and conform to, the goals, objectives, and policies of the Lafayette General Plan, Zoning Code and all other applicable City, State, County and Federal land use laws, restrictions and guidelines. Project Area improvements and development, made possible by the Project's implementation, are expected to increase the proposed Project Area's level of land utilization to the long range levels designated in the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. The adoption of the proposed Plan will indirectly facilitate alterations to existing land uses within the proposed Project Area; these alterations will generally be made possible through Agency administrative and financial assistance. Within the proposed Project Area some areas could see significant change over the life of the 30-year Plan due to Project implementation in conformance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. These areas include the following: • The area directly south of Mt. Diablo Blvd. could increase in residential development over the 30-year life of the Plan. Although the residential segment of the Corridor Area is close to build-out, most of the existing residential areas could increase to a higher density as described in the Lafayette Zoning Code. Thus, the recycling of existing residential land uses to higher densities will add 157 multi-family dwelling units within the proposed Project Area. However, if such changes do occur, the developments will take place incrementally over the life of the Plan. Thresholds of Significance Workbook prepared by the Association of Environmental Professionals (June 1992). 02A.LF.12/08/94.EIR 31 • Within the Corridor Area, additional commercial and office development could occur along Mt. Diablo Blvd. in areas that are either underutilized or previously urbanized. At build-out, such developments could generate an additional 639,070 square feet of commercial and office floor area over the life of the Plan. For the most part, other areas in the proposed Project Area could see increases in �. development but on a very limited scale due to the existing build-out condition. For example, other commercial areas along Mt. Diablo Blvd. will see very minor changes in the type of land use that currently.exists due to its existing conformance with the Lafayette General Plan and Zoning Code. The only changes likely to occur in the near future will be the rehabilitation of existing commercial structures which in some cases may include increasing the floor area. Rehabilitation of existing structures and reconstruction of infrastructure will improve the overall character and circulation efficiency of the area. The overall breakdown of permitted General Plan/Zoning land use designations within the proposed Project Area is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 GENERAL PLAN!lZONING LAND USE A'CREAG.E % of Land Use Acres Total Single Family Residential 10.23 3.5 Multi-Family Residential 60.54 20.6 Commercial Special Use 91.48 31.1 Retail 30.03 10.2 Special Retail 28.39 9.6 Office 18.71 6.4 Planned Development 1.80 0.6 Rights-of-Way 52.82 18.0 TOTAL 294.0 100.0 Source: Urban Futures, Inc., 1994 City of Lafayette General Plan and Zoning Code The Project,through implementation of related projects and programs administered and funded (or partially funded) by the Agency, may be the catalyst for future public/private development and investment upon currently underutilized, residential, commercial, industrial and undeveloped properties in accordance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Moreover, historical trends have shown that other redevelopment agencies directed residential, commercial and industrial improvement/rehabilitation projects which stimulated privately funded improvement of neglected and marginally maintained properties in proximity to the Redevelopment Project Areas. Implementation of the proposed Project will provide the City with a financing mechanism to supplement funding of needed public facilities. In addition, the use of 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 32 tax increment financing under the Project will make possible a variety of residential and commercial improvement projects, as well as traffic/circulation, and infrastructure improvement/rehabilitation projects which will work towards the elimination of deficient conditions within the proposed Project Area, as described within section 1.4 of this document, and as detailed within Section III of the previously referenced Preliminary Report. A general description of the proposed public improvement projects and programs is included as Appendix A of this document. Utilization of this Project as an economic development incentive will eventuate positive residential and commercial use of land designated as such. Effects of projects and programs dedicated toward providing housing for low and moderate income families will serve to increase positive utilization of residential land as designated in the City's General Plan. Implementation of this Project will also facilitate improvements to the City's community facilities. Infrastructure and rights-of-way improvement projects will result in improved circulation and traffic conditions within the proposed Project Area. Existing and future land uses within the proposed Project Area will also be complemented by projects that will improve deficient and inadequate gutters, water lines, storm water and drainage ' control systems, streets, curbs, and sidewalks. C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. Implementation of redevelopment projects, by encouraging orderly development that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, will serve to alleviate the existing negative economic and physical trends, which presently impact the proposed Project Area's land resources. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 33 2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS The following section contains excerpts from the Housing Element of the Lafayette General Plan as previously incorporated by reference. More detailed analysis on demographics within Lafayette can be found in this document.' A. Existing Conditions Population The 1990 Census recorded 23,501 residents within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Lafayette. The population of Lafayette in 1970 was approximately 20,484 persons and 20,879 in 1980. This would indicate a 2 percent population increase from 1970 to 1980, and a 13 percent increase from 1980 to 1990. Recent 1993 population estimates prepared by the Department of Finance identified a population of 23,700.persons in the City, indicating a less than one percent population increase since 1990. From 1980 to 1990 Lafayette grew at a slower rate than the neighboring City of Pleasant Hill and the County of Contra Costa as a whole. The current resident population within the proposed Project Area is estimated to be 3,432 people. This figure was calculated by multiplying the total number of single family and multi-family residential units within the proposed Project Area times the average household size for single family and multi-family. The proposed Project Area ' contains approximately 15 percent of the current population of the City. Housing The 1990 Census identified 9,270 housing units in Lafayette. According to the Lafayette Planning Department in 1980 an estimated 8,785 housing units existed within the City. This represents a 5 percent growth in housing units from 1980 to 1990. Since 1990, a net increase of 48 residential units have been constructed to increase the total amount of housing units in Lafayette as of 1992 to 9,318. Within the proposed Project Area there presently exist 1,864 dwelling units. This total represents approximately 20 percent of the amount of dwelling units within the City of Lafayette. In 1990, single-family detached units represented 82.9 percent of Lafayette's total housing stock. Multi-family dwelling units represented the,second.largest residential housing type, accounting for 16.7 percent. As of 1992, the percent of housing units by type has remained unchanged. Within the proposed Project Area, 186 dwelling units or 10 percent are single-family detached units and 1,659 dwelling units or 90 percent were multi-family units. Emplo ymen t The 1990 Census information indicates the largest segment of the civilian work force of the people residing in the City, 44.2 percent, are employed in occupations related to professionals,executives and managerial positions. The second largest occupational group, at 35.6 percent, were technical, sales, and administration support fields. The 1990 Census identified the Service Industries such as health,education, and other professional services, as providing the largest percentage of the jobs, 22.9 percent. Finance, insurance and real estate provide 10.6 percent of the jobs, retail industries 02A.LF.12/08/94-OR 34 1 10.6 percent, and construction industries included 4.6 percent. Within the proposed Project Area the estimated employment for commercial land uses is 6,372 people based upon one employee per 250 sq. ft. of floor area. Based on this formula the entire employment within the City amounts to 6,922 which is similar to the Lamorinda Traffic Study projections of 7,038. The proposed Project Area represents 92% of the employment opportunities within the City. Thresholds of Significance According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) recommended thresholds of significance, a project would have a significant impact on population, housing, or employment if: • It would substantially alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the area, and result in a demand for housing and public and private services which exceeds supply in the short-or long-term. The displacement of a large number of residents also would be considered a significant effect. • The project will induce substantial growth or concentration or population either through provision of employment or housing, or both, or if the project's generation of population or employment is inconsistent with the regional growth management plans. • It caused ... the loss of one or more very low to moderate income housing opportunit[ies] through demolition, conversion or other means... • It would substantially alter existing housing types or create an unmitigated, substantial demand for additional housing. • The project will have a substantial adverse effect on existing housing, will create a demand for additional housing exceeding supply, or will be inconsistent with the regional growth management plans. B. Impacts Population ' Housing Emplo ymen t Assuming General Plan build-out of the proposed Project Area to densities allowable under the City's General Plan Land Use Element for residential land use, available housing in the proposed Project Area could increase to a maximum of 2,002 units. The additional housing units could generate a long-term build-out population of approximately 3,564 people. Assuming General Plan build-out, potential long-term impacts upon the proposed Project Area's existing demographic setting are presented in Table 1 and highlighted below in Table 4. It should be noted that while 157 dwelling units could be developed at build-out, the population could only increase by 137 people as shown in Table 1 because multi-family units have a significantly lower household size than single family units. 02A.LF.12108194-EIR 35 i The proposed Plan's implementation will facilitate the long-term economic and physical growth of the proposed Project Area. The economic and physical impacts from the proposed Plan's long-term implementation should be considered positive in nature because an improved economic and physical setting will strengthen the existing social, economic and physical fabric within the proposed Project Area by providing new jobs, new housing opportunities, new community facilities and improved physical infrastructure. Even if complete build-out is not achieved, it is anticipated that partial build-out will help reduce existing deficiencies currently affecting the proposed Project Area and that were previously documented in the Preliminary Report incorporated herein by reference. As shown in Table 4, implementation of the proposed Plan will generate a positive impact upon existing housing conditions within the proposed Project Area and the City as a whole. The provision for at least 20 percent of the derived tax increment to be used toward meeting low and moderate income housing needs will provide a net benefit to the housing market by increasing available housing inventory within both the proposed Project Area and other areas of the City. TABLE.4 PROPOSEDPROJECT AREA DEMO.GRAPHIc STATISTICS.:; Percent of Impact Upon Potential Long-Term Existing City-wide Demographic Category Growth Statistics Demographic Setting Housing Units 157 2% increase Population 132 <1% increase Employment Commercial/Office 2,556 37% increase ' The proposed Plan will serve to alleviate conditions of social and economic deficiencies, as described within the Preliminary Report and Section 1.4 et al of this document, by providing additional jobs and an increased sales and property tax base. ' Additionally, redevelopment of the proposed Project Area will be the catalyst for necessary revitalization and economic development of land within the proposed Project Area and its adjacent environs. As a result, growth within the proposed Project Area could ultimately occur as shown in Tables 1 and 4. The proposed Project will not significantly alter housing types or create an unmitigated, substantial demand for additional housing. Furthermore, growth would be consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws, regulations and guidelines and regional growth management plans. C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. The proposed Plan proposes housing, community development and public facilities programs and economic development projects which are consistent with,and conform to, the City's General Plan. The proposed projects generally described in Appendix A are measures to alleviate existing deficiencies, as described in Section 1.4 of this 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 36 1 document n e t a d within the Preliminary Report, and are intended to facilitate future economic and physical development within the proposed Project Area and the City as a .whole. The location of land uses and densities shall reflect those in the current General Plan, and as the General Plan is amended from time to time by due process. ` 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 37 ' 2.3 NOISE ' The following section contains excerpts from the Noise Section of the Lafayette General Plan Data Base as previously incorporated by reference. More specific information on noise in Lafayette can be found in this document. A. Existing Conditions Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 1 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level measured using the A-filter is called the A-weighted sound level WBA). In practice,the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level for environmental noise at any instance in time,community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distance sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, Lo„ L10, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the LeQ is also widely used. The LeQ is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period ' of time. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. however, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, Lm, (day/night average sound level), was developed. The Ldr,divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime weighting. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: ' 1. Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction 02A.LF.12108194.EIR 38 2. Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning 3. Physiological effects such as startling, hearing loss The levels associated with environmental noise, in almost every case, produce effects only in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. Unfortunately, there is as yet no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance, and habituation to noise over differing individual past experiences with noise. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships is helpful: 1. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived. 2. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB is considered a just-perceivable difference. The major source of noise in Lafayette is vehicular traffic,including automobiles, 4f , trucks, buses and motorcycles. The level of vehicular noise generally varies with the volume of traffic, the number of trucks or buses, the speed of traffic, and the distance from the roadway. Noise generated by vehicular traffic in the City is greatest along State Route 24 which is the dominant noise source in Lafayette. Local roadways including Moraga Road, First Street, Pleasant Hill Road, and Mt. Diablo Boulevard are also significant source of traffic noise. Noise levels were measured as part of the Lafayette General Plan Database at selected points throughout Lafayette in order to quantify the existing noise environment. Noise levels were monitored over a continuous 48-hour period at 12 locations to evaluate the ' hour-by-hour and daily variation in noise levels. Short-term measurements were made at 15 additional locations to quantify the various noise environments. The location of the measurements are shown on Figure 5. Locations A through L present the long- term measurements. The data from these measurements are shown in Tables 3 through 14 in Appendix D. The results of the short-term measurements at Locations 1 through 15 are summarized in Table 15 in Appendix D. Day/night average noise levels-range from a high of about 82 dBA in rear yards of homes adjacent to State ' Route 24 down to about 49 dBA at locations on the shielded or far side of ridges from the highway. The residual Ld„of 49 dBA results from regular high altitude jet aircraft overflights. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 39 .� • � Ito 1, ':'vr�4 • ,r �1...ILIFA 'ir r •. i a� ,lbg �1ls"� r .yy t •, ,tE• ., �� IAAt�.iii Irr_ati ri'�►�1��j it t •�? � .�� ,,. . * � ;� 9 v LV air' W-P. OV, ARM a !t nit .r II CII �`'.. 11 ♦ I z;� rm�c�,lY � 1!- (� /f•flf�Z-1 �1. •w� �r� Xy �S Y � ea -go —' 11 �� � 8 os •� � ��E KA X3 Ei � Ie���Ul•��; '-1' r ..•r� t jd t/�xi� l '„��j.rr r 1 :.rra 1nr � 1��■ ^ r �`n, a i�a■fe �~■ r`rrNrJ � �I. ' l Itilu��. yl 6 •:I IT�1' '-1 �' 1=� fir• ;1i,'•j� �C • f Ifiip '1 l� {4 1 t Ic -- i 1 y���`Ie... I!!_ •1F••d��� F � � r J: •� fX71 3�'}�. .��' � �' • -Z- ��➢� -•''iry� r4l i1 �'I+Y ','y\ lir.+. 1 1� �/1 {/ �Iy51'1(1r•1� '� i'r` w –L(itlf�r 4,• '•a I i r� DQE ■I new r.l 'E n •►er r j �t r r �y. ' '•: �v{• ' �+iwgr .f,Cw.j,,. r !-I•y'C�S. r. ��y��• `� '�a ��_�"q`VIA • ►c I K.M, w t�,7y��hr 1r1 /, 1 Traffic noise levels throughout Lafayette were calculated for the Lafayette General Plan Database using a noise contour program based on Federal Highway Administration . ' research document FHWA RD77-108. The California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO) developed by Caltrans were used in the model. The noise contour data are tabulated in Tables 16 and 17 of Appendix D. The calculated levels depend upon the number of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, and the speed of the vehicles to calculate that the average noise level during the noisiest hour approximates the 24-hour day/night average noise level. The hourly data gathered during the long- term measurements indicate that along State Route 24 the Ldp, is approximately 2 dB higher than the noisiest hour L,. This is due to high noise levels during the early morning hours and late evening hours. Noise levels measured along local streets indicate good correlation between the peak hour Leo and the Ld,,. The results of the computer modeling were adjusted to account for the results of the long-term measurements. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system runs in the median of State Route 24 through Lafayette. The noise of the State Route 24 masks (obscures) the noise of BART at most locations most of the time. BART trains are audible at residences located north and south of State Route 24 in western Lafayette where freeway noise is partially shielded at these residences. Noise levels measured at Location 10 in western Lafayette indicate that maximum noise levels due to BART trains can reach about 80 dBA at the residences. BART noise is unique in character and therefore identifiable in comparison to traffic noise. The contribution of BART to the 24-hour average noise level is insignificant, however, due to the continuous noise levels generated by the freeway. The noise of high altitude jet aircraft is significant in Lafayette in areas where traffic noise is not significant. Aircraft are heard regularly during the daytime. Maximum noise levels resulting from jet aircraft overflights typically range from 50 to 60 dBA and can be as high as 65 to 70 dBA. The Ldp resulting from jet aircraft overflights is less than 50 dBA. Stationary Noise Sources There are no significant sources of commercial noise within the City of Lafayette. Furthermore, no significant stationary noise sources were identified by the Lafayette Planning Department. 1 Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term (temporary)impact on ambient noise levels. A listing of typical construction equipment noise levels is presented in Table 5. Noise generated by construction equipment can often reach high episodic levels. Pile drivers, drills,trucks, pavers, and a variety of other equipment can create extremely high noise levels, but usually for short, sporadic periods of time. Since noise from localized sources typically falls off by about 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from source to receptor, receptors located within about 1,400 feet of a construction site would ' experience outdoor noise levels greater than 60 dBA during the noisiest phases of construction. Noise associated with construction can often disturb the concentration and communication of nearby residents and pedestrians. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 41 ........... .................. TABt_E 5 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EC+UIPIVIENT NOISE (iIBA) Noise Level at 50 Feet Without Noise With Feasible' ' Equipment Type Control Noise Control EARTHMOVING Front Loaders 79 75 Backhoes 85 75 Bulldozers 80 75 Tractors 80 75 Scrapers 88 80 Graders 85 75 Trucks 91 75 i Pavers 89 80 MATERIALS HANDLING Concrete Mixers 85 75 Concrete Pumps 82 , 75 Cranes 83 75 Derricks 88 75 STATIONARY Pumps 76 75 Generators 78 75 ' Compressors 81 75 IMPACT Pile Drivers 101 95 Jack Hammers 88 75 Rock Drills 98 80 Pneumatic Tools 86 80 OTHER Saws 78 75 Vibrators 76 75 ' ' Estimated levels obtainable by selection of quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost. Source: Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971. Noise Sensitive:Receptors Planning for land use compatibility requires that sensitive receptors be identified and , that land uses be sited to support acceptable interior and exterior noise levels. Where siting cannot achieve acceptable noise levels,development may be deemed appropriate if mitigation techniques such as soundwalls and insulating building materials can be ' employed to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Some types of land uses are inherently 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 42 ' more sensitive to ambient noise levels due to both activities involved with these land uses and the amount of insulation from and exposure to various noise levels. These sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, nursing homes, school libraries, motels and hotels, and outdoor recreational areas. Figure 6 shows the location of sensitive receptors in Lafayette. The 65 CNEL is generally considered the maximum exterior level acceptable for these uses. Sensitive land uses are permitted in areas with ambient noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL if mitigation is provided to reduce interior noise to levels below 45 dB. Thresholds of Significance As previously stated, the following thresholds of significance have been established as a general guideline for noise impacts: • The proposed Project must generate a significant increase in traffic related noise within the boundaries of the sensitive land use. Specifically, Project generated noise would have to increase overall noise levels by at least 5 dBA within a private living area. Note that there is no scientific evidence available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures are over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 5 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. • The proposed Project must generate noise that would exceed common accepted standards or guidelines within the sensitive land use. The State of 1 California exterior noise guideline is 65 CNEL for new residential projects. Both of these conditions must be met before the proposed Project can be declared as ' a significant adverse impact. B. Impacts Short-Term Short-term noise generation will occur over the long-term as a result of proposed ' Project Area improvement projects. This type of noise is caused by construction activities associated with public improvements undertaken by the Redevelopment Agency, or construction of buildings by private developers. Construction noise typically represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment can often reach high, episodic levels. Bulldozers, concrete mixers, portable generators, backhoes, air guns and a variety of other equipment can create extremely high noise levels, but usually for short periods of time. As previously shown, Table 5 lists typical construction equipment noise levels. ' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 43 1 tJ N tT job ( \ •� 0 S+ 1 O l � cn 1 l •Ue � r""_ j ✓ N r `J-z ti 1 1 1 The short-term impacts are considered significant if construction activity takes place near noise sensitive receptors and are a result of the construction equipment (Table 6) which exceeds the 65 dBA criteria for residential neighborhoods. However,short-term noise impacts, due to construction activity, are generally seen as an acceptable element of development and urbanization and can be mitigated to a level of ' insignificance if 1)impacts to sensitive receptors are minimal, 2) construction activities are limited to daytime hours, 3) construction equipment is equipped with noise control filters, and 4) construction activity is monitored to ensure that applicable construction noise reduction specifications and guidelines are met. Long-Term ' An increase in ambient noise levels within the proposed Project Area will occur over the long-term as a result of increased growth and development activity within the proposed Project Area. The main source of noise generated by the Plan's implementation will be from motor vehicles as a result of Plan related developments. As previously shown in Table 1,the General Plan build-out scenario within the proposed Project Area could increase the ' amount of average daily trips to approximately 18,386 over the life of the Plan. These additional trips could potentially impact proposed Project Area residents and other sensitive receptors due to the amount of increase in vehicle trips over the existing conditions. However, long-term impacts to sensitive noise receptors located outside the proposed Project Area or those that locate within the proposed Project Area following Plan adoption, will have to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis at the time of a specific project's permit processing. The potential significance of an individual project's long-term effect upon an individual noise receptor cannot be adequately determined without knowing long-term site specific land use activities or the type of affected sensitive receptor. ' Furthermore, any long-term increase in noise levels caused by Plan related projects will only occur at levels permitted within the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. These noise levels are generally seen as acceptable conditions within the parameters of the City's urban setting provided that sensitive noise receptors are not significantly impacted. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: ' Short-Term 1. All Plan-related structures or properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall comply with the policies outlined in the Noise Element of the Lafayette General Plan. 2. All Project related construction projects shall be reviewed on a project-by- project basis by the appropriate City department to determine possible short- term noise impacts upon identified sensitive noise receptors and to determine the need for Project specific acoustical analysis. Impacts determined to be significant in Project specific acoustical analysis shall be appropriately mitigated. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 45 3. All construction equipment used for Project related construction activities shall be fitted with exhaust muffling and noise control filter devices to reduce noise impacts. Long-Term ' 1. All Plan-related structures or properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall comply with the policies outlined in the Noise Element of the ' Lafayette General Plan. 2. All development projects shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by the , appropriate City department to determine possible long-term noise impacts upon identified sensitive noise receptors and the need for Project specific acoustical analysis. Impacts determined to be significant shall be appropriately mitigated. 3. Future developments initiated through implementation of the Project shall be allowed only in the areas as designated for that particular land use by the ' City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility which will lessen noise impacts upon sensitive noise receptors. As a basis for general compliance, all related long-term site specific land use activities shall adhere to the policies outlined in the Land Use Element of the City's General , Plan. 4. Building setbacks and noise barriers shall be considered and used where , appropriate in conjunction with specific development proposals in the proposed Project Area to limit stationary and vehicular long-term noise impacts upon sensitive noise receptors. While not recommended as conditions of Project approval, the following policies are ' suggested for the decision making body's consideration as ways to further reduce long-term noise impacts: • Separate residential uses and truck routes so that noise impacts will be contained without unnecessarily lengthening truck trips. ' • Restrict trucking hours in residential neighborhoods. • Minimize stop signs and signals along truck routes; set speed limit based on ' safety and noise limitation standards. Level of Significance After Mitigation ' Insignificant. 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 46 2'4 AIR QUALITY The following contains excerpts from the Air Quality Section of the Lafayette General Plan Data Base as previously incorporated by reference. More specific information on air quality in Lafayette can be found inthis document. A. Existinn Conditions Climate The climate in Lafayette iotypical ofsheltered inland locations in California. Daytime —~ temperatures insummer average near 8Odegrees Fahrenheit. Summer diurnal range iohigh, with temperatures dropping tothe low 5Dabymorning. Daytime temperatures inwinter vary little from the more noou%vvard \nostionn' with maxima in the mnid-60e. Winter minima, however, are some ten degrees|nvver onthe average than stations on the coast, with morning temperatures inthe low tomiddle 30s. Sunshine implentiful in summer, with dear skies most of the time. Summer stratus does omnoedn/ao penetrate into Lafayette, particularly at night. Winds are not measured inLafayette. The closest wind measurement locations are in Oakland tothe west and inConcord tothe northeast and east. Under typical weather conditions, winds are from the west at Lafayette, but wind strength is \eoo than at d locations Wind ishighest onaverage during ounnrner nnore *xpoao . and spring afternoons. During fall and winter, light winds are more common, particularly in the night and morning hours. Calm conditions are relatively frequent. -- The frequency of calm winds at Concord exceeds 32 percent of the time. The potential for air pollution in the Lafayette area is no|suivo\y high compared to other portions ofthe Bay Area. Surrounding elevated terrain iuconjunction with temperature inversions frequency restrict vertical and horizontal dilution of pollutants during periods of calm winds. Abundant sunshine and warm temperatures in summer are ideal conditions for the formation of photochemical oxidant' and the East Bay valleys are a -- frequent scene ofphotochemical pollution even inthe absence of local sources, due to sea breeze transport of contaminants from vvuatvva,d urban areas. Air Quality Air Quality Criteria -- The applicable air quality criteria for Lafayette are the State of California Ambient Air Quality Standards(CAAGS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAGS)., The two standards are presented in Table G below. The standards have been h public f known undesirable upon hooi�h developed to protect the pu � rnnn various n ' vegetation, and property. 02A.LF.1 2/08/94 EIR 47 ~� ........... ........... ......... ......... . .......... ..............................1.11...................... .............. ............... ........... ............ ................. .......... .......... TABLE 6 RAL: ' AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Federal State Pollutant Averaging Time Primary Standard Standard ' Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.10 ppm Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm ' 1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm --- 1-Hour --- 0.25 ppm Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm --- , 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-Hour --- 0.5 ppm Suspended Particulates Annual 50 ug/m3 30 ug/m3 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 Lead 30-Day Average -- 1.5 ug/m3 ' 3-Month Average 1.5 ug/m3 --- ug/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter ppm Parts per Million ' The following describes the major sources of air pollutants within the Bay Area Air ' Quality Management District (BAAQMD): Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. Roughly 80 percent of Bay Area CO emissions are estimated to be from motor vehicles. CO emissions from motor vehicles are highest while idling or at low speeds, and decline as speeds increase. CO concentrations are generally highest near heavily travelled ' roadways. At high concentrations, CO lowers the amount of oxygen in the blood and can cause headaches,dizziness, unconsciousness, and even death. It can also aggravate cardiovascular disease. CO is particularly dangerous , indoors and in poorly ventilated areas. Ozone (03) is not emitted directly into the environment, but is formed by complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between oxides of nitrogen and ' reactive organic compounds (or reactive hydrocarbons) in the presence of sunlight. Ozone formation is greatest on warm, windless, sunny days. The main sources of nitrogen oxides and reactive hydrocarbons, often referred to ' as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines) and evaporation of solvents, paints and fuels. Automobiles are the largest single source of ozone precursors in the Bay Area, accounting for approximately 42 percent of reactive organic gases and 54 percent of nitrogen ' oxides. As with CO, reactive hydrocarbon emissions are higher at low vehicle speeds, and decline as speeds increase. Ozone can irritate the eyes and aggravate respiratory disease. It can also reduce visibility and damage , vegetation. 02A.LF.12/08194.EIR '48 ' ' Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) is a reddish brown as that is a byproduct of z 9 YP combustion processes, as well as the ozone formation process. Automobiles ' and industry are the main sources. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, nitrogen dioxide can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. Sulfur Dioxide (S02) is a colorless gas which can be a precursor of hydrogen sulfide, a gas with a strong odor and effects which damage materials and can have health effects at very high concentrations. It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, such as oil and coal. Approximately 90 percent of Bay Area sulfur dioxide emissions are from large industrial sources, primarily oil refineries. Sulfur dioxide can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. Particulate Matter refers to a wide range of solid or liquid particles in the atmosphere, including smoke, dust, aerosols, and metallic oxides. Some particulate, such as pollen, is naturally occurring, but in the Bay Area most particulate is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading and demolition, automobiles and roads. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. Particulate matter 10 microns or less in size is of greatest concern because it is more easily inhaled. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of California have revised their standards for particulate matter to apply only to particles ' less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o). In addition to these "criteria pollutants"there are other pollutants--commonly referred ' to as toxic air contaminants or hazardous air pollutants--that have received increasing scrutiny in recent years. Air toxics warrant concern for several reasons. First, the health effect can be quite severe. Many hazardous air pollutants are confirmed or suspected carcinogens, or known or suspected to cause birth defects. Secondly, many hazardous air pollutants can be toxic at very low concentrations, and for some chemicals--such as carcinogens--there are no thresholds below which exposure can be considered risk-free. Thirdly, many hazardous air pollutants are unregulated. The ' U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board both have programs for regulating air toxics, but experience to date has demonstrated that promulgating these regulations is a very lengthy process. ' Industrial facilities often emit toxic air contaminants. Rather than coming out of a smokestack, toxics often result from "fugitive emissions" such as leaking valves and pipes. Sources of air toxics go beyond industry, however. Various common urban ' land uses can produce hazardous pollutants, such as gasoline stations (benzene), dry cleaners (perch loroethylene) and hospitals (ethylene oxide). Automobile exhaust also contains toxic pollutants such as benzene, lead, ethylene dibromide, and ethylene ' dichloride. Air Quality Record ' The BAAQMD air quality monitoring station nearest Lafayette is located in the City of Oakland and monitors carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (03). The air quality monitoring station in Concord, while slightly more distant, monitors other important emissions including nitrogen oxides (NO.) and respirable particulates (PM,o). No violations of federal air quality standards have been recorded in Oakland since ' 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 49 1985. The Oak of location I , and, downwind of no important emission sources, and the generally good ventilation of the atmosphere contribute to relatively good air quality. Concord has recorded violations of federal or state standards for both ozone and , particulates for all years since 1985. Table 7 shows the number of days of violation at the Oakland and Concord monitoring stations for 1992 and 1993. TABLE 7; ' NUMBER OF:DAYS IN VIOLATION OF CURRENT;STANDARDS 3AT MONITORING STATION$WITHIN THE LAFAYETTE AIR BASIN; .....:: Monitoring ' Pollutant Station 1992 1993 Ozone (03) ' (0.12 ppm, 1 hour) Federal Oakland 0 0 Concord 0 0 (0.10 ppm, 1 hour) State Oakland 0 0 ' Concord 3 2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) (9 ppm, 8 hour) Federal, State Oakland 0 0 ' Concord 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) (25 ppm, 1 hour) State Oakland Concord 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (50 ppb, 24 hours) State Oakland 0 0 Concord 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10) (30 ug/m3) State Oakland - - Concord 8 2 ' (50 ug/m3) Federal Oakland - - Concord 0 0 , Ug/M3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter ppm Parts per Million ppb Parts per Billion ' Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1994. Significance Emissions Thresholds ' For the purposes of evaluating the proposed Plan, impacts on air quality would be ' considered significant if: • The proposed Plan conflicts with the goals and policies of the Lafayette , General Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Plan, Growth Management Plan and 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 50 ' ' Regional Mobility Plan. The following significance thresholds have been established by the AEP as a general guideline for air quality impacts: ' 55 pounds per day of ROG 55 pounds per day of NO,, 274 pounds per day of CO 150 pounds per day of PM10 150 pounds per day of SO,, State 1-hour or 8-hour standard for CO ' Table 8 shows the amount and type of development that could be considered potentially significant to the overall air quality of an area. B. Impacts Air quality impacts have been divided into short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long-term ' impacts are associated with proposed Project Area build-out. Short-Term ' Construction activities associated with the proposed Plan would temporarily increase PM10, ROG, NO.and CO concentrations in the Project vicinity. The primary source of construction-related ROG and NO,, emissions are gasoline and diesel-powered heavy ' duty mobile construction equipment such as scrapers and motor graders. Primary sources of PM10 emissions would be clearing activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Emissions generated from construction activities occurring under the proposed Plan would probably cause temporary increases in pollutant concentrations which could lead to violations of the federal and state maximum concentration standards. The frequency and concentrations of such violations would ' depend on several factors including the soil composition on the site,the amount of soil disturbed, wind speed, the number and type of machinery used, the construction schedule, and the proximity of other construction and demolition projects. ' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 51 ................... ................... ................... ................... aaaaQaaaaw � w � waaaEaaaaa � Naa ' U E � p ,2 al o o ^ o o c m m in - OO0 p g o O a1 ^ It N ' i0 C� C n C T •O` •y Q m N N O N a x a a� m `o m U `o c m 0 oZS .O a CD o e� E C w C ca c a LL C N M ' U Cd O w N r N y O U Q Z x N E m e �' E O m e `0 m o c m e ab - - d N 7 O J 0 3 J O C W a m o n z E x y > m > o ( .� " ° ' cx a y Y IL E m n1Oi c_ c w ? :c > y ° •y 3 x 3 - of c 3 m d o o a o a� m e aD m o m o U 2 a ¢ C U (7 x Z =5 (i 0 Z a (n oC U J d W J . N to m — Q C U +N+ H +N-. N w w w N "' w w w . w w N r N C C w w w w w N r w ~ V c c c a c O' O' O' d � O' a' a' & a' a' O Q O 0 y O' O' a' O' Q Q O C N N N 'a =_ N N N vl. N N o N o Iq N N N N N O N N N N W •cal C O d 0 0 o y A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N CO) CO O O O d 'v O O O N ^ O N O N M M O O O O O O M O O O O >, P. y ( IO O m (O N W (O Cl) IlE O M M d O d 10 W N N N LO E ; a 0 m c ' o > > •a N LO C ...:.::....:.5: O N , N N w O 0 .......:.:....:.:..... f0 r C ' N C O > y C Y W ari o Z) a � c c o > F F m 1O oy E m rn o d «, E .. al N O d > > O t R C ? N O vNl ` U r _ o 3 3 c c r E a ° E t w .°. m ,o. al Q cr > fA 7 47 U U A ° N N co Q) �' 7 E C C O C i O !' �>. d N 'a U1 C 7 Y U r r r U U N Y U o c c E a m :� ° ° E = E o c ° y `m c c c m F F d y x c a ? E �n o °' a 47 d N N E d °7 p` C U O LL LL U Q) m V 4) dl N 7 (O .=`O. m .d , E .? $ a'm > U r a; o :: > > ° v v o m o o. C N C a 0 0 N j O C b. O W N M N R O d 0 0 a r .ti w w U N N fA N O N O. J Bin aU ¢ WWxUvamoaLLLLm � � � � z000 � � ir ¢ � n (n�" ('n � N O Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to. quantify because of day-to-day variability in construction activities and equipment used. However, as an example, ' typical emission rates for a diesel powered scraper were obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Handbook. A Diesel powered scraper is the most common piece of equipment used for grading operations. If two ' pieces of heavy equipment were operating at one time, and if all of the equipment operated for eight hours per day the following emissions would result: 23 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 99 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 10 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 7.4 pounds per day of sulfur oxides and approximately 6.5 pounds per ' day of particulates. Based on these estimates,emissions associated with short-term construction activities could potentially exceed significance thresholds for project operations. It should be noted, however, that this method assumes that the Plan is one large development project that will be under construction for thirty years. Therefore, the resulting emissions are estimates of total cumulative emissions and are not representative of individual project emissions. Daily emissions for individual projects would actually be less given the smaller size and shorter construction phase. More detailed project specific analysis demonstrating compliance with regional air quality regulations will be required as development occurs. Long-Term ' The main source of emissions generated by the proposed Plan's implementation will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the residential and commercial combustion of natural gas for space heating and other uses as well as the ' generation of electricity. Vehicular Emissions ' Regionally, personal commuting, office worker and retail site customer travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local air shed. Locally, project related traffic, especially at a.m. and p.m. peak hours, will be added to major roads within the local roadway system. Approximately 18,386 project related trips could be generated at Project build-out which would impact the major roads within the local roadway system on a daily basis. This projected total of ADTs ' being traveled on major proposed Project Area roadways represents approximately 613 ADTs per year over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. The annual increase in emissions generated from this increase in ADTs, in and of itself, is viewed as not contributing significantly to a decline in air quality when based upon Significance Emissions Thresholds. Stationary Sources ' Additional emissions will be generated on-site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating. Off-site emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional ' emissions off-site. Industrial and commercial developments that may be located within the proposed Project Area in accordance with General Plan land use designations, in most instances, will not exceed the Significance Emissions Thresholds established by the Association of Environmental Professionals (Table 8). However, cumulatively these individual 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 53 commercial and residential developments that could occur over the life of the Plan will be in excess of those Significance Emissions Thresholds;therefore,there is a potential significant environmental impact on air quality due to the cumulative impacts of Plan- , related developments. Since it is unknown what particular industries might locate in the proposed Project Area at this time, adequate projections of Plan related emissions levels is not appropriate and will have to be conducted on a project-by-project basis. ' All proposed Plan related development will only occur at levels permitted within the City's General Plan and Zoning Code and must be required to meet emission standards as regulated and controlled through the BAAQMD. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Proiect approval: Short-Term 1. All Plan-related structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ ' development activities shall comply with the affected policies pertaining to air quality as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 2. To minimize dust generation during grading operations AQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving operations. 3. In order to reduce pollutant emissions from construction equipment it shall be , properly maintained and tuned. Long-Term ' 1. All Plan-related structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the affected policies pertaining to air , quality as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 2. To ensure all future Plan related development and/or construction projects meet emissions standards set by the BAAQMD, all projects shall be subject to ' air quality analysis on a project-by-project basis if that Project meets or exceeds the potentially significant Air Quality impacts shown on Table 8. Such analysis shall determine specific project impacts and establish adequate, , long-term measures to mitigate impacts if any are determined to exist. 3. The design and development of pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails shall be encouraged within the Project Area as a means for reducing motor vehicle ' traffic and air pollution emissions. While not recommended as conditions of Project approval the following recommendations, where applicable and feasible, are presented as examples for the decision making body's consideration to further reduce potential short-term and long- term impacts to air quality: Short-Term , a. Minimize Construction Activity Emissions: • Water site and clean all equipment in the morning and evening. ' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 54 ' 1 ' • Spread soil binders on site unpaved roads an P p d parking areas; re- establish ground cover through seeding and watering. ' • Employ activity management techniques: increase the distance between the emission sources; reduce or change the hours of construction; schedule activity during off-peak-hours; and require a ' phased-schedule for construction activities to even out emission peaks. • Remove silt by paving construction roads, and sweeping streets, and wash trucks leaving construction site. • Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. • Use low-sulfur fuel for equipment. ' • Avoid using temporary power; use power from the grid instead. b. Reduce Construction-Related Traffic Congestion ' • Provide rideshare incentives, and transit incentives for construction personnel. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interferences. ' • Minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. • Provide a flagperson to guide the traffic properly. • Schedule operations affecting traffic during off-peak-hours. ' C. Limit Emissions From Architectural Coatings and Asphalt Usage. • Use low-coating systems where possible. • Substitute reactive solvents with nonreactive solvents. • Improve transfer efficiency when solvent-based paints are used. • Use high-solid or water-based coatings. • Finish exterior walls of buildings with light-colored materials. ' Long-Term Support and compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the City and the surrounding areas is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included. ' Specific measures which may be appropriate for the proposed Project include: a. Limit Emissions From Vehicle Trips a • Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities. • Provide mass transit accommodations;such as bus turnout lanes,park and ride areas, and bus shelters. • Provide energy conserving street lighting. • Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible. O • Provide sufficient service establishments within the office area. • Encourage formation of van-pools with company vehicles or subsidy and encourage public transit passes. • Establish telecommuting programs, alternative work schedules, and a satellite work centers. • Schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours. A02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 55 • Provide local shuttle and regional transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle lanes, storage areas, and amenities, and ensure efficient parking management. ' • Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate. • Encourage a telecommuting center outside the Central Business District to reduce VMT. ' • Include energy costs in capital expenditure analyses. • Minimize power distribution losses by using dry transformers, high voltages, three.phases, and step-downs, where necessary. • Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels. b. Minimize Energy Requirements of Buildings: • Improve thermal integrity of buildings, and reduce thermal load with ' automated time clocks or occupant sensors. . • Introduce glazed windows, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods; install window-systems to reduce thermal gain and loss. ' • Introduce efficient heating and other appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. • Incorporate appropriate passive solar design and solar heaters. , Replace incandescent indoor lighting with fluorescent lamps, and outdoor lighting with halogen lights. • Capture waste heat and re-employ this heat, in nonresidential buildings, where feasible. • Limit installed lighting loads to an average of about 2.3 watts per square feet of conditioned floor area. • Recycle lighting system's heat for space during cool weather; and the ' exhaust system through plenums during warm weather. • Install low- and medium-static-pressure terminals in air distribution systems. • Ensure proper sealing of all buildings, where applicable. ' • Design facility entrances with vestibules, where possible. • Install individually-controlled light switches and thermostats to permit individual adjustments. ' • Control mechanical systems, or equipment with time clocks or computer systems. C. Minimize Potential Exposure of the Public to Air Toxic Emissions: ' • Integrate additional mitigation measures into site design such as the creation of buffering areas between a potential sensitive receptor's ' boundary and potential pollution sources. • Minimize population-exposure to asbestos emissions and take precautions including, but not limited to, those recommended in Rule ' 1403. D. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less-than-significant. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 56 ' 2.5 EARTH RESOURCES The following contains excerpts from the Geology and Soils section of the Lafayette General Plan Data Base as previously incorporated by reference. More specific information on geology and soils (earth resources) in Lafayette can be found in this document. A. Existing Conditions The geology, topography, and soils of Lafayette pose numerous constraints on any future development. Lafayette is located in a recognized seismically-active area. The San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Concord faults are all major faults located near Lafayette (see Figure 7). These faults are capable of generating earthquakes ranging from 5.0 to 8.5 on the Richter scale. The groundshaking that would result from an earthquake on one of these faults could cause severe damage to structures and other improvements in Lafayette. Such quakes can also cause liquefaction in certain soils as well as landsliding on unstable slopes. All these potential hazards along with other geologically-related constraints must be taken into account when reviewing future development proposals. The specific nature of these constraints is described in more detail in the following subsections. Local Geology Lafayette is located in the Coast Range of California. In Contra Costa County, the Coast Range is dominated by several northwest trending fault systems which divide the County into large blocks of rock. Within each block, the rock sequence consists of a basement complex of rock of the Franciscan Complex (pre-Tertiary rocks of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphis origins). In the Lafayette area, this complex is overlain by various rock units of Tertiary age (e.g., Cierbo sandstone, the Orinda Formation, and the Neroly Formation);these units are primarily hard, marine-generated sandstones and shales overlain, in turn, by softer, non-marine (Pliocene) units. In addition to these depositional formations, there are occasional intrusions of younger (Pleistocene) volcanic basalt. Topography Lafayette consists of a mosaic of ridges and valleys. Past development has focused on the lowlands or more gentle slopes of the various ridges within the City while steeper slopes and higher portions of ridges have been often lightly developed or remain in an undeveloped state. Elevations range from 1,433 feet in the Briones Hills at the north end of the City to elevations of about 200 feet along streams in the eastern portion of the City. As noted above, there are a number of distinct ridges in the City, most of which generally follow the basic northwest trending nature of the area's geology (though there are spur or independent ridges which are not oriented in this direction). Faults The existing Lafayette General Plan Geologic and Seismic Safety Element does not identify any active faults within Lafayette. There are no Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones within Lafayette (these are zones where geotechnical analyses are required by State law as part of the review process for proposed development). This absence of active faults is reconfirmed in the recent geologic analysis conducted in revising the Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County Community Development � 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 57 acla�ento %T SB jkp A GOUSSY So- •� s »: NAY ��'' 9 GOU �0, O`ApO GOQ .,.: Santa ; ,'G! y L S L 066 6°dogs 6*1 xf poit+t �,. �9ti .'9G GONGOVNS� vies .0 raa Sal Sal fRApG.:t� �' •�G ; ASA 1 SAN `( .a \ ( t1 ZY 1 "• eCO y c �.' O��'. ".•'.�(^�,•w•�',•.• .� GLA D :y S' •. :r��SANt A � C� t4a'SILI ' $AN Sas Jose 1 ' G O pokntl9 :,.• �'��� L�GAN ��.�' •�'' = - � �+ pots�tlaltY 'Q�.a F suits e; ,S vn' t1ibov, $ ' 2 j3oR to 5cO30 3111 ,Tns�aeeCN 0 9zb6s F i�� Lt 1 L en el To Department, 1990). While a number of fa,,W; frac as rj t::as': a t have been mapped in Lafayette (see Figure 8), none of these Era s ar ..WTM. ai ': 5 fat ::Aw f f;;­U meet the requisite criteria to be identified as active or potentially active. However,this does not mean that future seismic activity along identified faults in Lafayette is impossible. Seismic activity along these faults, either as induced by a major earthquake on one of the large, active faults in the nearby area or as an independent movement along these local faults, could generate significant damage to structures and result in injury to residents. The existing Geologic and Seismic Safety Element of the Lafayette General Plan recognizes this hazard and includes a policy that no "very critical," "high priority," commercial,or large apartment buildings (more than 5 units) be permitted to be placed on the mapped traces of the Las Trampas Fault. The Element goes on to prohibit such buildings within 50 feet of the mapped trace unless a geotechnical investigation can prove that the area is not underlain by the fault. As shown on Figure 8, traces of the Las Trampas Fault are within the proposed Project Area. Whether the mapped faults in Lafayette are active or not, residents of the City can expect severe groundshaking during major earthquake events on nearby active faults. As is noted in the EIR on the revised Contra Costa County General Plan (1990, p. 12 of Appendix K), "Every time an earthquake occurs, it help locate active faults and establish probability patterns for projected future earthquakes. The written history of Contra Costa County indicates that it has experienced frequent earthquakes. Early explorers and settlers in the Bay Area told of earthquakes that must have been felt in Contra Costa County, and the continuous history that has been maintained since the early 1800s clearly shows that the County has been subject to numerous seismic events. They show the pervasiveness of seismic events in this region; one authority has estimated that there have been approximately sixty damaging earthquakes in the Bay Area since 1800. Almost all of these were felt in Contra Costa County, and some did extensive damage here. Some of these originated on faults located within the County and some in other parts of the region. There is no question that the six major Bay Area earthquakes occurring since 1800 affected the County, nor that at least two of these faults that produced them run through or into the county. These earthquake and the originating faults include the 1836 and 1868 earthquakes on the Hayward fault, andthe 1861 earthquake on the Calaveras ' fault. Two earthquakes, in 1838 and 1906, originated on the San Andreas fault, west of the county near San Francisco or to the south, and one earthquake (with two major shocks) which was felt and caused some damage in the County, occurred in 1872 and was centered north of Contra Costa County in the Vacaville-Winters area of Solano County. A smaller, similar earthquake,centered near Collinsville in Solano on a fault of uncertain identity, occurred in 1889." Lands/ides Lafayette contains numerous areas with slopes exceeding 30 percent. Previous landslide mapping done for the area indicates numerous locations where landsliding can be expected given saturated soils, construction-related disturbance of the soil, and/or seismic activity in the area. Recent EIRs prepared for proposed projects in Lafayette include site-specific geologic analyses of several of the various ridge systems within the City. �� 02A.LF.12/08194.EIR 59 Sri JWfiggrg Nal to WIN,OUR r i� 1 • tfi moi•�T�`rtj �/'� ����•aT� �INr�— d Yt.�llr\;\\��r w 1�1�.;/l)� sw CRUi410 a r '1'rcr�arij��Y tr :U��'MIi"•Rltf ;4. JQ�s ti.�w� rR,ti � • � �4�.r,.._>p r '�-i ► r 4i +�144 . f r .♦ �,, '.t R�LG� rrlfJ!\ `('iir'''rtiI' j.ie t � f 1 t nor r��.•sr�i lam.r��Ss���,:2 ���� / �w� ���y�r �'� • � y1� ■i..'n?: \�fl r!'t Ilrf•rr� .��1 .�d - A �q �y f♦rry r A■� lv/b�011 ►�'rir 7 r r r g i, �r .r+.+++++�►�r�'•��lfl� -�{►.�II� yi orb � �����r7�, �ir. L,t• rJ1r 1 �`��•�.� r _ s �iall�r e • �� " 3 PM ���C�ir' 'uR' f1 rl:��. • ,���1�J11�'t.Kr. -- ��► t tltl �n,C�j y.� ,. toff .'k �•kin_� `� j"'' rr1�r ui 4A� P: r t. A, 1Lfi u /4 T' �\� './ \'fir/l }� �," r U q/ rQ ♦' A,f� �-0i?`' " '`�. t�� ° t � lr f��ee'� +: 1► ter• � i�.)3r . l9 a !� � � �l ,� � �-.� nk[y I. ro'''k ro/�.-'Sl lu L{♦3 T a� �,,n� �� -`iew�^ t� rr 1 r r•Ut � F �3,,.�-�,�• �tlul. 1��� ,l�d,�.� iiY.4iT� "�ly.�,'.R�i .0 •d��c''v' +Iib - '1) 1. -:►�►p4h:��1r■►l► rPiJfiLi�-k {� R�3a;'�a_ ._r// !I�� t_•r •. � �`�k •��3Jr a4�f "irF �� ► Yiint`t �Lt r a ,rls/ ��=rr 11 r`�R e�• �A � �-�/ rj�►ye r,4 ua +' �ll-np �r Ty��p� �' l 1 v Y -� ur r •i/'(•_'rMna�r� 2 - �'•h• !�«• ia��l'�*fir,` Legen Concealed FatAts FaiAt Existence . ' ry�`• �w:tel �l . Proposed Project Area I It is essential that slope.stability be considered when reviewing any future project within Lafayette. Improper construction of improvements in areas with slope stability constraints can result in damage or loss of these improvements with consequent risk of injury to humans using these improvements. Within the proposed Project Area, landslides are less likely to occur as a result of Plan implementation because all of the areas which can sustain additional development as part of the build-out scenario as described in Section 1.6 are located in relatively flat areas with a limited slope. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a specialized form of ground failure caused by earthquake ground motion. It is a "quicksand" condition occurring in water-saturated, unconsolidated, relatively clay-free sands and silts caused by hydraulic pressure (from ground motion) forcing apart ground material particles and forcing them into quicksand-like liquid suspension. In the process, normally firm, but wet, ground materials are transformed into semi-liquid mixtures. Catastrophic failures have provided a sobering reminder that liquefaction poses a major threat to the safety of engineered structures. Major landslides, settling and tilting of buildings on level ground, and failure of water retaining structures have all been observed as a result of this type of ground failure. Abundant evidence of slope failure attributable to liquefaction can be seen in photographs taken throughout the Bay Area after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. It should be emphasized that great earthquakes anywhere in the Bay Area are capable of triggering liquefaction in Contra Costa County. In many instances it is possible to evaluate the liquefaction potential of granular material rather inexpensively. However, this is not to infer that the consequences of liquefaction, should it occur, are as easily evaluated. Consequences may include effects as minor as slight settlement or as major as the loss of a reservoir. Within the area of continually wet unconsolidated deposits, the degree of seismic risk is closely related to local ground conditions. A site underlain by a great thickness of potentially unstable material (soft, compressive muds and loose, clay-free sands, etc.) is extremely hazardous. It should be recognized that such a site has a very limited development potential. Conversely, a site underlain by a minimum thickness of soft muds possesses a much better development potential. Utilizing existing knowledge of foundation engineering, such a site could be made suitable for a variety of land uses. rLayers of ground material that are liquefied during an earthquake undermine the support of both natural landforms and man-made structures. Bluffs and ridges of unconsolidated material may slump under their own weight. Buildings and structures may sink and lean. Often used photographs taken after the 1964 Nigata, Japan earthquake show a group of multi-story apartment buildings leaning acutely or lying on their sides. These buildings remained intact, but this is not always the case when foundation support is diminished. 02A.LF.12/08194-EIF 61 Liquefiable soils were identified in the Geologic and Seismic Safety Element of the existing Lafayette General Plan. These soils are shown on the accompanying Liquefaction Potential Map (Figure 9) as it relates to the proposed Project Area. As shown in Figure 9, most of the proposed Project Area is within an area that contains Liquefiable soils. Other Potential Geologic Hazards In the absence of proper engineering and construction, development can result in soils settlement which can damage structures and improvements. Certain soils can expand when wet, again damaging improvements. Finally, construction activities can result in bared soils which erode; this erosion can lead to sedimentation of receiving waterways. The constraints posed by the soils present in Lafayette are summarized in the following subsection. Soils The Lafayette area contains a number of different soil types. There are four basic soil assemblages mapped by Contra Costa County, including the Diablo-Altamont, Association, the Tierra-Antioch Association, the Clear Lake drained-Botella-Salinas Clayey Variant Association, and the Los Osos-Millsholm-Gazos Association. Specific soil types as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (1974) are described in the Lafayette General Plan Data Base, along with their characteristics as regards erosion potential, shrink-swell potential agricultural capability rating. Thresholds of Significance Significance thresholds have been established by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) as a general guideline. A project will cause significant impacts to earth resources if it: • Exposes people or structures to major geologic hazards. • Projects within 500 feet of an active or potentially active faults are considered 'to have potentially significant geologic/geotechnical impacts. B. Impacts As previously stated, seismic impacts are considered significant if proposed Project Area people and structures are exposed to major geologic hazards. In addition, projects within 500 feet of an active or potentially active fault are considered to have potentially significant geologic/geotechnical impacts. As previously stated, within the proposed Project Area there are no active faults that meet the criteria to be identified as active or potentially active. However,seismic activity along faults within Lafayette could be induced by a major earthquake on one of the large, active faults in the nearby area, and could generate damage to structures and result in injury to residents. It is highly probable that the proposed Project Area will be subjected to one or more significant groundshaking events during the lifetime of the proposed Plan due to the proximity of active faults outside of the proposed Project Area. Since there is active or potentially active faults located in the general region of the proposed Project Area, impacts from active faults (i.e., San Andreas) upon the proposed Project Area and the City of Lafayette as a whole should be considered significant. Damage to structures 1 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 62 I� OWMIR MA TAP--- AM Z RUN I-M could occur and public safety could be threatened if new structures are not constructed to withstand anticipated maximum ground shaking events. Additionally, proposed Project Area residents will continue, in some instances, to be susceptible to soil hazards, as described under A. Existing Conditions. New development in these susceptible areas could generate potential risks for an unknown number of new residents. However, implementation of the proposed Plan will beneficially affect existing structures and supportive infrastructure within the proposed Project Area by providing rehabilitation programs for upgrading deficiencies where such improvement is warranted. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. 1. Geotechnical and sods engineering reports shall be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of preliminary design layouts and grading plans for Plan- related development projects within the proposed Project Area. These studies will determine specific areas of hazardous soil conditions in those areas generally identified under A. Existing Conditions herein. These reports will provide specific mitigation measures for the treatment of potential geological hazards including seismic shaking, liquefaction and other hazardous soil conditions. 2. There are four related initial actions which the City of Lafayette and the Agency shall follow to ensure mitigation of seismic related hazards: a. Utilize geologic and seismic data in land planning so that identified risk areas, if any, are avoided or structures and landforms treated and designed to reflect local site conditions; b. Make sure that local grading and building codes reflect measures to minimize possible seismic damage; C. Inspect older buildings and improve earthquake design features when possible; d. Maintain a disaster preparedness plan. 3. All Plan-related rehabilitation/development activities shall be subjected to the policies as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 4. The faults identified in A. Existing Conditions are considered to be seismically active and capable of generating major earthquakes. The direct impacts of these faults upon proposed projects shall be considered during preliminary planning processes, as deemed necessary by Project specific environmental impact analysis. 5. The geotechnical and soils report recommendations as stipulated in C. Mitigation Measures, 1., of this Section, shall be incorporated into the design '� 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 64 of new building foundations and roadways. 6. All rehabilitation and new development projects implemented as a result of the proposed Project, shall be built in accordance with current and applicable Uniform Building Code standards`and all other applicable'City, County, State and Federal laws, regulations and guidelines,which may limit construction and site preparation activities such as grading,and make provisions for appropriate land use restrictions, as deemed necessary, to protect residents and others from potential environmental safety hazards, either seismically induced or those resulting from other conditions such as inadequate soil conditions, as generally described under A. Existing Conditions, which may exist in the proposed Project Area. D. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant �1 1 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 65 2.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The following existing conditions section contains excerpts from the Transportation Report for the Lafayette General Plan (the "Transportation Report") prepared by Robert L. Harrison as previously incorporated by reference. More specific information on transportation and circulation in Lafayette can be found in this report. A. Existinq Conditions Vehicular Transportation Freeway The most important single transportation facility in Lafayette is the State Route 24 (SR 24) freeway which traverses the City east and west and thereby divides the City into north and south areas. The freeway is an eight lane fully limited access facility which ' carries about 155,000 vehicles per day through the City. The SR 24 freeway operates in Lafayette with limited congestion for most hours of each day. There are, however, bottlenecks in the freeway system on each side of the city limits. To the west is the Caldecott Tunnel which limits the capacity of the freeway and causes traffic to queue back from the tunnels. This congestion does not typically extend all the way to Lafayette but can be a serious delay for motorists driving toward Oakland. Just beyond the easterly city limits SR 24 intersects the 1-680 freeway. This interchange is the source of considerable congestion which causes traffic to back up into Lafayette at afternoon peak hours. Lafayette is served by three interchanges with SR 24. The Acalanes Road interchange is a full cloverleaf with collector roads. Traffic volumes are relatively light, and there is very limited congestion at this interchange. The Central Lafayette interchange consists of hook ramps at Deer Hill Road for westbound traffic, an eastbound off ramp at Oak Hill Road and an eastbound on ramp 1 at First Street. Much of the traffic using this interchange from the south use Moraga Road and a portion of Mt. Diablo Boulevard to reach the freeway. This requires added turning movements at several intersections in the downtown area where intersection service levels are below the city's adopted standard. The Pleasant Hill Road interchange is a full cloverleaf with collector roads. The signalized intersection at the eastbound ramps operates with little congestion. There is considerable congestion, however,during morning peak hours for traffic southbound i' on Pleasant Hill Road attempting to enter the freeway for the afternoon peak traffic using the eastbound to northbound loop leaving the freeway to go north on Pleasant Hill Road. While the freeway forms somewhat of a barrier to fully free north-south local traffic movements within the city, it also provides the major link between Lafayette and important activity centers throughout Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. The freeway, as a major regional connector, also attracts users from areas beyond the city's boundaries and thus causes one of the most frequently heard concerns from local residents, the problem of through traffic using Lafayette streets to access the freeway. I' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 66 r Streets The City street system is divided into four functional categories based on the function and traffic load of each street. A brief description of the functions and existing daily traffic loads for arterial streets is shown in Table 9 below. :4-1TABLE 9 ARTERIAL STREETS AND EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC Functional Category with Assigned Streets Average Dailv Traffic Major Arterials - Streets which connect the most important activity centers Pleasant Hill Road 18,000 to 40,600 Mount Diablo Boulevard 8,600 to 27,000 Moraga Road 14,100 to 22,700 Minor Arterials - Major streets which connect important activity centers First Street-Deer Hill Road to Mt. Diablo Blvd. 21,000 Deer Hill Road 7,400 to 21,000 Glenside Drive/Reliez Station Road/Olympic Blvd. 10,200 to 16,200 Oak Hill Road-Deer Hill Road to Mt. Diablo Blvd. 13,500 St. Mary's Road 4,900 to 10,800 Acalanes Road/Glorietta Boulevard 6,000 to 7,100 Reliez Valley Road 4,000 to 5,300 Source: Compilation of traffic data from several recent studies by Robert L. Harrison. Major arterial streets have traffic volumes which are generally greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, are usually divided, provide separate turning lanes and have limited driveway access. Minor arterial streets serve traffic volumes of 5,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day and may be improved to include a divided roadway, separate turning lanes and traffic signals an important intersections. Where arterial streets do not have the improvements needed to efficiently serve traffic, congestion and delay for motorists is usually the result. In addition to major and minor arterial streets there are collector and local streets. These streets carry lower traffic loads and are intended to serve local properties as well as carry traffic. The collector streets listed below represent streets with daily traffic loads of 2,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day. All other streets within the City are considered local and carry less than 2,000 vehicles per day. Local streets have the -primary purpose of providing access to individual properties and carrying local traffic . to other streets. The collector streets in Lafayette are as follows: Dewing Avenue - Brook Street to Mt. Diablo Boulevard Mountain View Drive - Brook Street to Mt. Diablo Boulevard 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 67 r Brook Street Moraga Boulevard Stanley Boulevard Rohrer Drive Silverado/Burton Drive Hamlin Road/Sweet Drive Happy Valley Road Upper Happy Valley Road A commonly used indicator of traffic conditions is the ratio of volume-to-capacity (V/C ratio), which is used to quantify the Level of Service (LOS) at a mid-block lane configuration on major intersections. Levels of Service are, in increasing order of congestion,defined as "A"through "F" (see Table 10). Beyond LOS "E", capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of a given street to process it efficiently. If the impacts of a project change the roadway LOS to beyond "D" then the impacts are considered significant. If LOS goes from "A" to "C" then the impacts are not considered significant because the roadway is still free flowing without any congestion. Additionally, Lafayette has adopted three different signalized intersection service level standards for various areas within the City. The City uses three of the five area standards required by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) as presented in the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Plan (GMP). For the commercial area the City has adopted the "urban" standard, a high service level D, Volume to Capacity (V/C) ration 0.85 to 0.89. For open space areas the City has adopted the "semi-rural" standard, a high service level C,V/C ration 0.75 to 0.79. In all other areas the City uses the "suburban" standard, a low service level D, V/C ration 0.80 to 0.84. TABU 1<0 t UDFSERVICE DESIGNATIONS ' Traffic Level of Service Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Conditions A 0.00-0.60 Free Flow B 0.61-0.70 Stable Flow C 0.71-0.80 Stable Flow D 0.81-0.90 Unstable Flow E 0.91-1.00 Forced Flow F Greater than 1.00 Jammed Flow Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants/Willdan Associates The CCTA has adopted technical procedures to calculate signalized intersection Level of Service. These procedures tend to underestimate the level of congestion found on Lafayette streets. The Transportation Report described the existing conditions on City streets based on Transportation Research Board (TRB) Circular 212 procedures 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 68 (modified to account for right turns on red) as well as the procedures recommended 9 by the CCTA. In addition, where neither of the above methods properly account for the actual delay experienced at intersections, an approximation of existing conditions based on observed conditions is reported. Existing intersection Level of Service is shown in Table 11. Using the procedures recommended by the CCTA, the only signalized intersections identified within the Transportation Report which do not meet service level standards are on Pleasant Hill Road at Deer Hill Road and at Spring Hill Road. Pleasant Hill Road north of SR 24 carries the highest traffic volumes of any City,street and experiences significant congestion southbound in the morning peak hours and northbound in the afternoon peak hours. The intersection of Pleasant Hill Road with Reliez.Valley Road experiences significant congestion but the service level which results from applying the procedures required by the CCTA is an acceptable level C. The Circular 212 methodology which was recommended for use in the Lafayette General Plan analysis results in a service level E at this intersection. Intersections which currently do not meet service level standards are shown in Table 11. TABLE.11 INTER5ECT10N5 WHLCH DO NOT MEET SERVICE'LEVEL STANDARDS Morning Peak Hour_ Afternoon Peak Hour Trans Auth'ty General Plan Trans Auth'ty General Plan Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Pleasant Hill Road with: Deer Hill Road 1.04 F 1.25 F 1.08 F 1.30 F Spring Hill Road 0.78 C 1.05 F 0.92 E 1.12 F Reliez Valley Road 0.79 C 0.97 E 0.79 C 0.99 E Mt. Diablo Blvd. with: *Moraga Road 0.62 B 0.78 C 0.65 B 0.90 E At the following two intersections afternoon peak hour observed service level is E due to the downstream congestion at Moraga Road. *Oak Hill/Lafayette C. 0.39 A 0.62 B 0.58 A 0.85 D ' *First Street 0.48 A 0.81 D 0.47 A 0.80 D Moraga Road with: *School Street 0.69 B 0.87 D 0.66 B 0.82 D Observed Service Level E * = Roadways located in the Project Area. NOTES: 1. Trans Auth'ty based on the technical methods recommended by the CCTA and as shown in the LTS Working Paper 4, Table 4-5. 2. General Plan based on Circular 212 modified for right turn on red. 3. "Observed Service Level" based on LTS Working Paper 4, Table 4-5. Source: Robert L. Harrison 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 69 /� Other intersections which are known to experience significant congestion and apparently do not meet service level standards are primarily in the downtown area. Again, the methods of analysis recommended by the CCTA result in service levels which indicate that some of these intersections do not experience significant congestion. Intersections in this category include Mt. Diablo Boulevard at Moraga Road, at First Street and at Oak Hill Road and Lafayette Circle. In addition, Moraga Road at School Street experiences service levels below adopted standards. Unsignalized Intersections Generally, unsignalized intersections do not experience significant congestion or delay for the majority of motorists. When traffic volumes build to a level where delay may be a problem at an unsignalized intersection, this problem can usually be solved by providing a traffic signal. There are several unsignalized intersections in Lafayette. which because of the high traffic volumes served have been studied in the Lamorinda ' Traffic Study and in other traffic studies. Level of Service for unsignalized intersections is measured only for those vehicles which experience delay. For multi-way stop intersections all vehicles are required to stop and an average Level of Service and Volume to Capacity Ratio can be calculated for the entire intersection. For the typical one or two way stop intersections, service level is reported for only those vehicles which are required to stop or to wait to make a left turn. Frequently the minor street volume is a small percentage of the total traffic which passes through the intersection. Traffic on the minor street may face significant delay before there is a gap in the major traffic flow and a low service level for this small portion of total traffic is the result. The great majority of traffic at the intersection experiences no delay but the reported service level for the minor street will necessarily be low. Service level for selected unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 12. Four of the nine intersections shown in Table 12 experience operating problems due to the high traffic volumes served at peak hours. For most of these high volume intersections, prior traffic studies have recommended installation of a traffic signal to relieve the existing congestion and delay problems. Traffic signals are recommended when traffic volumes exceed minimum thresholds defined by the operators of major street systems such as Caltrans. These thresholds are known as traffic signal ' warrants. As a quick check on when a traffic signal may be needed, peak hour traffic volumes are compared to Warrant 11, the Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. Based on the peak hour traffic signal warrant criteria, all of the intersections in Table 12, with the exception of Moraga Boulevard at Moraga Road, where service levels are worse than level D should be studied for the possible installation of a traffic signal. Three other intersections should also be studied according to this criterion even though they function at Level of Service D or better. Other factors such as accident history, pedestrians, proximity to other signals, projected traffic, and off peak traffic loads should also be studied before a signal is actually installed. At the intersection of Moraga Boulevard with Moraga Road the traffic count on the side street, Moraga Boulevard, is so low that the peak hour traffic signal warrant is not satisfied. This means that while the service level is very low for vehicles making left or right turns from Moraga Boulevard,there are too few of them to satisfy the standard criteria for installing a traffic signal at this intersection. 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 70 TABLE I2 NSIG:NALI2ED INTERSECTIQNSOATF SELECTEDU Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Meets Pk.Hr. Signal Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS Warrants Multi-Way Stop Intersections Olympic Boulevard with: Pleasant Hill Road 0.77 C 1.01 E/F Yes Reliez Station Road 0.66 B 0.78 C Yes N. Glenside Drive with: Reliez Station Road 0.77 C 0.87 D Yes St. Mary's Road 0.58 A 0.57 A No S. Glenside Drive with: St. Mary's Road 0.68 B 0..73 C Yes ' Deer Hill Road with: SR 24 Ramps/Laurel 1.03 F 0.86 D Yes Oak Hill Road 0.60 B 0.77 C No One-Way Stop Intersections Deer Hill Road with: , Happy Valley Road F D Yes (W.B. Left) Moraga Boulevard with: Moraga Road (W.B. Left) * E * E No * V/C not calculated for one and two way stop intersections. Source: Lamorinda Traffic Study Working Papers 3 and 4, December, 1991. Core Area Traffic Study, , September 13, 1989,Table 1, Burton Valley Ridge Study, 1989. Calculations of V/C Ratio by Robert L. Harrison. With the installation of traffic signals all of the above unsignalized intersections would ' operate at acceptable service levels. A traffic signal at Moraga Boulevard and Moraga Road may be appropriate even though the peak hour signal warrant is not met. This ' decision would be based on whether the signal could be designed to cause minimal impact on the great majority of traffic on Moraga Road while still providing a benefit for the relatively few vehicles which now face long delays at the stop sign on Moraga Boulevard. 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 71 Public Transit BART The Lafayette BART station is on the Concord/Daly City line. This line is currently at capacity inbound to San Francisco in the morning peak and outbound from the City in the afternoon peak. The maximum load point on this line is at the MacArthur station, three stops west of Lafayette. Loads passing the Lafayette station are lower than at MacArthur but there are standees on some peak hour trains even as far east as the Lafayette station. BART plans for some increase in the frequency of service through the Lafayette station which may increase patronage or at least reduce the number of standees on the trains at peak hours. Existing use of BART at Lafayette is about 6,000 daily passengers. Peak hours are from 7:00am to 8:00am when about 1,000 passengers pass through the station and from 5:00pm to 6:00pm when about 900 passengers use the station. The use of the Lafayette BART station is somewhat limited by the parking available at or near the station. The 1,521 spaces at the BART parking lot fill each day and there is considerable overflow parking on city streets. Based on a BART survey of vehicles parked at the station, 24% of passengers are from Lafayette. The amount of parking available is a limiting factor to the use of BART because driving alone to the station represents about two thirds of all access modes. Being dropped off is the second most important access mode at 15% of all trips. The use of public transit is about 11% and walking to the station is about 7% of total access trips. BART is studying the possibility of increased bus transit access to the station in order to increase the use of the system. CCCTA-The County Connection The four CCCTA bus routes which serve Lafayette experience relatively low load factors. Average daily patronage for all of the routes (Route 106, 123, 125 & 990) is 1,604 persons. This measure provides an indicator of how much use there is of the system for each hour that the service is provided. In medium sized suburban areas bus operators often target 20 riders per revenue hour as a reasonable standard for local service. None of the routes in the Lafayette area meets this standard. 1 In response to the relatively low load factors on these routes, the CCCTA is planning a general public demand responsive van service to replace the routes 123 and 125 in off peak hours. Initial plans for this Flex-Van service assume the use of vans operating ' on primarily an advanced reservation basis. Peak hour service would continue on the fixed route services as currently scheduled. B. Impacts i Vehicular Transportation Table 13 compares estimated average vehicle trip ends on a weekday in the proposed Project Area by land use for existing conditions and existing plus Project. Based on General Plan build-out, Project implementation could generate a maximum of 78,676 average daily trips upon proposed Project Area and City-wide roadways (existing plus Project). Although maximum Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were used, the increase can generally be attributed to the potential increase in 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 72 office/commercial square footage along Mt. Diablo . Blvd. The increase in office/commercial usage has a more significant impact than residential development because these land uses generate traffic at many times the rate of residential usages. The proposed Project could effect an increase in the daily vehicle trips onto proposed Project Area roadways. However,this will occur over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. If the additional 18,386 Project related vehicle trips were averaged over the life of the proposed Plan, the increase would be approximately 613 trips per year which seems insignificant when the total existing trips within the proposed Project Area are taken into consideration. This would represent an increase of approximately one percent a year over existing conditions. However, the cumulative negative impacts upon proposed Project Area and City-wide arterials should be considered potentially significant due to the cumulative increase in vehicle trips over the existing conditions. Since some intersections are currently operating at an LOS of "D" or "E", these 613 trips per year could decrease the LOS to an "F" depending on the location, size and timeframe of any developments than might occur over the 30-year Plan. It should be stressed that most of the impacted proposed Project Area and City-wide roadways will be affected by an increase in vehicular traffic but are projected to remain at a Level of Service of "C" or better due to the low volume-to-capacity ratio that currently exists and/or due to the proposed infrastructure improvements proposed for Project-related streets. ?ABLE 13 PROPOSEQ PROJECM AREA AVERAGE WEEKLY.VEHICLE`TRIP:ENDS BY LAND USE Existing Existing Project Land Use Condition ADT Build-Out ADT Residential Single Family (Units) 186 1,879 41 414 Multi-Family (Units) 1,659 10,617 1,961 12,550 Commercial/Office 1,593,138 47,794 2,232,208 65,712 (sq. ft.l Totals 60,290 78,676 Source: Urban Futures, Inc., January 1994 , Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 4 ed., 1987 Long-term impacts to the existing circulation system will be reduced by implementation , of various roadway infrastructural improvement projects (generally described in Appendix A); the LOS will increase because a portion of the current roadway deficiencies that constrain the flow of traffic will be corrected. It should be noted that the traffic analysis is a worst-case scenario based on complete build-out which is not likely to occur in the next 10 to 20 year period or may never occur. Therefore,the build-up of traffic to levels projected will be very gradual offering the City ample time to implement measures to reduce impacts, such as signalization and intersection improvements. The Project's adoption will allow the Agency to assist in the financing of roadway , improvement and beautification projects generally described in Appendix A. These 02A.LF.12/08194-EIR 73 � r changes.may include but not be limited g y to improved roadway surfaces,installation and repair of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and upgrading of traffic control devices. Additionally, the Project's implementation will work to affect General Plan goals, objectives and policies with regard to the City's circulation system. Short-term With respect to short-term impacts, there may be temporary traffic disruptions during the construction of necessary street and infrastructure improvement Projects which may decrease the LOS that currently exists on the proposed Project Area roadways; these impacts could also affect rail and bicycling facilities. For example, the impacts may include the closing of one lane in a two lane roadway due to construction activities which could decrease the level of service to an unacceptable level (LOS 7"). However, these conditions can be mitigated to a condition of insignificance. Public Transit Total use of public transit is estimated to be about 2% of total trips made each day in Lafayette.12 Based upon this assumption, Plan-related developments will generate an additional 368 transit riders(18,386 additional Plan-related vehicle trips x 2%) over the next 30 years or approximately 12 transit riders per year. Based upon this information, there will be no significant impacts to public transit operations. Furthermore, due to the potential intensification of commercial development within the proposed Project Area, ..I;.. ord.:apt:euvt€h< f e>i« ;:.:. ....._. >:;.,0-i' : :< there cowl :s#Y ;; 1-... f .:j E r. d be an increase in transit ridership and a decrease in vehicle trips because of the easy access to and from the commercial businesses located in the area. C. Mitigation Measures Vehicular Transportation The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: Long-Term 1. Projected Plan-related increases in ADTs upon proposed Project Area roadways are not expected to significantly impact existing roadway Levels of Service over the long term in most instances. However, since project related site specifics are not known, such as type, size and location of potential developments, all impacted roadway segments as a result of proposed Plan related projects shall be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine ...»:.,:...:. .:.: :<; :<.: ::e:.:,;C.:......:s specific project impacts jn;cl:;: a.Mof t I af�ue lm a :c f ......... ...... ...... ............................ ..... cluijarretti upon those roadway segments. Analyses shall inclu.d. e intersection capacity analysis and roadway segment trip assignment rates as ' necessary. Projects found to cause significant impacts to existing LOS shall include measures to lessen project related impacts. 2. All Plan-related structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the Lafayette General Plan. 12 Transportation Background Report prepared for the Lafayette General Plan by Robert L. Harrison. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 74 r Short Term 1. Short term impacts to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists shall be mitigated with the use of standard safety precautions generally employed during project construction, e.g.e, rerouting of traffic, use of flagmen, public notice of route closures and detours and other precautions and safeguards as may be deemed applicable by the appropriate City regulating body. Public Transit No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. D. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant. r . i 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 75 1 2.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following contains excerpts from the Vegetation and Wildlife section of the Lafayette General Plan Data Base as previously incorporated by reference. More specific information on biological resources in Lafayette can be found in this document. A. Existing Conditions Historical Biotic Environment Prior to European settlement,the Lafayette landscape was probably an open woodland with a predominance of grassland. Chaparral species and young trees were eliminated or controlled by periodic fires either caused naturally or purposely set by Native Americans. This landscape changed little during Mexican control of California, though the drastic replacement of native grassland species by European invaders began during this period. The immigration from the east coast resulted in the first serious planting ' of trees in the area. Early settlers planted Black Locust (used for fence posts) and landscaping trees. The next major planting consisted of orchards of fruit trees and walnuts. Today, these orchards have all but disappeared within the Lafayette City Limits. Suburban development,the last phase of landscape transformation, has been the most ' rapid and dramatic force in altering the Lafayette environment. In the past 50 years, there has been unprecedented tree planting. With the cessation of cattle grazing and the suppression of fires,the native trees and the chaparral community have expanded. Today,the City is a mosaic of plant communities with native woodland and grasslands interspersed with suburban development and its associated landscaping. The basic natural vegetation communities within the City of Lafayette including the proposed Project Area are described below. ' Grassland The grasslands occupy.many of the slopes and tops of the remaining undeveloped ridges in Lafayette. These grasslands are dominated by exotic annual species such as soft chess (Bromus mollis), foxtail (Festuca megalura), wild oat (Avena fatua), and ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Various broad-leafed herbaceous species are also common in the grasslands. There are remnants of. native perennial grasses (e.g., Stipa pulchra). Before the arrival of European settlers, grasslands were maintained by periodic burning as well as grazing by herds of elk, antelope, and deer. Fires and grazing continued to support grasslands through the nineteenth century. The ' twentieth century predilection for suppressing all fires as well as the more recent cessation of large scale grazing in most of Lafayette has resulted in plant succession occurring within the grasslands. Grasslands will become reduced in extent in the ' absence of active management to maintain this vegetative community. In addition, many areas of grassland have been directly eliminated due to the urban development of Lafayette. Oak Woodland The climate and geography of Lafayette favor the lush growth of oaks and associated 1 trees. Higher ridges like Lafayette Ridge are heavily wooded with oaks including valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and black oak (Quercus kelloggill. The black oak is found only in the coolest canyons and is rarely seen in the 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 76 r eastern part of the City. Canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepsis) is sometimes found in drier canyons, and blue oak(Quercus douglasii) occurs on a few of the driest ridges. The valley oak extend into the valley bottoms where they attain great size due to deeper soils and adequate water. Many of these oak woodland communities include California bay (Umbe//u/aria californica), buckeye (Aescu/us ca/ifornica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and various shrub species like poison oak and hazelnut. The oak woodlands are often subdivided into more specific vegetation types such as deciduous oak woodland, live oak woodland,oak/bay woodland,etc. For the purposes of this analysis, all woodlands containing native oaks and associated species are typed as oak woodland. While many of the trees of the oak woodland have been removed due to past construction activities, many remain, some that were preserved and incorporated into landscaping and others in areas that have not yet been developed. In those areas that have remained undeveloped, there are probably more oaks and associated trees than were present in pre-European times due to the suppression of fire and the cessation , of cattle grazing. In addition, these native oaks regenerate easily and grow relatively fast if protected from fire and grazing and properly managed. Chaparral Chaparral is a unique plant community comprised mainly of dense, twiggy, and mainly evergreen shrubs and small trees. This plant community generally occurs in areas with poorer, rocky soils and dry weather conditions (south-facing slopes). Again,this basic vegetation type is often subdivided into more specific communities, but for the purposes of this analysis, the various subtypes will all be considered as chaparral. Representative species include sagebrush (Artemisis californica and A. Douglasiana), chamise(Adenostoma fasciculatum),chaparral pea(Pickeringia montanna),coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), and various species of Ceanothus and manzanita , (Arctostaphylos spp.). This vegetation community occurs on the southern slopes of Lafayette Ridge, around Lafayette Reservoir, and in other drier areas of the City. In earlier times, the chaparral community was controlled by periodic fires. The absence of fire and grazing has allowed the extension of chaparral into a number of grassland areas. In drier areas with poor soils (like Lafayette Ridge), the chaparral community is probably the climax vegetation type. On better soils where chaparral has invaded grasslands (like around Lafayette Reservoir), the chaparral has invaded grassland, and, in its turn, will be succeeded by oaks and other trees,thus becoming an oak woodland community. This plan succession sequence occurs and continues on many of the grasslands in ' Lafayette. Over the long-term, in the absence of fire or the intrusion of human management, the oak woodlands will dominate the natural landscape except on drier, steeper slopes. Riparian Woodland Another native vegetation type is the riparian woodland growing along stream channels in the area. Unlike the other vegetation types, this type has remained largely unchanged since pre-European settlement, except where trees have been directly removed for the purpose of development. These woodlands occur in deep soils near stream channels where there is adequate groundwater. Here, the trees, several of which are the same species as occur in the oak woodlands community, reach a large 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 77 1 size due to the favorable conditions. There are large oaks, walnuts, cottonwood, bay, and madrone. Several species of willows line deeper channels along with occasional stands of white alder and bigleaf maple. Transitional Landscape or Edge Habitat A fifth habitat type is commonly called "edge" habitat. This habitat occurs where different plant communities meet and intergrade. This type of habitat occurs where oak woodland intersects chaparral or grassland or where riparian woodland intersects ' grassland. A second type of edge habitat occurs within the basic plant communities where microclimatic conditions juxtapose wooded areas with small areas of grass or shrubs. A final type of edge is where any of the natural communities meet planted landscapes. Developed Landscape There are two basic types of developed landscape (with obviously many variations on these themes). The first and largest type occurs in the valley bottoms. Grasslands and oak woodland in these areas were first planted with orchards. Since then, these areas have been developed for housing or commercial activities and planted with trees and shrubs. The other type of developed landscape occurs on hillsides, especially south and west facing slopes. Here the natural vegetation was generally grass. The few trees that occurred in these locations were often removed when the areas were developed. These areas have also been landscaped. Exotics While much of the developed landscape includes introduced or exotic species, some of these exotic species are of particular concern due to their ability to naturalize and invade native plant .communities or because of their potential fire hazard. While Lafayette does not exhibit significant invasions of such plants as broom, there are locations where this plant is invading native plant communities. Unless these invasions are controlled, broom can be expected to colonize larger areas as is the case in much ' of Marin County and elsewhere in the Bay Area. A second key exotic plant group is the Eucalyptus. There are numerous groves and plantings of Eucalyptus in Lafayette (especially blue gum or Eucalyptus globulus). While many individuals consider these trees to have aesthetic value, they eliminate native habitat and are a significant concern as regards fire hazard. Finally, it is noted that in many locales, the residential landscaping includes plantings of pines, especially the Monterey pine. While these pines have aesthetic value, they also pose an extreme fire hazard. Species of Special Concern The County General Plan EIR and EIRs prepared in or near the City of Lafayette indicates the potential for fourteen sensitive plant species in the Lafayette area. These plants are listed as follows: Large flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) Mt. Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata) Alameda manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida) Contra Costa manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens ssp. laevigata) Mt. Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulcellus) Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 78 Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum) Stickbells (Fritillaria agrestis) Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) Santa Crus tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) Mt. Diablo phacelia (Phacelia phacelioides) Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) Straggly gooseberry(Ribes divaricatum var. publiflorum) Grand Trees and Tree Groves The City Code has provisions for designating significant tree specimens as "Grand Trees" (Ordinance 38). To date six trees have been reviewed by the City's Tree Commission and granted Grand Tree status. This ordinance also allows the designation of distinctive tree groves. However, to this date, only one grove has been officially designated. WILDLIFE As there is a mosaic of plant communities in Lafayette, there are also various assemblages of wildlife that reside in or use these various habitats. The types of wildlife occupying the areas surrounding and within the proposed Project Area are typical for this portion of the Coast Range, including such mammals as black-tailed deer, opossum, raccoon,gray squirrels,jackrabbits,gophers, moles, various species-of mice and voles, and possibly larger species such as foxes, bobcats, and even mountain lions in the undeveloped, wilder areas near Las Trampas Regional Wilderness and Briones Regional Park. Numerous bird species occupy the proposed Project Area at various times during the year, and there are also large populations of reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Development along the streams and creeks has also affected the natural fish population. The last survey conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game of Lafayette Creek and Las Trampas Creek was in 1986. The survey indicated 12 to 14 rainbow trout were counted, although it could not be determined if they were a natural reproducing population. A 1982 stream survey of Las Trampas Creek indicated the presence of threespine stickleback, California roach, and a few sculpin. Fish were nearly absent above the drop culvert between the two St. Mary's bridges located just south of the corridor portion of he proposed Project Area. The report notes that Las Trampas Creek is currently not open to salmonid migration due to 12 drop structures and three natural waterfalls. The report states that in its current state the creek is of little fishery value. However, steelhead trout were planted in the creek in 1982, and the trout reported in 1986 could be the survivors or offspring of this planting. While , the Department has no current plans to upgrade the streams and fish habitat. To preserve the wildlife that does remain requires the retention of undeveloped areas that, optimally, include a mosaic of vegetation types and summer water sources. Retaining islands of undeveloped habitat that lack water sources may have value for preserving vegetation and views, but may become impoverished as regards supporting a full range of native wildlife. 1 The riparian corridors are especially significant as regards wildlife. These habitats while small in terms of the total acreage in the City are extremely rich as regards wildlife. These corridors provide travel routes, cover, water, and a rich supply of foods. One can live in a heavily developed residential area and be continually surprised by the rich 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 79 variety of animal life within the narrow riparian corridors that snake through the area. P g Finally, it should be noted that the landscaping provided as part of suburban development provides niches for a wide variety of wildlife. This new habitat can be enhanced by planting herbaceous species, shrubs, and trees that have a high wildlife value (that is, that provide food sources, cover, etc.). Species of Special Concern A review of recent EIRs plus the County General Plan and the EIR prepared for that Plan show that there are potentially eight (8) sensitive wildlife species present in the Lafayette area. The species are listed as follows: ' California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni) Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Thresholds of Significance. The following significance thresholds have been established by the AEP as a general guideline for biological impacts. A project's impacts are considered to significantly ' impact biological impacts if: • The Project substantially affects a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the habitat of species. • The Project interferes substantially with the movement of any wildlife species. • The Project will disturb an important local biological resource. B. Impacts ' Future development and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area, in accordance with the City's General Plan, City Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws, guidelines and regulations, could result in the elimination and/or displacement of assorted native and non-native plant species (primarily weeds) and some small rodents and mammals located in the proposed Project Area. However, this potential disruption to existing biological resources will not have a significant impact on the proposed Project Area's biotic communities due to their exiting degree of urbanization and amount of vacant land within the proposed Project Area. Riparian and other significant biotic communities adjacent to the proposed Project Area could be indirectly impacted by redevelopment activities; of particular concern is the development that could occur near the Lafayette Creek and Las Trampas Creek. However, any Plan-related developments within or adjacent to the aforementioned ' creeks will only increase the existing urbanized land use to a higher density. There is no vacant or previously urbanized land within the proposed Project Area that is located 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 80 along the Lafayette or Las Trampas Creeks. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of project approval: 1. Discretionary development which could potentially impact biological resources shall be evaluated prior to project approval by a qualified biologist to assess impacts and if necessary,to develop mitigation measures. This evaluation shall include a complete assessment of all biological resources within the adjacent to the affected portions of the proposed Project Area with particular emphasis placed upon identifying endangered, threatened and locally unique species and sensitive and critical habitats. 2. Discretionary development shall be sited and designed to incorporate all feasible measures to mitigate any significant impacts to biological resources. If the impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level,findings of overriding considerations must be made by the decision-making body. 3. The California Department of Fish and Game, , shall be consulted when discretionary development may affect significant biological resources. Notice shall be made to the Department of Fish and Game after the lead Agency has approved any project that will cause the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or cause changes in the riverbed, channel or bank of any river, stream.or lake. An agreement with the Department of Fish and Game must be made prior to initiating any such changes consistent with the Department of Fish and Game statutory authority. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant 1 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 81 , i 2.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The following sections contain excerpts from the Lafayette General Plan Data Base as previously incorporated by reference. More specific information on utilities and public services in Lafayette can be found in this document. 2.8.1 Water Resources A. Existing Resources Domestic water for Lafayette is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The District has an obligation to provide an adequate, reliable, high quality water supply to all its customers. The number of District customers in Lafayette increased from t-44 9,459 in 1991 to 9-49:7' in 1992. Water consumption increased from 4-66 million gallons per ' day in 1991 to�€$4.3 in 199-2;$- which is an increase of #7,°o 4 4894 from 1991. The 199 usage is currently considered to be the best representation of water use not affected by drought conditions which 1991 usage was affected by. Within the proposed Project Area, an estimated 833,324 gallons per day (gpd) of water is being consumed which represents f €° 4 0 of the total amount of water consumed in the City. EBMUD has an extensive reclamation and water conservation program as described in its Urban Water Management Plan. The District has adopted "Landscape Water Conservation Requirements"that regulate future residential and commercial landscaping so as to minimize water use. Future development in Lafayette must comply with these regulations. To summarize, there are no current major problems with the water supply and delivery ' infrastructure. However, EBMUD's limited water supply may constrain future development within its service area. Thresholds of Significance The following significant threshold has been established by the AEP i3dt1iti . . r Ie€nert Axl theLagetteeeral i?t as a guideline for impacts to water resources: • If the project-related water demand met or exceeded the safe yield of existing water supplies or reduced the current level of service, thereby requiring development of new facilities and sources beyond those already planned. ::: :ae�t..>:to::: avl €:suf�t��nt>�+�1�r:� :�i:::r ,.:::..:: .::::::: .::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.:..:.. ..:::#.:: *slde�r► s:: rc Y : ar;;lrc{a: J�t€1...:: s) B. Impacts Assuming General Plan build-out of the proposed Project Area, the proposed Plan's implementation could increase the City's demand for water by approximately 23,892 13 Updated information provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District, April 8, 1994. ' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 82 gallons per day. This would represent an approximate increase of less than 1 percent over existing City-wide consumption. It must also be stressed that build-out could occur over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. Therefore, it is appropriate to calculate increased consumption on an average yearly basis over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. As such, the increase in water consumption over existing use is 796 gallons per day. This would represent an approximate increase of less than one percent over existing City-wide daily consumption. Because development will occur in increments, the water district serving Lafayette anticipates being able to handle increased water demands. Given that portions of the proposed Project Area lack infrastructure, comprehensive planning will be required to ensure that incremental infrastructure improvements are designed in the context of a coordinated and integrated City-wide system. As part of routine project level review, the City has adopted, and is currently in the process of implementing City guidelines for preparation of public facility financing plans. The guidelines call for project applicants to provide an inventory of existing and proposed facilities for seven public utilities, plus build-out assumption, phasing information, and financing proposals. , Although Lafayette has adequate water supplies to handle additional demand, the increased consumption of water projected with build-out of the proposed Project Area ' is considered regionally significant. Furthermore, it is unclear at this time if this current supply will be available in the future. Plan related impacts upon water resources could change significantly over the 30-year life of the Plan due to several factors including rainfall averages, available storage capacities and regional demand which could affect the amount of water available for consumption for the proposed Project Area and the City of Lafayette as a whole. Therefore, future impacts upon water resources should be assessed on a project-by-project basis. Approvals for all proposed Plan related projects that will directly contribute to a long-term increase in water consumption should concur with the availability of adequate water resources. C. Mitigation Measures While the average yearly proposed-Plan-related increase in water consumption is not projected to be significant as described above, conditions could change significantly over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. As such, the following mitigation measure is recommended as a condition of Proiect approval: 1. All Plan-related growth inducing projects shall be evaluated by Agency staff , working with City staff ari` 11tE #Dfat9 on a project-by-project basis to determine their impact upon local water resources. No project shall be approved unless. available water resources are adequate to meet projected demand. t ..saf.::: c. 8 :: . lar�s�sr..�.: :a�:A.:: ::. :::::::::.::::.:::::::::.::::::::::::::::: :::.::.:::::::: 'i":' t rt3'<'':, � ex-,. ' v�at�r>€ci�stri��ti�rrs �:°�;:<;:;:,.>:<:::. P f arslaec><`i sx` ts<tl ..ti. a n.�rstrttxe ::. ................................................................................................................... trjntstriitiic �t#e The conservation of water should be of significant concern to all citizens in California, and some conservation proceedings are presently mandated by state legislation. While not recommended as a condition of Project approval,the following measures should be implemented for all proposed Plan related construction projects when appropriate to comply with state legislation:, 02A.LF.12/08/94-El 83 ' • Plumbingfixtures that reduce water usage should be utilized i.e. low 9 ( , volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets and shower heads) in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. • The use of drought-tolerant plant species and drip irrigation systems shall be in conformance with AB 325 in order to reduce water usage. • Installation of ultra-low flush toilets in all new construction: in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 should occur three gallons per flush. • Installation of low flow showers and faucets in accordance with ' California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F should occur. • Future developers should be assessed a water capacity fee for importation and distribution facilities. Recommendations to be implemented where applicable: Interior: • Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 psi be reduced to 50'psi or less by means of pressure-reducing valve. • Flush valve operated water closets: recommend three gallons per flush. • Drinking fountains: recommend installation of self-closing valves. • Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling units be insulated to provide hot water quickly with less water and to prevent hot pipes from heating cold pipes. ' • Restaurants: use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters and serving of water at patron request only. • Hotel rooms: conservation reminders be posted in rooms and ' restrooms. Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower. • Laundry facilities: water-conserving models of washers be used. Exterior: • Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied to top soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. • Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water ' needed to establish replacement vegetation. • Landscape with low water using plants wherever feasible. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 84 • Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. • Group plants of similar water use to reduce over-irrigation of low-water- using plants. • Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. • Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation ' and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. • Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge. • Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. • Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored ' rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. • Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. • Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge. • To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. D. Level of Significance After Mitigation , Insignificant i 1 i 1 02A.LF.1 2/08/94-EIR , 2.8.2 Wastewater A. Existing Conditions Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for Lafayette is the responsibility of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The District treats wastewater at its facility in east Martinez. This treatment facility has a current capacity of 45 million gallons per day (mgd) Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) and 210 mgd Peak Wet Weather Flow. Over the last three years average ADWF is 33.6 mgd14. The District has adequate treatment and disposal capacity to meet all projected growth within the District through the late-1990s. The District has prepared long-term improvement plans base on a parcel-by-parcel build-out projection for the entire District. As needed, the treatment facility will be expanded to treat a flow of 60 mgd ADWF by the year 203514. The District has already projected future development within Lafayette on a parcel-by- parcel basis using current zoning and General Plan land use designations. District projections are based on providing treatment and disposal to treat a minimum of 100 gallons per day per capita for residential development and 1,500 gallons per acre per day for non-residential uses. The District has adequate treatment and disposal capacity to meet projected growth in Lafayette through the late-1990s. The District's collection system and treatment master plans have identified the facilities' improvements needed to maintain service at or above this level for the future. These facilities are prioritized and scheduled for implementation in the District's Capital Improvement Budget and Ten- Year Capital Improvement Plan, which are updated annually. Required upgrading of the wastewater collection system has likewise been identified, prioritized, and scheduled; the Districts' Waste Water Collection System Master Plan and later analyses re-evaluated the capacity and condition of all collectors exceeding 10 inches in diameter and some of the 6-inch and 8-inch collectors. Each year, the projects highest in priority are constructed. Within the proposed Project Area, several existing sewer deficiencies have been identified where existing 6-inch diameter sewer mains should be upsized to 8-inch ' diameter: Lafayette Circle (Hough Avenue to Mt. Diablo Blvd.), Mt. Diablo Blvd. (Lafayette Circle - east to Moraga Road), Moraga Road (Mt. Diablo Blvd., to Plaza Drive), and Plaza Drive (Moraga Road to Golden Gate Way).14 ' The District has completed a capacity study for the sewer system downstream from the proposed Project Area. This study determined that the existing sewer system will be deficient during extreme rain events. Improvements to correct the deficiencies are in the District's Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Improvements to the District's existing facilities that are required as a result of new development will be funded from applicable District fees and charges. The developer will be required to pay these fees and charges at the time of connection to the sewer system.14 Developers who seek to connect residential or non-residential developments to the public sewer system are required to adhere to the District's Standard Specifications for Design and Construction and pay all applicable fees and charges. The collection system 14 The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (see Appendix C), March 15, 1994. 02A.LP.12/08/94-EIR 86 is more than adequate for any small subdivisions. Projects that include ude more than 50 dwelling units require the District to conduct an analysis of the ability of all downstream collectors to absorb the increased flows. Thresholds of Significance The following significant threshold has been established by the AEP idtie<Gri�tt ;;< `« " < _ ;:: : ,;:,.,,>::6;::r <:>:I as a uidelin f r impacts ageIm t o thy. Laette.. .al,Pat g e o mpg is to .. .. wastewater facilities: • Significant impacts would occur if the project-related demand caused an increase in wastewater treatment that reached or exceeded the current capacity or caused a reduction in the level of service, thereby requiring expansion or development of new facilities. .............>:[':' ;;.>:,.>:. ' iii:::;:„ n;. :.: >:; :':: `; :;:..::......:.... `:;;;:;1'`°':<< ��p aft t tra s::..:<t gat toteg tt.rta ate a qty «::'i <d t:°`:effl.u. t.fvr.. li.res tferrt€ai€ar c€ onT 5;:W Saracts< €... ..........:.................................:........................................:.....:.::...........:..... �....::1r..:.:....:..s.. .............................. ::::::::.::::::::::::: ..................................::.:::.::.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:: B. Impacts Long-term implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increased demand upon the existing wastewater treatment facility. Assuming General Plan build-out, the Plan's long-term implementation could result in an increase of approximately 13,200 gallons per day (gpd) of additional wastewater being added to the treatment plant's existing flow. The total represents less than one percent of the current facilities' available capacity of 11.4 mgd. However,this increase will be incremental over the life of the 30-year Plan. Plan-related development could occur over the next 30 years which would coincide with the District's expansion of the treatment facility to 60 mgd by the year 2035. Thus, General Plan build-out of the proposed Project Area would represent one-tenth of one percent of the District's available capacity based upon the proposed expansion,therefore,no significant impacts to wastewater treatment facilities will occur. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that significant, Plan-related development projects will occur in the short-term future because adequate funding sources will not , be available from the Agency to assist or promote development of those projects. This will allow adequate time for the potential expansion of a wastewater treatment facility if deemed necessary by treatment facility officials. C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. To ensure that long-term growth does not significantly impact wastewater facilities,the following recommendation is presented for the decision-making body's consideration: ' • All Plan-related growth inducing projects should be evaluated by Agency staff working with City staff on a project-by-project basis to determine their impact upon the wastewater treatment facility and infrastructure. No project should be approved unless the wastewater treatment facility and infrastructure are adequate to meet projected demand. • Applicants for discretionary development should be encouraged to employ practices that reduce the quantities of wastes generated by employing 02A.LF.12108/94-.EIR 87 ' applicable water conservation techniques cited in Section 2.8.1, Water Resources, and promote resource recovery. i 1 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 88 2.8.3 Solid Waste A. Existing Conditions The City of Lafayette is within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD). The CCCSD franchises solid waste for the City of Lafayette. As such, the City has delegated many of the responsibilities associated with solid waste management issues to the CCCSD. It is estimated that the City of Lafayette generated 20,633 tons of solid waste in ' 199315 of which 16,19413 tons were disposed of at landfills. This is a decrease from 1992 where 23,82513 tons of solid waste was generated of which 20,78713 tons were disposed of at landfills. To comply with the California Integrated Waste Management ' Act of 1989 (AB 939), the City has a "Source Reduction and Recycling Element" and a "Household Hazardous Waste Element". Development of these plans was overseen by the CCCSD. These Elements provide details of current and projected waste , generation and how 25 percent of this waste stream can be diverted from landfills over the short term (prior to 1995, and 50% by the year 2000) per the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Plan. The City, in conjunction with the CCCSD, is implementing the recommended recycling,composting,source reduction,special waste ' and public education programs, as defined within the Elements to comply with State Law. As of 1993, 21.5% of the solid waste generated in Lafayette was diverted away from the landfills and recycled which is an increase from 12.8% in 1992. Thus, the City is close to complying with AB 939, which requires a reduction of 25% of the solid waste to be diverted from the landfills and recycled by 1995. Solid waste collected from Lafayette is transported to the Acme Landfill and Transfer Station located east of Martinez from where it is currently exported to Alameda or Solano County for disposal. Thresholds of Significance The following significant threshold has been established by the AEP as a general guideline for solid waste impacts. A project's impacts are considered to significantly impact solid waste facilities if: • An increase in solid waste disposal would cause an accelerated need for additional waste disposal sites or expansion of existing landfill . ' B. Impacts The Plan's long-term implementation could ultimately result in the generation of additional solid waste that would have to be disposed of at county landfills. Assuming General Plan build-out, the Plan's implementation could result in the ' generation of approximately .4 additional tons per day of compacted solid waste, assuming maximum build-out from year one of the Plan's life; this is equivalent to 136 tons per year (tpy). 15 Updated information provided by the Contra Costa County Sanitary District, April 6, 1994. 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 89 ' Assuming the scenario just presented, the increase of additional solid waste9 enerated as a result of the Plan's long-term implementation is less than 1 percent of the total waste presently being collected in the City of Lafayette. However, it must be stressed that build-out could occur over the 30-year life of the Plan. Therefore, it is appropriate to calculate increased consumption on an average yearly basis over the 30-year life of ' the proposed Plan. As such, the increase in solid waste generation over existing use is 4.5 tons per year. This would represent an approximate increase of two-hundredths of one percent over existing City-wide yearly generation. Constraints on the availability of landfill capacity are such that increases in solid waste generation should be considered a regionally significant impact. However, due to the minimal increase in solid waste generation and the implementation of the SRRE which will ensure that the City reduces solid waste generation in accordance with the State requirements under AB 939 there will be no significant impacts to solid waste facilities as a direct result of the proposed Plan. ' C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of oroiect aooroval. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 90 1 2.8.4 Police Protection A. Existing Conditions Police protection for the City of Lafayette is provided by the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department under contract with the City. The City is currently contracted for 14.5 officers and one part-time clerical,person. Relief officers and detective services are provided by the Sheriff's Department. The City is divided into two patrol beats, north and south of Mt. Diablo Boulevard. There is a minimum of two patrols on duty at any one time. , Response time for emergency calls which are usually traffic-related or calls from the commercial core area which is part of the proposed Project Area is generally within 2-3 minutes. Average response time for priority actions for the City as a whole averages 5-7 minutes. The major areas of concern for the police are traffic-related incidents and burglary. The traffic incidents are due, in large part, to traffic coming from or going to ' destinations outside Lafayette. The City has a very low police to population ratio. When one.considers a typical ratio of 1.5 officers to 1,000 population, the City should have 34-36 officers. The ' neighboring city of Pleasant Hill has 46 officers for a population of about 30,000 people. Despite this low staffing ratio, the Police Chief believes the City is provided with adequate police protection though demands for police response could be decreased if the City had someone available to answer emergency calls for services that , are not directly police matters. Thresholds of Significance The following significant threshold has been established by the AEP aiOX r.l >avvt ...:................................... ................................. .:.::.:.::..::::.::: .:;;.: .:: ::...:.: ::::. ::,..:;.;..: .::.., as a eneral guideline f J! ....ltei P�#1 g g e or police eetYter¥€.. ::eef o f e:. l� yee e. .. protection • A potentially significant impact may be identified when a development will cause the response time for services to increase. a...tr .a. f#ue rn» te est + se :. .... >::: ie€ �icX1> a#Istar.p;;: :;:; :<asstme, 'B. Impacts Future growth occurring within the proposed Project Area, facilitated by the Project's implementation, could ultimately impact the present level of police protection services. The increased demand for services caused by population and employment increases could necessitate future expansion of police facilities and services. ' Based upon build-out of the proposed Project Area the proposed Plan's long-term implementation could result in the addition of approximately 132 residents at build-out. Thus, using the ideal ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 people, build-out within the , proposed Project Area could require one (1) additional officer to be added to the Sheriff's Department over the long-term. However, if the Level of Service remains the same during Plan implementation then additional police officers may not be necessary. If the Level of Service decreases (i.e., response times are 6 minutes instead of 2-3 minutes) then additional officers would be needed to achieve adequate response times; 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 91 therefore, the innpontm to police protection as o n*mub of Plan implementation are considered potentially significant. The actual impact of criminal activity generated by related projects cannot be determined at this time but should be reviewed on a specific project-by-project basis. C. Mitigation Measures The following n-kigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. All proposals shall be reviewed on a project-by-project boohm by the Lead Agency inconjunction with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department -- to determine the need for specific project environmental impact analysis. 2. |nthe event an analysis \adeemed necessary, and said anuk/uiu nhovva evidence of significant negative impact to existing police services- facilities,appropriate mitigations shall be incorporated into the project(s) orvicms'faoi|ities'oppropriatonmitigotionsohe||beinuorporotedintothoproinct(s) by the project proponent prior to project(s) approval. D. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant 02A.LF-12108/94'EIR 92 2.8.5 Fire Protection A. Existing Conditions ' Fire protection for Lafayette is provided by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. This is a County fire protection district governed by the County Board of Supervisors. The district provides fire protection for 355,000 people living within the 185 square mile district. The District operated 19 fire stations with 294 full-time personnel and 78 reserve firefighters. The District maintains three stations in Lafayette (Stations 15, 16, and 17). First response to a fire or emergency medical situation in ' Lafayette comes from one of these three stations. For a minor call or medical call, the District sends out one engine. For structure fires in residences, it sends three engines and a battalion chief, and for a commercial fire it sends out two engines, a truck, and , a fire chief. In these latter cases, some of the equipment and manpower may come from stations outside Lafayette. Stations in Orinda, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek provide second response. Each station in Lafayette is manned by three full-time firefighters. The District attempts to provide a three minute response time within Lafayette. However, the distance to certain residential areas and poor access make this goal unrealistic. Response to remote residences located outside the proposed Project Area at the end of narrow roads can be as long as 7-10+ minutes. The District currently has adequate manpower and equipment to serve Lafayette for ' emergency medical and fires other than wildfires. With additional development and an increase in calls, it may be necessary to add equipment or manpower. Fire District expansion as well as ongoing costs are funded through a special district augmentation fun (through the County). The County Fire Chiefs' Association annually reviews requests for funding and presents the County Board of Supervisors with requests for their approval. Fire District staff indicated three areas of primary concern as regards fire protection in , Lafayette. First, many residences are located in areas with poor access. Secondly, there are areas where there is inadequate fireflow (i.e., the amount of water delivered to a hydrant). The District considers hydrants with under 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) to have inadequate fireflow. The District has prepared a list of inadequate hydrants for Lafayette;there are currently 132 inadequate hydrants in the City. The third main area of concern includes ' the threat of exterior fires or wildland fires. For the most part, only the inadequate fireflows would impact the proposed Project Area. Thresholds of Significance l ................................... The following significant threshold has been established by the AEP ... ; ii` r +tt as a general guideline for fire :.. ... protection services: • A potentially significant impact may be identified when a development will cause the response times for these services to increase. Each department is responsible' for determining if a specific project will increase response times for their service. Ire::stt€ri3s::.. ...:.. .:b..:::..:::€4ri..:..:::....iiiaa.:t::rn:: rar1. r$as €� tifesa ; ft:ii ............................................................................... ::: .::..::. :::::::::::;:::;::::::: ::::::::::::: 02A.1F.12/08/94-EIR 93 hs�<i ' B. Impacts Future growth occurring within the proposed Project Area, facilitated by the Project's implementation, could ultimately impact the present level of fire protection services. The increased demand for services caused by population and employment increases could necessitate future expansion of fire facilities and services. However, the elimination of blighting influences and/or vacant or previously urbanized land will ' decrease certain types of fire risks such as brush fires due to neglected vegetation. Assuming an ideal ratio of 1.5 firefighters per 1,000 residents, implementation of the ' Project could ultimately generate the need for one (1) additional firefighter. However, future demand for additional fire department personnel is based upon Level of Service (LOS) and response times. If the Level of Service decreases (i.e., response times are 6 minutes instead of 3 minutes) then additional firefighters and facilities would be needed to achieve adequate response times; therefore, the impacts to fire protection as a result of Plan implementation are considered potentially significant. Various circulation and infrastructural improvement projects proposed as part of the Project's long-term implementation will help to improve fire truck response times and general department effectiveness. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are a condition of Project approval: 1. All growth inducing Projects shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by the Lead Agency in conjunction with fire department officials to determine the need for specific project environmental impact analysis. 2. In the event an analysis is conducted and said analysis shows evidence a of significant negative impact to existing fire services/facilities, such that existing levels of service and emergency response times deteriorate beyond acceptable levels, the .Project proponent shall work with Agency/City staff to develop appropriate mitigation measures which 8 shall be incorporated into the project(s) prior to the project(s) approval. While not recommended as conditions of Project approval the following recommendation is presented as an example for the decision making body's consideration: • There is a need to address inadequate fireflow and access problems. e New construction should not be allowed without adequate fireflow and access. D. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant 02A.LF.12/O8/94-EIR 94 2.8.6 Schools A. Existing Conditions ' Elementary Schools Public schooling for Lafayette students from kindergarten through eighth grade is , provided by the Lafayette School District'. The District operates five schools: Happy Valley Elementary, Lafayette Elementary, Springhill Elementary, Burton Valley Elementary, and Stanley Intermediate. The first four elementary schools currently ' house students from grades K-5 with Stanley Intermediate housing students in grades 6-8. District enrollment has been growing at al!rate of 2 to 3 percent per year over the past ' five years; this is the equivalent of new students requiring about four new classrooms per year. Currently, the schools are within 50 to 100 students of building capacity. The history of the District enrollment andfuture projections are shown as follows: , YEAR ENROLLMENT 1986 2,398 ' 1987 2,447 1988 2,638 1989 2,757 ' 1990 2,780 1991 2,905 1992 2,954 1993 3,040 1994 3,076 1995 3,161 Source: Lafayette School District ' Unlike many schools in northern California;the schools of the Lafayette School District are not crowded with portable or relocatable units, although several schools do contain modular units which are similar to permanent classrooms. The number of modular and portable classrooms on each campus include: Springhill--five modular classrooms, ' Happy Valley--three modular and two portable classrooms, Lafayette--two modular and one portable, Stanley--three portables (two of these will be eliminated when the new additions are complete), and Burton Valley has no portable or modular units. The District receives Developer Mitigation Fees for new construction in Lafayette. , These fees, authorized by the State, are authorized to construct new facilities or lease or purchase portable classrooms to offset fiscal impacts on school Districts as a result ' of new residential development and the consequent generation of additional students. The District currently receives $1.62 per square foot of all new residential construction and .25C per square foot for new commercial development. The District also owns two schools that are currently not used for public education. ' Montecito School is currently leased for private uses as a day care facility and a private School. Vallecito School is currently leased for a day care facility. 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 95 ' High School ' Public high school education for Lafayette is provided by the Acalanes Union High School District. The District operates five high schools, two of which serve the Lafayette area. Most high School students living in Lafayette attend Acalanes High School while students living at the very south end of the City attend Campolindo High School in Moraga. The enrollment history and District projections for future enrollment are shown below: ' 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ' Acalanes 1358 1274 1137 1060 1031 1028 1060 1045 1095 1110 1140 Campolindo 1202 1117 999 950 917 920 955 960 1010 955 980 ' Acalanes High School has a capacity of 1,545 students and Campolindo High School has a capacity of 1,880 students. As can be seen, the two high Schools currently have considerable excess capacity. Total District student population for 1992 is 4,150 students. The District is currently proceeding with a $34,000,000 renovation project, and upon its completion should have an overall capacity of about 6,000 students, or about 50 percent more capacity than current enrollment. Even with projected growth through the next five years, the District would still be at 75 percent capacity. The District has noted that one large development within the District could skew enrollment projections, perhaps requiring readjustment of School boundaries to insure that all high schools continue to function below capacity. The District currently does not collect developer mitigation fees. The entire developer mitigation fee in Lafayette goes to the Lafayette School District. Community College District The Contra Costa Community College District (CCCCD) operates the Diablo Valley College located at 321 Golf Club Road in Pleasant Hill. According to District officials, the current enrollment (Spring Semester 1994) is 19,90116 students. Based upon the low generation factors per household within the District and the limited amount of development as part of the General Plan build-out scenario (Table 1) it is anticipated a that no significant impacts to the CCCCD will occur as part of Plan implementation. Thresholds of Significance The following significant thresholds have been established by the AEP as a general guidelines for school services: • A potentially significant impact is identified when the capacity of the affected school district is exceeded, and any additional students would exacerbate the problem. If a school district has an existing overcrowding condition, and mitigation cannot remedy the condition, then the project has a significant unmitigable impact. 16 Based upon information provided by the Contra Costa Community ty College District, April 1994. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 96 • Impacts to schools are considered significant if the available educational facilities are inadequate to serve the school-age population generated by the project. B. Impacts Based upon General Plan build-out, the proposed Project could contribute to long-term ' impacts which will affect servicing districts. Long-term Project implementation could result in the following increases in housing and population statistics: Housing: 157 dwelling units Population: 132 people Based on the school age children (5-17 years of age) per household factor of .44, 69 ' new students would be added to City schools over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. This is equal to approximately 2 new students per year for the life of the proposed Plan. The impact of 2 new students per year is insignificant when considering ' the capacity level of the existing schools as described in the existing conditions. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that significant Plan-related development projects will occur in the short-term future because adequate funding sources will not be available ' from the Agency to assist or promote development of those projects. Project related growth is an impact related to the long-term implementation of the General Plan. As such, this growth should be viewed in conjunction with City-wide ' growth and the ability of the affected District to service a "build-out" condition permissible within the General Plan. The State of California indirectly reimburses school districts for tax revenues lost as a ' result of tax increment financing. This is caused by the average daily attendance formulas of the State, and the Serrano vs{. Priest decision. Furthermore, pursuant to State Assembly Bills AB2926 and AB1929, school districts may levy fees up to $1.65 ' per square foot for new residential construction and $.28 per square foot for new commercial and industrial construction. k These fees are made available to school districts for, among other things, the development of additional classroom space and ' the renovation of existing school facilities C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Proiect approval. , 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 97 2.8.7 Parks and Recreation A. Existing Conditions The City owns five properties that are currently used or proposed for use as parks. These are listed below: Site Current Facilities Size Plaza Park No recreational facilities 20,000 sq. ft. Brook Street Park Children's play equipment 8,000 sq. ft. and picnic facilities ' Lafayette Community Park Community Center with adjacent 68 acres children's play equipment 711 St. Mary's Road Two Little League baseball fields 11 acres ' g-acres The City operates and maintain the Plaza Park,the Brook Street neighborhood park, and the Community Center on the Lafayette Community Park. The Little League petitioned the City to lease the 711 St. Mary's Road site; however, that petition was denied. A Master Plan for improving the Lafayette Community Park was prepared in 1988. This Plan recommended development including two softball fields, one Little League field, one full-sized soccer field, two to three undersized soccer. fields, two group picnic areas, 20 family picnic areas, one play lawn, eight acres of turf for informal play, and attendant parking and other facilities. A Landscape and Lighting Assessment District was proposed to finance the recommended improvements to this park. The recommended Assessment District and the consequent fiscal impact on residents were controversial, and the District was not approved. The City has appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission to investigate residents' recreational needs, means of financing improvements, and general recommendations for the parks. The Commission was recently authorized to hire a consultant to poll Lafayette residents on these matters. At this time, the park is open for passive, unorganized use. The City does operate numerous recreational programs.out of the Community Center, and there is a tot lot adjacent to the center. The Olympic Boulevard (Christiansen) site is currently unimproved. It is located e between Olympic Boulevard and Andreasen Drive, just west of Pleasant Hill Road. There have been past proposals that the City should sell this property to use the money to finance improvements to the Lafayette Community Park. Additionally, the Little League has requested that it be allowed to lease property and develop Little League Bfields on the site. At this time, no decisions have been made regarding this property. Other Public Facilities The public has access to playfields and equipment at the several public schools in the area; the six public and two private schools in the City provide 12 soccer fields and 14 softball fields. In addition, there are picnic and play facilities and an amphitheater at the Lafayette Reservoir Park which is operated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD). This large park located in west Lafayette provides a trail system and A02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 98 open space for local residents. Bordering Lafayette on its northwest side is the Briones Regional Park operated by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). The area nearest Lafayette contains mainly open space and hiking trails. Further to the west, camping, archery, fishing, and hiking are available. Just to the southeast of Lafayette is the Las Trampas Regional Wildness, also operated by the EBRPD. This wilder area provides hiking opportunities. , In total,the City owns about 87 acres of park or potential park lands. Very little of this acreage has been developed to meet more than passive recreational needs. Additional recreational opportunities are provided by the Lafayette Reservoir Park, adjacent ' regional parks, and school facilities. Trails , The City is blessed with an excellent trail system which connects Las Trampas Wilderness with Briones Regional Park. The City has a Master Trails Plan in its current ' General Plan which was amended by Resolution No. 41-83. The major trail in the City is the Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail which is maintained by the EBRPD. This trail enters the southern end of Lafayette from Moraga and extends ' to the Lafayette Ridge Trail on Briones Regional Park. EBRPD's Trail Map includes plans to extend the Lafayette Ridge Trail to the east with ultimate connections to Mt. Diablo and Martinez. This trail has not been developed. There is an extensive trail system on the Lafayette Reservoir Park; these trails are maintained by EB MUD. The Walter Costa ' Trail (actually this trail is mainly streets and driveways) connects the Lafayette Reservoir trail system to the Lafayette Ridge Trail. City-owned trails include the Rose Lane Trail, the Springhill Valley Trail, the Silver Springs Loop, the Walter Costa Trail, ' and the western end of the Lafayette-Moraga Ridge Trail. Proposed trails will link the Lafayette Reservoir trail system with the Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail, provide neighborhood links and accessibility to. several of the major trails, and provide , neighborhood links and accessibility to several of the major trails, and provide new major trails in the Burton Ridge area (including extensions to Las Tramps Wilderness) and in the Reliez Valley area. Bikeways ' The City's Master Trail Map includes two bikeways, both of which have been ' completed (i.e. bike lanes along the road). These include a section along Moraga.Road south of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and a major loop connecting the Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail trailhead on Olympic Boulevard (just west of Pleasant Hill Road) with Acalanes High School and the BART station. In addition, bikes are allowed on the 1 Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail. The City General Plan includes a Bikeway Plan. The Plan includes a description and ' map of existing and proposed bike paths (Class I Bikeways), bike lanes (Class II Bikeways). As of 1992, over 90 percent of the bikeways identified in the General Plan have been completed. Thresholds of Significance The following significant thresholds have been established by the AEP d't i*'*"""'Grovi�tt*" jF11a ? et �C#r t#t (. t€�GetZrl I �#1 ageneral guideline for parks and recreation: 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 99 ' • Neighborhood Parks and Facilities should serve a residento o ulation f p p between 3,500 and 5,000 within an approximate one-half mile radius. • A standard of five acres of local parkland per 1,000 population should be maintained. B. Impacts As is the case with other public services, new housing, commercial, and industrial ' development within the proposed Project Area will contribute to existing demands for enhancement of public park and recreation facilities. Assuming General Plan build-out, the Plan's adoption could result in the addition of approximately 388 new residents in the proposed Project Area. In terms of the City standard of five acres of park per 1,000 residents, the population increase could generate a need for approximately 1 acres of additional parkland. However, it should be emphasized that build-out is likely to occur (or may never occur) over the life of the 30-year Plan. Therefore, if development is averaged over the life of the Plan the amount of additional parkland needed is .02 acres per year. City, k sheuld he r#resRed that this sherOW1 does Rat I afayette sar�dar However, due to the location of the ( fj €e>f2 ! o#R" < 3rs # °`':olark to the Cit and the recreational amenities e :: : :: se-�egieaaJs Y that exist, there is adequate park and recreation facilities for the residents of the proposed Project Area and for the City of Lafayette as a whole; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to park and recreation facilities as a result of Plan implementation. Furthermore, no impacts are anticipated to existing and proposed trails and bikeways due to the existing degree of urbanization of the areas within the proposed Project Area that are adjacent to or near City trails and bikeways. C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of Proiect approval: The following recommendations are presented for the decision making body's consideration: �) • Programs should be established creating public-private partnerships for the financing of increased staff, equipment and/or supervision where park space is difficult to acquire. U • Park development impact fees should be required as a condition of granting building permits for construction where the underlying property ahas been previously subdivided. �I 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 100 2.8.8 Flood Control/Drainage A. Existing Conditions Lafayette is drained by a series of creeks. The major creeks in the City include Lafayette, Las Trampas, Reliez, Grizzly, and Happy Valley Creeks. Most of Lafayette, , including the proposed Project Area, eventually drains to Las Trampas Creek which routes runoffs east to Walnut Creek. Flooding ' Areas adjacent to major creeks in Lafayette are subject to flooding during the 100-year storm (i.e., the storm that will happen once every 100 years). This includes the area in the southern portion of the proposed Project Area along the Lafayette Creek. Structures within this flood plain can expect flooding during this peak storm event. The City's Zoning Ordinance includes a chapter on Flood Damage Protection. This chapter , regulates the types of construction and required structure elevations within this flood zone. According to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District t (CCCFCWCD) officials, the most significant flooding problems exist on Las Trampas Creek. The CCCFCWCD is an advisory agency as regards to drainage and flood control within Lafayette. The District noted that while it can comment on environmental ' assessments of proposed projects sent to it by the City, its recommendations are not mandatory. Nevertheless, the District concurs with the City Engineer that there are areas of existing flooding problems, problems that will be exacerbated by any future development in the City. The District has no current plans for conducting any area- wide drainage projects in Lafayette. Creekbank Slope Stability , A number of the major creeks have experienced significant downcutting of the streambed. This has resulted in steep and frequently unstable slopes. During heavy ' rains or when streamflows are high, these banks become saturated and may slide into the stream. This results in the loss of property, potentially damaging damming of the stream channel, and sedimentation of the aquatic environment. To guard against property loss, the City has adopted "Creek Setback Requirements." This Ordinance (No. 334) requires setbacks from the creek, the amount of setback depending on the depth of the channel (twice the channel depth plus a Top of the Bank ' setback where channel depths are 21 feet or less; three times the depth for channels deeper than 21 feet). There are significant slope stability problems on several local streams. With the proposed Project Area,,portions of Lafayette Creek, especially just east of the Lafayette Reservoir site, have significant bank slippage and erosion ' problems. Creekbank protection in Lafayette is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner over whose property the creek passes. The City does not take responsibility for drainage or creekbank problems except as regards protection of certain bridges, areas that are owned by the. City, and street drainage outfalls. Occasionally, the City is required to conduct work on private property to repair problems in the area for which they are responsible. This can be problematic as the City often does not have access 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 101 1 ' rights to the portions of streams whereP roblems are located. Dam Failure Inundation maps showing what areas would be flooded if the dam at the Lafayette ' Reservoir failed have been prepared by EBMUD. This map is shown on Figure 10. Most of the proposed Project Area south of Mt. Diablo would be affected by dam failure at the Lafayette Reservoir. It is the opinion of EBMUD that such dam failure is most unlikely, but if it did occur there would be major property damage and threat to life. Thresholds of Significance ..::::::..:::::..::::................ The following significant thresholds have been established by the AEP acid tji ; virfi l: a eeleilt«o€< t << a:.f.:a::::��te::>. �: � :><:�f...:n as a guideline'' ;;:.::.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:::,::.;:.;:<::;< :,::;.;:<:.;:: 'x: > .: ig de ne for flood control/drainage impacts: • If the proposed Project causes substantial flooding i3cliucjErr"ti -MIR rtas3tejinc >jrj*I , erosion or siltation; • If the proposed Project exposes people or structures to major hydrological hazards such as flooding; • If the proposed Project encourages activities that use water in a wasteful 'I manner. B. Impacts 'I Since the majority of the proposed Project Area is currently urbanized, implementation of the proposed Plan, in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan, would have a 'I minimal increase in the amount of surface flow generated in the City. Increased surface flow could exacerbate flood conditions, and degrade water resources. At build-out, approximately 170.4 acres of commercial and 70.8 acres of residential land of the 294 acre proposed Project Area would be urbanized. The generation of storm water runoff 'I is dependent upon the percent of impervious area; that is, the percentage of total study area covered by asphalt parking areas and building areas. Commercial areas are anticipated to have a coverage of impervious area of 80 to 90 percent, while multi- family residential may vary in the range of 45 to 90 percent, and single-family residential from 10 to 55 percent, dependent upon lot size. Future development of Lafayette would introduce contaminates into stormwater runoff. These constituents include oils and grease, solvents, fertilizers, insecticides, and other chemicals which are easily mobilized by surface water runoff. It is not possible to predict expected water quality changes with accuracy because of the inherent variability in urban runoff characteristics and generally poor reference data on this topic. 'I The general categories of pollutants and types of impacts expected from runoff generated by development are reviewed below: U 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 102 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • r .i4FI/r tvllp eao auu 1� :.iii s '�aao Gp`,�atft 1(•�� ^�A t/ ,� • � ��r■rr .rT;i� �? � Q{1 � 6� � ii{�I< ':�nup ��!°��;�w•i� .. {/ 'r�i�� '�,+ It t�14\j•� i� � ..' r _ / ���►. �, �>► {�• •tar ��r\ 1 IA- \���t\ r ii'/ 6.r , ..-' ' �'r ��rn II■! i�1►� • ��..r•.►•..mil w1f1. . {ir �� ,��i�i�.'1■Lr yii'mit tl►�. �r r: - ►�� it�e ���� r� r*� « pffla�b.. r •I r. r �V `�. i �ry`u' i!!4'-r - �"� �Ii {r \S����1 �arirr .a{ • �_Irr.�IIIA ♦ , � � , �+`�`%'flD- `„�.. oar •� �'� 1'� ��,�1 .rr'�"�"`��� \ t� ._.�P:�q`�t�Ot J as n t��~ OA ♦_ ter:� �/\` .S Wit'♦ �` 411, �f�r �, � � ;dobe°.° D`."►.�� `r �,���I��l �.-^l �t �� �•� r ` ip'"q`ls3X�=tt�yyu�a_ .7/•41 Jr..MI , J �1y+► - t -:�\ S.W o (},�r .Iii • • ♦ 4w o•tno�i"° C...��N uud6. ,� � t 'lh� ICOR. ! �' .•��•.uu11111 � � 1 •aal�li , 11 v dill.3:19ooc pao�ntvooncq� I�/►�`-� Lnwndra f�y•axle_ ja A�urF� /A•1���` ��♦ �♦ Nql � •i/I1 Y 11J� "�9t]...11dy!�1�/i [/ tr r � i }��GI �i{r11�� ♦rdt �1 •.��U InA>ti�nG w:i■�"� � ♦ � �'1�■1.1 1 X1111 11 1<n+ ci-i`::■ i:lfi,/ a.►/M ���� t '1 1 .I,+awn., L' =�us a��d�e '• :'�,,N. � � 1 111 ��•'�,[ .rlH�t�l�": :■?t � R`= n,�.may` J 111 nR •1� .nl,g l ti: ���=r.1. ��;.tjyt`•+f� rr7ill111! =s /moi�i{:6_�t..,-o r_;•�l��+ia���:�11R� ■� h � ,i:.�"'• ,:" ::. :Ten=�' '�� t��� �. • 101111 1 ♦ s� ^S_► ♦~�1 I��ill 1tr � � _Mami, ♦ rl !t � �i.� o� �� t S� � � a>• r .�fCl1� Il :� i■�i.Irfp�� •�1��■r y�C X�/� � � • .�n So/ids, Nutrients and Organic Matter Suspended solids, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), and oxygen-demanding substances are commonly present in urban runoff in significant concentrations, and all would be associated with Lafayette. 1. Suspended Solids. Concentrations in urban runoff are fairly high in comparison with sewage treatment plant discharges, although the character of the suspended solids differs. Solids in urban runoff are more likely to be higher in mineral and man-made products and may also have other contaminants absorbed on to them. 2. Nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorous are generally present in urban runoff; however, concentrations are not usually high in comparison with other possible discharges to receiving water bodies (e.g., sewage treatment plants and agricultural runoff). 3. Oxygen-Demanding Substances. Organic matter, as measured b BOD, s (biochemical oxygen demand after five days), is present in urban runoff at concentrations approximating those in secondary treatment plant discharges. This could pose special concerns with respect to dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving waters (e.g., Las Trampas Creek and Lafayette Creek) if adequate dilution is not provided for. 4. Heavy Metals. Heavy metals (especially copper, lead, and zinc) are by far the most prevalent priority pollutants found in urban runoff. End-of-pipe j concentrations commonly exceed water quality criteria (e.g. freshwater acute and chronic toxicity levels) and drinking water standards. For the future development in Lafayette, heavy metals are not expected from heavily trafficked urban areas. 5. Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in urban runoff can originate from accidental spills or deliberate dumping of lubricating oils or fuel oils; from emissions of engines during normal operations, such as vehicle exhaust particulate or fill drippings of crankcase oil;from rainout of atmospheric particulate;from spilling of crude or refined petroleum products;from leached or eroded pavement;from natural seepage on land; or from natural biogenic sources. The predominant contributor to oil and grease in urban runoff is most likely automotive crankcase oil, a refined distillate petroleum product. This is a potential concern in future residential development in Lafayette. �i 6. Pesticides and Trace Organics. The presence in typical urban runoff of pesticides and other trace organic pollutants is very site specific. Major nationwide urban runoff monitoring efforts have revealed 63 of 106 priority �( organic pollutants in detectable quantities. Water quality standards tend to be exceeded for pesticides less frequently than for heavy metals in typical urban runoff. There are only rare instances of exceedance of freshwater acute to city levels for pesticide and trace organic constituents. 7. Bacteria. Coliform bacteria are present at high levels in urban runoff, and can usually be expected to exceed water quality standards for contact recreation during and immediately after storm events. Bacteria concentrations may be as much as two orders of magnitude higher than those naturally occurring in small �I 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 104 rural streams, but for urban streams the increase would be much less apparent. The EPA has required Contra Costa County to develop a plan of action to reduce pollution of area streams. To meet the requirements of the Non-Point Pollution Act,the City, 17 other cities in the County,the County, and the CCC Flood Control District have prepared a report that describes existing drainage characteristics and water quality, describes proposed actions to reduce pollution;and details what measures the City will need to take to reduce water quality pollution to a level acceptable to the EPA. Grading,excavation,and construction activities occurring with new development under the proposed Plan, in accordance with the City's General Plan, have the potential to increase erosion of soil and deposition of particles in drainage ways. During future Plan-related construction, runoff from disturbed areas would likely contain silt and debris, resulting in short-term increases in the sediment load of Lafayette and Las j Trampas Creeks, their tributaries, and the drainage systems serving the City. This re- deposition of eroded material could create turbidity (endangering aquatic life), reduce wildlife habitat, and reduce the water-carrying capacity of the streams and drainage ways,thereby potentially aggravating flood conditions. The significance of this impact would vary depending upon the level of construction activity, weather conditions, soil conditions, and the increased sedimentation of drainage systems within the area. Construction of residential housing in the proposed Project Area could expose more people to safety hazards and property damage associated with flooding. Many portions of the proposed Project area are located in 100-year flood zones. These areas are located primarily along Lafayette Creek within the Corridor Area. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Proiect approval: 1. All Plan-related, growth-inducing projects shall be evaluated by Agency staff working l� with City staff on a project-by-project basis to determine their impact on flood control/drainage and water quality. No project shall be approved unless there is adequate on-site drainage and no significant impacts to water quality. While not recommended as a condition of Project approval,the following recommendations are presented for the decision-making body's consideration to further reduce potential flood impacts to proposed Project Area people and structures: • All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. • At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood. • The foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies. • Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 105 2.8.9 Utilities A. Existing Conditions All electricity and natural gas is provided to the City of Lafayette by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Thresholds of Significance The following significant threshold has been established as a guideline for public utilities: • The proposed Project will have significant impacts if there is a need for new systems, or if there are substantial alterations to the power utilities. B. Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project will have an indirect impact on the increase of energy consumption throughout the City. As redevelopment, rehabilitation and public improvement projects are undertaken, in accordance with the proposed Plan, a spin-off effect will be created that establishes adequate economic motivations/opportunities for the development of unimproved properties and upgrading of existing development. Such stimulated growth, in accordance with the City's General Plan densities and land use designations, will result in the increased consumption of energy. While the exact requirements for future energy consumption throughout the proposed Project Area cannot be established at this time, PG&E based upon information within the Lafayette General Plan, has indicated that significant negative impacts will not occur as a result of the proposed Project. �f Proposed improvement projects will not significantly affect the long-term availability of { noted local/regional energy resources. Such projects include street improvements, storm drain projects, sewer and water projects, pedestrian and vehicular circulation projects, park and beautification improvements, and commercial and residential rehabilitation and development assistance programs. C. Mitigation Measures i No mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval. However, to further insure the insignificance of Project related impacts upon proposed Project Area utility purveyors and to insure that energy conservation is practiced within the `! proposed Project Area, the Agency should consider the following measures: Electrical Service Developers in the proposed Project Area should coordinate with PG&E regarding the � 9 location and phasing of required on-site electrical facilities. Proposed building construction should comply with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. On-site electrical lines should be installed underground. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 106 Project planners and architects should consult with PG&E regarding current energy conservation techniques. Project planners and architects should also consider the use of energy-efficient architecture and landscape design concepts which will work to reduce the long-term demands for fossil fuels. Such measures should include the following: 1. Architectural planning and design, to the extent feasible, should take full advantage of such concepts as natural heating and/or cooling through sun and wind exposure and solar energy collection system opportunities when practical; and, 2. Landscape design should be tailored, where feasible, to use the requirements of individual structures, with the intent to minimize heat ' gain in summer, maximize heat gain in winter, and promote air circulation for heating and cooling purposes. Natural Gas Natural gas service to the proposed Project Area should be in accordance with PG&E policies and extension rules as required. These are on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the following general measures are recommended: 1. The thermal insulation installed in walls and ceilings should meet or exceed the standards established by the State of California. cr- 2. All buildings should be constructed in conformance with Title 24, Part 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2 of the California Administrative Code. 3. Windowless walls for western exposures and sill orientation of buildings to use solar heating systems and efficient heating-cooling systems should be installed whenever feasible. 4. The use of landscaping to moderate building heat gain, such as the use of deciduous trees in parking areas and on the southern and western exposures of buildings to provide shade during the summer, yet allow maximum light and heat during the winter, should be encouraged. 5. Energy conservation methods that could be readily incorporated into a r development should be conceived during the design phase of the project. Consultation with PG&E during the design phase will facilitate the process of adapting the project's architectural design to the 1 ; maximum efficient energy use. 02A.LF.12/08194-EIR 107 � 2.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following section contains excerpts from the Lafayette General Plan Data Base as previously incorporated by reference. A. Existing Conditions The first known inhabitants of the Lafayette area were the Costonoan or Ohlone Indians. The political organization of the Ohlones has been described as an "ethnic group" rather than a tribe. In most cases,the ethnic groups were small in number and divided between several settlements. The Ohlones occupied areas along permanent and seasonal drainages, flat ridges and terraces. Permanent villages were usually placed on elevations above seasonal flood levels. Small auxiliary settlements were frequently abandoned, newly founded, or reoccupied depending on local conditions. Surrounding areas were used for hunting and seed, acorn, and grass gathering. In most cases, a natural drainage area defined the territorial limits. Catholic Franciscan priests, originating from Spain, set up six missions in Ohlone territory. The mission period ended in approximately 1834 and the damage to Ohlone life was irrevocable. Tribe after tribe were decimated by disease and death. The granting of a Mexican land grant (Acalanes Rancho) occurred in 1834 and the City of Lafayette was established in 1848. The early Anglo settlers of Lafayette constructed several buildings, a few of which survive today as reminders of Lafayette's historic past. A cluster of these historic structures, including the Third School House, is located in downtown Lafayette. Numerous prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified along Lafayette's creeks, where foothills meet valleys and at vegetation ecotones. There is the possibility of unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources in the City of Lafayette. Historically,.there has been activity in the area since the granting of Rancho Acalanes and establishment of the City of Lafayette. Therefore, there is the possibility, in many areas, of historical cultural resources associated with the settlement and subsequent occupation of the Lafayette area. The City Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 6-21 provides for the designation of historical landmarks within the City. Historic buildings can be nominated for such designation by the owner of the property or the Lafayette Historical Society. Nominations are reviewed, and those structures that meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 6-21 may be designated historical landmarks by the City Council. Once a structure is so designated, anyone owning, renting, or occupying the structure must procure a certificate of appropriateness from the City Council before making any environmental change to the property. Certificates are issued if the proposed changes will not adversely affect the 1 significant historical or aesthetic features of the property and the changes are warranted as determined by the County building inspector, the fire department, or the County health department. Five properties have been designated Historical Landmarks, all of which are within the proposed Project Area: 1. Plaza Park (bordered by Moraga Road, Golden Gate Way, and Plaza Way) 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 108 2. Way Side Inn (3521 Golden Gate Way; A.P. No. 243-222-018) 3. The former Pioneer Store (3535 Plaza Way; A.P. No. 243-222-020) 4. Town Hall (southeast corner of Moraga Road and School Street; A.P. No. 234- 042-010) 5. A portion of Lafayette United Methodist Church (955 Moraga Road- known as Old Lafayette Grammar School) The Guide to Historical Lafayette includes an additional ten properties with historic significance. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will have a significant impact on the cultural resources if it: • Disrupts, alters, or adversely affects a prehistoric archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; • Results in direct adverse impacts (e.g., ground-disturbance and construction activities) or indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources (e.g., vandalism, increased erosion, or vibration during heavy grading); • Results in adverse effects to a prehistoric building, structure, or object; • Affects a landmark of local cultural or historical importance; or • Restricts existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. B. Impacts Implementation of the Plan could impact existing historical resources that are located within the proposed Project Area. Impacts could ultimately result from, 1) demolition, 2) removal from the existing site, and/or 3) structural modification of buildings that could have historical significance. These impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the measures contained in C. Mitigation Measures. The degree of impact to unknown archaeological resources cannot be determined as this time. Future assessment of impacts upon potential proposed Project Area cultural resources will have to be evaluated at a future time, on a project-by-project basis, after project specifics such as location, type of development, densities, etc., are known to the Lead Agency. However, due to the existing degree of urbanization within the proposed Project Area impacts to archaeological resources are expected to be insignificant. C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions as Project approval and shall apply in the event significant cultural resources are found during l� implementation of the Plan related projects. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 109 ��` 1. In the event presently unknown archaeological or historical resources are discovered during development of specific projects, work shall be terminated until such time that a certified archaeological/historical consultant can investigate the findings. In such a case, the investigating archaeologist/historian shall determine appropriate future actions that must be taken prior to continuation of all affected project(s). 2. All structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall be evaluated for historic significance in accordance with the historic resources guidelines set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 6-21). 3. The existing condition of all historic structures that are approved for demolition, removal from existing site and/or modification shall be documented with photographs and written descriptions prior to commencement of the approved action. Level of Significance After Mitigation Insignificant 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 110 �f 3.0 ' AL TERNA T/VES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ~ 3.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1 No Project The no project alternative would, for an indeterminable period of time, prevent many of the potential side effects that could be generated from proposed redevelopment projects, such as incremental traffic increases, noise generated, increased air contaminants, public safety liabilities, and increased water consumption and wastewater generations. This alternative would require, 1)that the redevelopment action initiated by the Redevelopment Agency and 2) that the long-term growth, as outlined in the General Plan, be terminated. Without redevelopment authority and financial mechanisms, the adverse conditions in the proposed Project Area may increase,thereby,further contributing to a continuing decline of the area, as well as negatively affecting physical and economic conditions in surrounding areas. The Agency, as part of its broader purpose, proposes to alleviate existing conditions of deficiency, primarily by alleviating public utility infrastructure and public facilities deficiencies. Long-term Agency actions are expected to encourage and promote the rehabilitation, and development of permitted land uses and ancillary activities within the proposed Project Area and its environs. Under the "no project"scenario,the proposed Project Area will continue to experience negative impacts related to noise, geotechnical hazards, air pollution, and traffic congestion. Without the Project, the proposed Project Area will continue to be impacted by inadequate roadways, storm drain/flood control deficiencies, obsolete and underproductive commercial areas, that generally characterizes the entire proposed Project Area. Directly related to these impacts the "no project" alternative would virtually eliminate the Redevelopment Agency's ability to attain its goals and objectives as described under 1.0, Project Description, in this Report; the Agency would be disabled in its attempt to correct and mitigate conditions of blight within the proposed Project Area. The City would ultimately be constrained in its ability to implement many of the goals and objectives of its General Plan. While the long-term implementation of the Project is generally seen as a positive action, its implementation will affect environmental change. Conversely, the selection of the no project alternative would prevent the occurrence of Project related environmental change thereby resulting in a reduction of the following Project related impacts: �\ • Approximately 18,386 additional average daily trips; • Consumption of approximately 23,892 additional gallons per day of water; • Generation of an additional 13,200 additional gallons per day of wastewater; • Generation of 136 additional tons of solid waste per year; • Additional 2 students per year over the life of the Plan; • Increase in short-term noise levels due to construction activities; and • Decrease in air quality as the result of an increase in average daily trips and construction activities. Naturally, since some growth will occur regardless of whether the Project is adopted and implemented, a full realization of this reduction would not be achieved under this alternative. Such a reduction would represent an equivalent reduction of impact upon noise generated, increased air contaminants and water consumption as previously discussed earlier in this EIR. The positive impacts of the no project alternative would be that less physical impact on the environment, caused by new and intensified land uses and ancillary activities, would likely 02A.LF.1 2/06/94-EIR 1 1 occur because of a continued slower rate of growth caused by-existing limits to infrastructure capacity, a less viable local economy, and less activity in the rehabilitation and/or construction of existing undeveloped and/or underutilized residential and commercial parcels. In the final analysis, the no project alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project because the environmental benefits that will be realized from the Project, such as: (1) storm drainage and flood control improvements, (2) aesthetic improvements through the redevelopment of deteriorating structures and infrastructure, (3) public safety improvements, (4) creation of jobs through the expansion of commercial development, (5) historical preservation improvements,and(6)the provision of affordable housing and community facilities improvements, outweigh the environmental benefits that would be obtained by not approving the Project such as a slower increase in traffic generation, noise generation, air contaminant generation and water consumption. 3.2 Alternative Project Areas The proposed Project Area was chosen by the Agency based on.its analysis of existing conditions, characteristics and the need for effective redevelopment of the Area based upon the criteria established within the California Community Redevelopment Law. Following is a discussion of two specific alternative proposed Project Areas of varying size. 1 Alternative 1 - Extension of proposed Project Area.Boundaries An increase in the proposed Project Area's size caused by the inclusion of other areas of the City would be inappropriate. Agency consultants conducted a survey early in the Project's adoption process and determined that physical and economic conditions found in some adjacent areas of the City do not presently evidence the blighting conditions existing within the boundaries of the proposed Project Area; nor are they presently needed to permit the effective redevelopment of the proposed Project Area. The exclusion of other portions of the City is appropriate at this time in that the conditions predominating in these areas do not presently represent areas of immediate need requiring Agency assistance. The areas excluded from the proposed Project Area represent, to .a great degree, newer residential and commercial areas of the City, where infrastructure is less likely to require upgrading or replacement or where issues of land use compatibility, property neglect, obsolescence and economic disuse are not prevalent. Achievement of Agency goals would be less likely to occur if additional areas were added since the limited resources of the Agency could be expended on areas not presently in need of upgrading. The expenditure of resources �. on areas that have been reviewed and found to be presently inappropriate for inclusion in a redevelopment project area, would be environmentally unsound because monies and resources could be diverted to those areas that are not truly in need of significant upgrading to the detriment of those that are. In the final analysis an extension of proposed Project Area boundaries is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project because the environmental benefits of the proposed Project, such as the infrastructural improvements included in the Project Improvement List (Appendix A), might not be fully implemented if this alternative were selected. Additionally, this alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed Project in that it could result in the unnecessary expenditure of resources within areas that are not presently in need of agency assistance, thereby, depriving those areas that are .presently in need of upgrading, in accordance with State law. An extension of proposed Project Area boundaries is inappropriate for the above cited reasons. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 1 1 2 •� Alternative 2 - Deletion of Residential Properties A reduction in the proposed Project Area's size caused by the elimination of various developed or undeveloped assessed properties would diminish the Project's ability to address conditions of deficiency and underutilization within the proposed Project Area. As an example, the elimination of all residential parcels from within the boundaries of the proposed Project Area would result in the exclusion of approximately 94 acres of developed land resulting in a reduced proposed Project Area of approximately 200 acres. The reason for this alternative is to lessen the impacts on the proposed Project Area residents from short-term traffic, noise and air quality impacts caused by construction of redevelopment projects and long-term demographic impacts, by reducing the number of housing units that could be built or rehabilitated in the proposed Project Area. An alternative project area of reduced size would, for an indeterminable period of time, prevent or minimize many of the potential side effects that could be generated from proposed redevelopment projects, such as incremental traffic increases, noise generated, increased air contaminants, public safety liabilities, and water consumption. However,the proposed Project Area was selected based upon existing conditions of deficiency and the need for redevelopment to mitigate those conditions. In addition,the proposed Project was initiated to assist the Agency and the City in furthering the achievement of goals and objectives as defined within the City's General Plan. A reduction in the proposed Project Area's size brought about by the elimination of various developed or undeveloped residential properties would diminish the Agency's ability to address conditions of deficiency within the proposed Project Area, as defined in Section 1.4 of this EIR and the Preliminary Report, and diminish the City's ability to achieve the long-term goals and objectives of the General Plan. Proposed redevelopment projects and programs would be handicapped through the reduction of future tax increment revenues. With a localized Redevelopment Program, the tax increment created within the proposed Project Area alone constitutes the primary revenue source available to fund necessary redevelopment projects. Alternatives to reduce the total acreage of the proposed Project Area's size would significantly impede the Agency's ability to carry out targeted redevelopment projects by reducing available funding. This alternative may deprive residential property owners excluded from the proposed Project r, Area boundaries of infrastructural improvements,such as water,drainage and circulation which would result within the proposed Project Area as part of the Project's long-term implementation. Therefore, housing units built outside the proposed Project Area may not be as well served by infrastructure as they would have been had they been built in the proposed Project Area. If housing unit construction or rehabilitation does not occur in conjunction with other redevelopment activities, the benefits of those redevelopment activities will lack coordination and may not directly benefit the population located in the alternative proposed Project Area boundaries. For this reason, this alternative is considered inferior to the proposed Project. The existing conditions of deficiency, as described in Section 1.4 of this document and the Preliminary Report would not be alleviated within those areas eliminated from within the proposed Project Area boundaries. The proposed Project Area was chosen based upon existing conditions of deficiency, which have been documented by the Agency, that are negatively affecting that Area's physical and economic condition. To allow these conditions to perpetuate themselves would not effect environmental benefit to any portion of the proposed Project Area or the City as a whole. In the final analysis, the deletion of residential properties is not environmentally superior to the p � 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 1 1 3 proposed Project because the environmental benefits of the proposed Project, such as: (1) coordinated low income housing development that would result from the proposed Project, (2) flood control and drainage improvements, (3) employment opportunities in the area that would be excluded from the alternative proposed Project Area, (4) achievement of long-term General Plan goals and objectives, and (5) aesthetic improvements to the area that would be excluded from the alternative proposed Project Area, outweigh the environmental benefits of the alternative Project which would include reduced traffic generation, reduced noise impacts, reduced air contaminants, and reduced water consumption. 3.3 Limited Redevelopment Activities This alternative to the proposed Project would be effectuated by reducing Agency activities and/or authority within the proposed Project Area. The effect of such a reduction in Agency activities would vary with the specific reduction. For example, limiting Agency assistance in providing needed public improvements and facilities would reduce the likelihood that such improvements and facilities would be provided. In as much as these improvements and facilities would mitigate existing deficiencies and growth related impacts, the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Limited Redevelopment Activities Alternative would be greater than those occurring as a result of the proposed Project's implementation. Additionally, tax increment revenues would be severely restricted by reducing the size of the proposed Project Area. Such restrictions or limitations would result in commensurate reductions in the Agency's ability to undertake the Redevelopment Program as contemplated by the Agency including: 1) reductions in public improvements and facilities provided, 2) a restricted ability to eliminate conditions of deficiency, 3) a reduced ability to implement the goals and objectives of the Lafayette General Plan and to eliminate existing environmental deficiencies and problems occurring within the proposed Project Area. One specific alternative to the proposed Project would limit redevelopment activity and prevent monies from being spent on public infrastructural improvements. In particular, these projects are designed to improve existing water, sewage and street systems. Limiting Agency assistance in providing needed public improvements would reduce the likelihood that such improvements would be provided. The impacts of this alternative would be that deficiencies now existing within these infrastructural systems would not be mitigated. Thence,the capacity of the systems to absorb growth would be very limited. Other redevelopment activities such as the financing of housing and commercial development, and rehabilitation programs, would also be limited by the current ' capacity of existing infrastructure. The environmental benefits of no infrastructural improvements would be that short-term impacts from traffic disruption and construction noise would be eliminated. Growth in population and traffic volumes would also be limited. These limitations would decrease certain environmental impacts such as air pollution, energy and natural resource consumption. However, assuming some growth will occur regardless of a redevelopment project, limiting infrastructural activity could be harmful to the environment. For instance, untimed traffic lights and deficient roadways may cause more congestion, safety hazards and pollution from idling traffic; inadequate storm drain facilities will increase erosion potential and threaten the safety of the , general public. In the final analysis, the limited redevelopment activities alternative is not an environmentally superior alternative to the Project because the environmental benefits of the limited redevelopment activity, such as: (1) a decrease in short-term impacts from traffic disruption and 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 114 construction noise and, (2) a decrease in long-term impacts on population and traffic volumes, are outweighed by the concomitant negative impacts that would result from limited redevelopment activity such as: (1) increased growth impacts on existing public facilities without upgrading those facilities and (2) the restrictions on the Agency's ability to mitigate current infrastructure deficiencies and undertake aesthetic improvements in the proposed Project Area. 3.4 Financing Alternative The proposed Redevelopment Program is made possible, in large part, by the ability of the Agency to collect tax increment revenues from the proposed Project Area and then use these revenues to fund improvements within the proposed Project Area and within adjacent areas I where funded improvements could be of benefit to the proposed Project Area. An alternative to the .Project would be to undertake a generally similar program relying upon alternative sources of revenue (i.e. other than tax increment revenues). Selection of this alternative would supplant tax increment revenues with funds from a variety of programs and sources, no single one of which would be sufficient in amount or breadth of purpose to accomplish the activities contemplated by the Agency. These alternative sources might include industrial development and mortgage revenue bonds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Economic Development Administration (EDA) funds, and in some cases assessment districts, and other county, state and federal assistance and funding programs. However, Federal and State grants are not definite and require ongoing applications. The proposed Project authorizes the Agency to utilize all of the above financing sources and programs in order to effect redevelopment of the proposed Project Area. Moreover, California Community Redevelopment Law requires that the Agency give consideration to alternative financing sources when it proposes to provide public facilities and improvements with tax increment revenues, in effect causing the examination of alternative financing sources throughout the term of the Project. A specific financing alternative would be to restrict financial resources to commercial development and mortgage revenue bonds. This alternative would severely limit rehabilitation and land write-down grants for construction of low/moderate housing units and other development projects. This is due to the overall reduction of availability in general revenue sharing programs resulting from federal legislation direction. The legislation has effectively limited the availability and general attractiveness of these instruments to developers by imposing restrictions and requirements on proposed developments. Therefore, the impacts of this alternative would make financing housing and other development projects more difficult. This would lessen the ability of the Agency to increase and improve the number of affordable housing units in the City. With less available housing, housing values would increase, y exacerbating the problem of insufficient affordable housing. The reduction in funds available for proposed Project improvements under this alternative could result in the elimination or curtailment in scope of various proposed improvement projects and programs. Under this proposal the Agency could choose to eliminate projects related to public infrastructural improvements. Such elimination would reduce the likelihood that such improvements would occur. The positive impacts of no infrastructural improvements would result in the elimination of some traffic congestion previously identified as a short-term impact as well as short-term noise impacts related to construction activities. The impacts of this alternative would be that infrastructural deficiencies now existing would not be corrected. 02A.LF.12/08/94•EIR 115 Because one of the primary objectives of the proposed Plan is to finance infrastructure improvements such as highways, interchanges, ramps and street improvements, an infrastructure financing district should be considered as an alternative to the Project. Established by Senate Bill 308 in 1990, the enabling legislation (Government Code Section 53395, et seg.) authorizes cities to establish infrastructure financing districts to purchase, construct, expand and improve infrastructure of "community-wide significance." Like the Project,an infrastructure financing district would be funded by property tax increment(although only from certain taxing agencies which consent to give up their increment) and would be able to issue bonds to finance infrastructure activities. However, a number of drawbacks make infrastructure financing districts of limited usefulness. First,the constitutionality of the districts is uncertain. The Legislative Counsel (attorney for the California Legislature) opined that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional because it authorizes tax increment financing without requiring blight, and because an infrastructure financing district is not a "district" entitled to allocation of property taxes. Second, the requirement that taxing agencies must consent by resolution to donate their tax increment to the district severely limits the funds which can be obtained, particularly in comparison to the tax increment funds which would be generated by the Project. In addition, school districts and county boards of education are not even authorized to consent to give up their tax increment. Third, the legislative intent of Section 53395 is that infrastructure financing districts be used only in "substantially undeveloped areas." Only certain limited portions of the Project Area qualify as such. Fourth, the creation of an infrastructure financing district and its issuance of bonds must be approved by a two- (, thirds vote of all owners of property within the district. Obtaining such two-thirds approval would be much more difficult than obtaining approval of the Project. Fifth, the current statute contains a number of technical flaws requiring amendment. A bill has been introduced in the Legislative (Senate Bill 992) may have amended some of these problems, but it has not yet passed. Accordingly, it is uncertain whether a district could be validly formed and made operational. The financing alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed Redevelopment Project. There currently exists no other sufficient financing vehicles available to the City which would sufficiently provide for the elimination of existing deficiencies in the proposed Project Area, as well as reduce the risk of increased negative impacts caused by incremental and sporadic development and growth which could occur in the area without redevelopment. Moreover, there is no assurance that the alternative financing vehicles which are presently available will remain available over the projected 30-year life of the Project. Finally, tax increment revenues may be used for some mitigation activities for which there are simply no alternative financial resources available or expected to becomeavailable in the foreseeable future. Mitigation measures which could be financed with tax increment revenues include those special professional studies and activities in addition to City staff participation which are recommended to be activated (see Section 2 of this DEIR) should development activities sponsored by the Redevelopment Agency require such activation. 'Consequently, I there is a higher probability that under this scenario, existing deficiencies would continue. In the final analysis, the financing alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project because the environmental benefits that could be realized from the Project outweigh possible long and short-term negative impacts. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 1 1 6 4,0 �, TOPICAL ISSUES This Page Left Intentionally Blank 4.0 TOPICAL C ISSUES 4.1 Irreversible and/or Unavoidable Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action, Should It Be Implemented If the proposed Plan is effectively implemented,the following irreversible and/or environmental changes would be involved: a) The development and maintenance of streets, storm drains, and other public facilities, as proposed in the Plan, will involve the irreversible consumption of natural resources in the form of construction materials, water, and energy sources. Money and manpower will be expended to develop and maintain the facilities. Private construction projects will also require the consumption of such resources. b) The development of individual parcels in accordance with land uses designated in the Plan will,for all intents and purposes, eliminate the possibility of development for other land uses. c) A commitment of economic and manpower resources will be required for the long-term implementation of the Plan. d1 Building materials, including forest and mineral products,will be permanently committed in construction projects related to the long-term implementation of the proposed Plan. e) Expenditures of money, manpower, and materials will be made to maintain adequate levels of public service to the greater community while those services are undergoing disruption and modification within the proposed Project Area. f Overall there may b y e impacts to the following areas of concern, previously documented within Section 2.0 of this EIR, due to the growth-inducing nature of the Project: • increased use of water resources and a decrease in air quality; • increase in local traffic; • increase in the ambient noise level; • exposure of additional people and structures to existing geologic hazards; • increase in energy consumption; • increased demand on public utilities and services (sewer, water, police, fire, etc.); • increased demand on solid waste disposal sites; • increased risk of impacting unknown archaeological/historical resources. Incorporation of recommended mitigation measures and the mitigation monitoring program, generally outlined within this EIR,together with the implementation of proposed redevelopment projects that will affect positive changes to the proposed Project Area's deficient physical and economic fabric will insure that all irreversible and/or unavoidable environmental impacts, as described above, can be adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance. 02A.LF.12108194-EIR 117 It is the intention of the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency to pursue the proposed Project regardless of the above mentioned irreversible and/or unavoidable environmental changes because the proposed Project is necessary to reduce and/or eliminate existing conditions of deficiency within the proposed Project Area. These deficient conditions include, but are not limited to: 1) deteriorating traffic/ circulation conditions; 2) lack of adequate pedestrian amenities, e.g., sidewalks, signage, landscaping, parks, etc.; 3) inadequate storm/drainage infrastructure curbs and gutters; 4) economic stagnation; and 5) deteriorating and/or obsolete public and private buildings. A detailed description of the proposed Project Area's physical and economic deficiencies are described within the previously referenced Preliminary Report. A copy of this report is available for public review at the Lafayette City Clerk's office located at 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210, Lafayette, CA 94549. 4.2 CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The Project is a funding and administrative mechanism which allows goals and objectives of the City's General Plan to be effectively implemented. As such, long-term, positive economic and physical growth are expected to occur within the proposed Project Area. The overall intent of the proposed Project and the overriding cause for its adoption is to ensure orderly and- well planned growth within the proposed Project Area and the City as a whole, in accord with the City's General Plan and all other applicable City, State, County and Federal laws and guidelines. Implementation of various projects that will .ultimately occur as a result of the proposed Project's adoption could contribute to regionally cumulative impacts. Because the general plans of other regional jurisdictions and direct growth within those jurisdictions,they too could affect potential long-term cumulative impacts. Evaluation of cumulative impacts contained herein is based upon growth projections by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 1994, for the County of Contra Costa (the "subregion"). These are growth projections that might occur between the years 1990 and 2010; more long-term growth projections are generally unavailable and would be so speculative that their value in forecasting environmental impacts is questionable. It is difficult to determine the appropriate geographic setting whereby cumulative environmental impacts can be adequately evaluated. The Agency has considered several scenarios from which to prepare this analysis and has determined that the boundaries of the County of Contra Costa represent a reasonable geographic setting, suitable for assessing Project related cumulative impacts for the following reasons: 1) The representative County of Contra Costa services a large geographical area with a projected population of 1,104,700 people, a projected housing inventory of 414,020 and a projected employment base of 430,120 people by the year 2010; and 2) Quantification of cumulative impacts in this way permits evaluation at a level that is large enough to consider impacts upon issues of sub-regional importance, yet small enough to identify the value of these resources at the local level; evaluation of cumulative impacts at too small or too large a scale can distort the degree of impact. The approach used in this analysis is intended to focus and quantify impacts to the appropriate areas. Such analysis is in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(B) which permits, "A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions . . . and 15130(b)(3) which requires "A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts . . :" The areawide or subregional setting analyzed within this document will consist of the County of Contra Costa. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 118 , Listed in Table 14 is the breakdown of the projected growth and yearly average increases for civilian employment opportunities, housing units, and population increases for the Subregion. TABLE 14 SUBREGiON,.AL GROWTH FORECAST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Yearly Growth Average 1990 2010 Increase Increase Housing 300,288 414,020 113,732 5,687 Population 803,732 1,104,700 300,968 15,048 Employment 305,140 430,120 124,980 6,249 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 1994 Urban Futures, Inc., 1994 Sub-Regional Growth Impacts Cumulatively, as projected by ABAG, approximately 300,968 people will be added to the sub- region over a 20 year period (1990-2010) or 15,058 people per year. Thus, over the next 16 years (1994-2010) 240,768 people will be added to the sub-region, assuming the average yearly increase. Of this total, build-out of the proposed Project Area could contribute an additional 132. This represents less than one percent of the total increase. Cumulatively,as projected by ABAG,approximately 113,732 housing units will be added to the sub-region over a 20 year period (1990-2010) or 5,687 housing units per year. Therefore,over the next 16 years (1994-2010) 90,992 housing units will be added to the sub region using the average yearly increase. Of this total, build-out of the proposed Project Area could contribute an additional 157 units. This represents less than one percent of the total increase. Cumulatively, approximately 124,980 civilian jobs will be added to the sub-region over a 20 year (1990-2010) period or 6,249 jobs per year. Thus, over the next 16 years (1994-2010) 99,984 civilian jobs will be added to the sub-region based upon the average yearly increase. General Plan build-out within the proposed Project Area, facilitated by the Plan's adoption, will be the result of development and rehabilitation of many existing sites, in accordance with the General Plan. As a result of the long-term implementation of the proposed Plan there could be a long-term increase of approximately 2,556 jobs, or approximately 160 new jobs per year averaged over the next 16 years which is less than three percent of the total sub-regional increase. Plan related growth projections (see Table 1) represent a very small percentage of projected regional growth; as such, negative impacts appear to be minimal (see Table 15). It is reasonable to assume that the region can accommodate Project related impacts without significant adverse environmental effects because this growth is in accord with local and regional growth management plans. Additionally, it must be stressed that future Plan related projects will be the result of development occurring over the life of the 30-year Plan. For example, if the projected population increase of 132 people was averaged over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan, the population increase would be approximately 4 people per year. If the 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 119 � I 1 4 people per year were multiplied over the 16-year period (1994-2010) the figure of 70 would represent approximately two-hundredths of one percent of the regional growth that has been projected by ABAG. Projected increases in both housing inventories and job availability for the same period is adequate to service the increased population. Plan related residential development is approximately one percent of the regional totals; for purposes of comparison this percentage reflects the ultimate proposed Project Area build-out over the first 16 years of the 30-year Plan. This total would be significantly less if averaged out over the full 30-year life of the proposed Plan. Regional development could result in the following cumulative impacts: • Increase in vehicle trips per day; • Increased demand on water resources; • Increased generation of wastewater and solid waste; • Increase in students; • Increase in noise levels; • Decrease in air quality as the result of an increase in average daily trips and construction activities; and Public services. Plan related increases in the consumption of water, generation of waste water and solid waste f are presented in Table 15 as build-out totals, Project related growth will occur in a gradual manner,.peaking, possibly, at the end of the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Project related cumulative impacts will be negligible. Following are options for mitigating the above impacts: 1. Vehicle Trips . Traffic Demand Management Program 2. Water Resources Water Conservation Program including flow restriction devices and drought resistant landscaping 3. Wastewater & Solid Waste Conservation .programs such as: water flow restriction devices and recycling 4. Noise Levels Traffic Demand Management Program, construction site regulations 5. Air Quality Traffic Demand Management Program 6. Public Services Additional public services 7. Student Generation Additional public facilities 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 120 �I TABLE 15.' SUBREGIOIVAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: L.L.L Sub-Regiona116 Development % of Project Related15 Statistics (Includes Sub-Regional Development Statistics Proposed Proiect Area) Proiections Housing 157 90,992 <1 Population 132 240,768 <1 Employment 2,556 99,984 <3 Water Consumption 23,892 36,115,200 <1 1 (Gallons Per Day) Waste Water Generation 13,200 24,076,800 <1 (Gallons Per Day) Solid Waste 136 248,262 <1 (Tons Per Year) 15 Based upon General Plan build-out using the average yearly increase over the next 16 years (1994- 2010). Impacts calculated over the 30 year life of the proposed Plan would be significantly less. 16 Growth projections provided by ABAG based upon the average yearly increase over the next 16 years (1994-2010). Source: Urban Futures, Inc., 1994 4.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The proposed Plan will be the catalyst for long-term growth within the proposed Project Area, however, the proposed Plan will not generate more extensive growth than is currently prescribed under the City's General Plan or, as shown under Section 4.3, Cumulative Impacts, the proposed Plan will not generate significant cumulative impacts on a sub-regional basis. Anticipated negative impacts resulting from the proposed Plan's implementation are considered accepted effects of urbanization, consistent with, and necessary to ensure effective implementation of Lafayette's General Plan. As such, the following aspects of Lafayette's existing environmental setting shall not be significantly adversely impacted by the adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan: • Demographics • Traffic and Circulation • Noise Air Quality • Land Use • Biological Resources • Public Services and Utilities • Earth Resources • Cultural Resources 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 121 5.0 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS DOCUMENT 5.0 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS DOCUMENT This Environmental Impact Report was prepared under contract to the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency by Urban Futures, Inc. The following staff were involved in the preparation of this document: Urban Futures, Inc. Jon D. Huffman, ASLA Principal-in-Charge Charles G. Kovac, AICP Senior Planner Denyse M. Kielb Associate Planner/ Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Diane Donovan Senior Word Processor 02A.LF.12108/94•EIR 122 6.0 t AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 6.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED O SULTED 1. City of Lafayette Planning Department 2. California State Department of Research Demographic Research 3. City of Concord Janet Homrighausen, AICP, Associate Planner 4. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Russell B. Leavitt, AICP, Planning Assistant 5. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Martin Y. Musonge, Sanitary Engineering Associate 6. Department of Fish and Game Brian Hunter, Regional Manager (Region 3) 7. East Bay Regional Park District T. H. Lindenmeyer, Environmental Specialist 8. Contra Costa Community College District Public Economics, Inc. (Advisors to the District) Kerry Kemp 9. California State Department of Transportation Kit Curtiss, Senior Transportation Planner 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 123 t� zo FINAL MIT/GAT/ON MON/TOR/NG PROGRAM i 7.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1. GENERAL A. Need for Monitoring Program 1. A monitoring program is now required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, effective January 1, 1989. 2. A monitoring/reporting program is needed only for impacts which would produce significantly adverse environmental impacts if not mitigated. 3. All Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and mitigated negative declarations must clearly identify which impacts would be significant if not mitigated. Conditions of approval must clearly identify conditions applied to mitigate significant impacts. An ordinance or resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR must adopt the Monitoring Program. B. Type of Conditions Requiring Monitoring Where a mitigation measure is imposed, a monitoring program must be adopted. Some conditions requiring monitoring follow. 1. Conditions Affecting Permanent Construction These conditions affect the permanent design and location of a structure. Examples would include building height, land coverage, floor area ratio, landscaping buffers, etc. 2. Construction Conditions These conditions affect the way construction is carried out. Examples would include hours of operation, erosion control plans, preservation and protection of sensitive habitats, etc. 3. Operational Conditions These conditions apply to the usable life of a structure. Examples would include hours of operation, noise and odor control, occupancy limits, etc. C. Impacts Studied and Found to Not Need Mitigation The following impacts have been studied and found to not need mitigation. LAND USE DEMOGRAPHICS PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Wastewater Solid Waste Schools 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 124 Parks and Recreation Public Utilities II. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES The following procedures are required pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. It should be noted that each amendment related development that does , occur, it will be evaluated on its own merits,and suitable mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with appropriate CEQA regulations. The Developer of any proiect in the proposed Proiect Area shall prepare a written monitoring program consistent with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. This program shall be prepared to the specifications of the Planning Manager or the designee, and shall include at a minimum the following items: 1. A comprehensive phasing program,listing in chronological order the estimated dates for initiation and completion of all adopted mitigation measures, public improvements, grading, and construction approved in connection with the project. 2. If the project is accompanied by a development agreement, owner participation agreement, or other adopted agreement, applicant shall provide a schedule of quarterly reports and meeting to review the status of all mitigation measures, project improvements,and terms of development agreements. The schedules shall identify the parties assigned to complete these reports, their addresses and phone numbers. This information will be used to verify the status of all required mitigation actions. 3. A listing of the City officials and any other individuals under contract to the City (hereinafter referred to as "monitors") assigned to monitor any specific portions of the mitigation program requiring specialized expertise. This list shall be approved by the Planning Director or the designee with respect to the technical expertise and qualifications of said monitors. Monitors shall have full access to the subject property at any time during normal construction, business or operating hours. If Mitigation Measures are placed on the operation of the proiect, monitoring shall continue for the life of said proiect. 4. A checklist identifying all mitigation measures and the date of their proposed completion. The list will be signed by the appointed monitors (as designated per No. 3 above) upon completion of mitigation measures to demonstrate compliance with all applicable mitigation measures. The checklist shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the designee. 5. A signed "mitigation agreement" to the specifications of the City Attorney, which shall bind the applicant to implement all required mitigation measures. The mitigation agreement shall require the Developer to post cash or a letter of credit, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Director or the designee guaranteeing satisfactory compliance of all mitigation measures required by the project approval and which can be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to release of cash or letter of credit posted by the applicant, the Planning Director or the designee shall issue a Certificate of Compliance with the approved monitoring program. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 125 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A. Introduction For the purposes of a Program Environmental Impact Report, it is difficult to prepare a detailed project-by-project mitigation monitoring program since the specific scope and nature of each individual project is unknown. The different and various land uses, specific project scopes, location, timing of adjacent projects, and many other factors affectthe need,viability and usefulness of various mitigation measures. Many mitigation measures will apply almost universally to short-term construction impacts such as congestion, air quality degradation, noise and/or vibration impacts on sensitive receptors. Longer term, the existing negative conditions for undertaking the project in the first place may lessen as project improvements are completed and implemented. It is reasonable to project a typical or " generic" EIR Monitoring Program that would be invoked to accompany a typical redevelopment, infrastructure or rehabilitation project undertaken in the proposed Project Area. The general outline of projects described in Appendix A are almost always undertaken to solve problems created in past waves of development in urban areas and by their very nature deal with the amelioration or ' cessation of harmful effects or impacts which currently exist and helped to create the need to undertake the project and establish redevelopment as the tool for change in these areas. The procedures, when followed, as outlined in Section III above, should allow a flexible and focused project-specific list of mitigation measures which could include but not be limited to the following measures. B. Short- and Lona-Term Mitigation Measures In some instances, certain mitigation measures have been divided into two periods of duration for the purposes of a generic monitoring program. Short-term impacts and mitigation measures generally hereafter apply to the pre-construction and construction phase of each individual project implemented in the proposed Project Area. Long-term impacts generally apply to the post-construction conditions of operations or management of the assets created in the construction or rehabilitation phase and are either project-specific or Project Area-wide. Often once construction is complete, the immediate, obnoxious impacts of the project subside dramatically. The long-term impacts of a project have stronger positive benefits i.e.,jobs or revenue streams to local agencies and government which must be balanced against negative environmental impacts. They also may result in small, incremental increases in amounts of congestion, ambient noise levels, air quality degradation and the like. All other mitigation is long-term. C. Monitoring, Enforcement and Responsibility for Implementation Each grouping of mitigation measures in the following sections assigns responsibilities ' to various proposed Project Area oversight authorities, and applicant/redevelopers. Whether private or public sector, responsibilities for the monitoring, enforcement and implementation of mitigation measures within each topical area are outlined for each grouping of mitigation measures. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 126 D. Short-Term and Long-Term Mitigation Measures Short-term and/or long-term mitigation measures which need to be monitored,enforced and implemented include those associated with Noise, Air Quality, Earth Resources, 1' Transportation and Circulation, Biological Resources, Public Services and Utilities, and Cultural Resources. � i NOISE Short-Term A. Noise Impacts: Implementation of the proposed Plan will generate,directly or indirectly, a variety of construction projects. Development of these projects will generate unwanted noise to varying degrees. B. Mitigation Measures: The following short-term mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: Short-Term 1. All Plan-related structures or properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall.comply with the policies outlined in the Noise Element of the Lafayette General Plan. 2. All Project related construction projects shall be reviewed by the appropriate City department to determine possible short-term noise impacts upon identified sensitive noise receptors and to determine the need for Project specific acoustical analysis. Impacts determined to be significant in Project specific acoustical analysis shall be appropriately mitigated. 3. All construction equipment used for Project related construction activities shall be fitted with exhaust muffling and noise control filter devices to reduce noise impacts. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The short-term mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects during the construction phase of project development by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , MONITORING PHASES: CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS &ENGINEERING DEPTS. Long-Term A. Noise Impacts: An increase in the proposed Project Area's ambient noise levels will occur over the long-term caused by increased growth and activity within the proposed Project Area. Any long-term increase in ambient noise levels will be at levels permitted within the City General Plan and Zoning Regulations; these increased noise levels are 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 127 generally seen as acceptable conditions within the existing parameters of the proposed Project Area's urban setting. B. Mitigation Measures: The following long-term mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval:. 1. All Plan-related structures or properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall comply with the policies outlined in the Noise Element of the Lafayette General Plan. 2. All development projects shall be reviewed by the appropriate City department to determine possible long-term noise impacts upon identified sensitive noise receptors and the need for Project specific acoustical analysis. Impacts determined to be significant shall be appropriately mitigated. 3. Future developments initiated through implementation of the Project shall be allowed only in the areas as designated for that particular land use by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility which will lessen noise impacts upon sensitive noise receptors. As a basis for general compliance, all related long-term site specific land use activities shall adhere to the policies outlined in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. 4. Building setbacks and noise barriers shall be considered and used where appropriate in conjunction with specific development proposals in the proposed Project Area to limit stationary and vehicular long-term noise impacts upon sensitive noise receptors. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The long-term mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. ' (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS &ENG. DEPTS. AIR QUALITY Short-Term A. Air Quality Impacts: Temporary impacts will result from Project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. B. Mitigation Measures : The following short-term mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: a 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 128 i 1. All Plan-related structures ' and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the affected policies pertaining to air quality as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 2. To minimize dust generation during grading operations AQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving operations. 3. In order to reduce pollutant emissions from construction equipment it shall be properly maintained and tuned. C: Mitigation Monitoring Program: The short-term mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects during the construction phase of project development by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. Long-Term A. Air Quality Impacts: The main source of emissions generated by the proposed Plan's implementation will be from-motor vehicles. Regionally, personal commuting, office worker and retail site customer travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local air shed. Locally, project related traffic, especially at a.m. and p.m. peak hours, will be added to the local roadway system. Other emissions will be generated from the residential and commercial combustion of natural gas for space heating and other uses as well as the generation of electricity. B. Mitigation Measures: The following long-term mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. All Plan-related .structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the affected policies pertaining to air quality as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 2. To ensure all future Plan related development and/or construction projects , meet emissions standards set by the BAAQMD, all projects shall be subject to air quality analysis on a project-by-project basis if that Project meets or exceeds the potentially significant Air Quality impacts shown on Table 8 in Section 2.4, Air Quality. Such analysis shall determine specific project impacts and establish adequate,'long-term measures to mitigate impacts if any are determined to exist. 3. The design and development of pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails shall be encouraged within the Project Area as a means for reducing motor vehicle traffic and air pollution emissions. 02A.LF.12108/94-EIR 129 ' C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The long-term mitigation measures should be applied to 9 9 PP public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. EARTH RESOURCES A. Impacts of Geology/Seismology: It is probable that portions of the proposed Project Area will be subjected to one or more significant groundshaking events during its lifetime. Damage to structures could occur and public safety could be threatened if new structures are not constructed to withstand anticipated maximum ground shaking events. People and structures could be susceptible to hazards related to liquefaction and other geotechnical hazards. New development in these susceptible areas, could generate potential risks for people and structures within the proposed Project Area. ' B. Mitigation Measures:The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. Geotechnical and soils engineering reports shall be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of preliminary design layouts and grading plans for Plan- related development projects within the proposed Project Area. These studies will determine specific areas of hazardous soil conditions in those areas generally identified under A. Existing Conditions herein. These reports will provide specific mitigation measures for the treatment of potential geological hazards including seismic shaking, liquefaction and other hazardous soil conditions. ' 2. There are four related initial actions which the City of Lafayette and the Agency shall follow to ensure mitigation of seismic related hazards: a. Utilize geologic and seismic data in land planning so that identified risk areas, if any, are avoided or structures and landforms treated and designed to reflect local site conditions; b. Make sure that local grading and building codes reflect measures to minimize possible seismic damage; C. Inspect older buildings and improve earthquake design features when possible; d. Maintain a disaster preparedness plan. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 130 3. All Plan-related rehabilitation/development activities shall be subjected to the policies as outlined in the Lafayette General Plan. 4. The faults identified in A. Existing Conditions are considered to be seismically active and capable of generating major earthquakes. The direct impacts of these faults upon proposed projects shall be considered during preliminary planning processes, as deemed necessary by Project specific environmental impact analysis. 5. The geotechnical and soils report recommendations as stipulated in C. Mitigation Measures, 1., of this Section, shall be incorporated into the design of new building foundations and roadways. 6. All rehabilitation and new development projects implemented as a result of the proposed Project, shall be built in accordance with current and applicable Uniform Building Code standards and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws,regulations and guidelines,which may limit construction and site preparation activities such as grading, and make provisions for appropriate land use restrictions, as deemed necessary, to protect residents and others from potential environmental safety hazards, either seismically induced or those resulting from other conditions such as inadequate soil conditions, as generally described under A. Existing Conditions, which may exist in the proposed Project Area. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING &PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Impacts on Biological Resources: Future development and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area, in accordance with the City's General Plan, City Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable City, County, State and Federal laws,guidelines and regulations, could result in the elimination and/or displacement of assorted native and non-native plant species (primarily weeds) and some small rodents and mammals located in the proposed Project Area. However, this potential disruption to existing biological resources will not have a significant impact on the proposed Project Area's biotic communities due to their exiting degree of urbanization and amount of vacant/unimproved land within the proposed Project Area. B. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 131 - i 1. Discretionary development which could potentially impact biological resources shall be evaluated prior to project approval by a qualified biologist to assess impacts and if necessary, to develop mitigation measures. This evaluation shall include a complete assessment of all biological resources within the adjacent to the affected portions of the proposed Project Area with particular emphasis placed upon identifying endangered, threatened and locally unique species and sensitive and critical habitats. 2. Discretionary development shall be sited and designed to incorporate all feasible measures to mitigate any significant impacts to biological resources. If the impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, findings of overriding considerations must be made by the decision-making body. 3. The California Department of Fish and Game shall be consulted when discretionary development may affect significant biological resources. Notice shall be made to the Department of Fish and Game after the lead Agency has approved any project that will cause the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or cause changes in the riverbed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake. An agreement with the Department of Fish and Game must be made ' prior to initiating any such changes consistent with the Department of Fish and Game statutory authority. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Short-Term A. Transportation/Circulation Impacts:Temporary traffic disruptions could occur as a result of roadway improvement projects. B. Mitigation Measures: The following short-term mitigation measure is recommended as a condition of Project approval: 1. Short-term impacts to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists shall be mitigated with the use of standard safety precautions generally employed during project construction, e.g., rerouting of traffic, use of flagmen, public notice of route closures and detours and other precautions and safeguards as may be deemed applicable by the appropriate City regulating body. 02A.LF.12/08/94.EIR 132 I I C. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The-short-term mitigation measure should be applied to public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE , AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. Long-Term A. Transportation/Circulation Impacts: Plan implementation could result in the generation of increased traffic volumes within the proposed Project Area and its surrounding environs due, in part, to an increase in the proposed Project Area's economic viability, improved housing market and employment base. However, Plan implementation will, as part of its broader purpose, serve to mitigate existing circulation deficiencies within the proposed Project Area through the implementation of traffic/circulation improvement , projects. B. Mitigation Measures: The following long-term mitigation measures are recommended ,as conditions of Project approval: , 1. Projected project related increases in ADTs upon proposed Project Area roadways are not expected to significantly impact existing roadway Levels of Service over the long term in most instances. However, since project related site specifics are not known, such as type, size and location of potential developments, all impacted roadway segments as a result of proposed Plan related projects shall be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine specific project impacts including an evaluation of the cumulative impacts of development upon those roadway segments. Analyses shall include intersection capacity analysis and roadway segment trip assignment rates as , necessary. Projects found to cause significant impacts to existing LOS and/or ICU shall include measures to lessen project related impacts. 2. All Plan-related structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/ development activities shall comply with the Lafayette General Plan. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The long-term mitigation measures should be applied to , public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE ' MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 133 i PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Water Resources A. Impacts on Water Resources: While the average yearly proposed Plan related increase in water consumption is not projected to be significant, conditions could change significantly over the 30-year life of the proposed Plan. B. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. All Plan related growth inducing projects shall be evaluated by Agency staff working with City staff and EBMUD officials on a project-by-project basis to determine their impact upon currently available water resources. No project shall be approved unless available water resources are adequate to meet projected demand. 2. Agency staff working with City staff and EBMUD officials shall insure that all Plan-related projects do not impact existing water distribution infrastructure ' during construction activities. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE ' MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. ' Police Protection A. Impacts on Police Protection: Implementation of the Project may have impacts on the ' provision of police protection to the proposed Project Area and the surrounding community due to an increase of growth in residential and commercial activities. I B. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of Project approval: 1. All proposals shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by the Lead Agency in conjunction with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department to determine the need for specific project environmental impacts analysis. I 2. In the event an analysis is deemed necessary and said analysis shows ' evidence of significant negative impact to existing police services/facilities, appropriate mitigations shall be incorporated into the project(s) by the Project proponent prior to project(s) approval. ' C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: ' 02A.LF.72/08194-EIR 134 i RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE , MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. Fire Protection A. Impacts on Fire Protection: There may be long-term impacts of providing long-term fire suppression and prevention services to the proposed Project Area due to an increase of growth in residential and commercial activities. B. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended as , conditions of Project approval: 1. All growth inducing Projects shall be reviewed on a project-by-project basis by , the Lead Agency in conjunction with fire department officials to determine the need for specific project environmental impact analysis. 2. In the event an analysis is conducted and said analysis shows evidence of ' significant negative impact to existing fire services/facilities,such that existing levels of service and emergency response times deteriorate beyond acceptable levels, the Project proponent shall work with Agency/City staff to develop appropriate mitigation measures which shall be incorporated into the project(s) prior to the project(s) approval. C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and , private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE ' MONITORING AGENCIES:(private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Flood Control/Drainage A. Impacts to Flood Control and Drainage: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan,would increase the amount of surface flow generated in the City. Increased surface flow could exacerbate flood conditions and 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 135 , ' degrade water resources. However, since 98% of the proposed Project Area is urbanized, implementation of the proposed Plan would have a minimal increase in the ' amount of surface flow generated in the City. B. Mitigation Measures:The following mitigation measures are recommended as condition ' of Project approval: 1. All Plan-related, growth inducing projects shall be evaluated by Agency staff working with City staff on a project-by-project basis to determine their impact on flood control/drainage and water quality. No project shall be approved unless there is adequate on-site drainage and no significant impacts to water quality. ' C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING & PLANNING DIV. (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG. DEPTS. ' CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Impacts of Project Implementation on Cultural Resources: The potential does exist for ' the proposed Project to impact unknown archaeological sites and could cause a significant negative impact upon existing Project Area historical resources. B. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended as a ' condition of Project approval. 1. In the event presently unknown archaeological or historical resources are ' discovered during development of specific projects, work shall be terminated until such time that a certified archaeological/historical consultant can investigate the findings. In such a case, the investigating archaeologist/ historian shall determine appropriate future actions that must be taken prior to continuation of the affected project(s). 2. All structures and properties involved in rehabilitation/development activities shall be evaluated for historic significance in accordance with the historic resources guidelines set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 6-21). 3. The existing condition of all historic structures that are approved for demolition,removal from existing site and/or modification shall be documented with photographs and written descriptions prior to commencement of the approved action. ' C. Mitigation Monitoring Program:The mitigation measures should be applied to public and private projects by the following: ' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 136 RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONITORING PHASES: PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE,CONSTRUCTION PHASE ' AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE MONITORING AGENCIES: (private projects) LAFAYETTE BUILDING &PLANNING DIV. ' (public projects) LAFAYETTE PUBLIC WORKS & ENG.DEPTS. i i i 1 1 - i 1 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 137 8.0 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FINAL DRAFT EIR I I 1 U� 8.0 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR The following agencies,groups and/or individuals submitted written comments on the Draft EIR 'prepared for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (SCH No. 94033001): A. Governor's Office ofPlanning and Research B. East Bay Municipal Utility District C. The Lafayette Planning Commission — D. Goldfarb and Lipman (Advisors tothe County ofContra Costo) The written comments submitted bythis Agency have been reproduced and included in the following pages. The 45-day review period ended on October 28' 1884. The Agency responses to these comments are included in this supplement as Section 9'0 Responses to Comments Received oothe Draft EIR' | 02A.s12/08/9+ sm 138 �� 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Govemor Lam. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET 1 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 REC,t ED ' October 28 1994 OCT 11994 NIROOP SRIVATSA CITY OF LAFAYETTE LAFAYETTE RECEVELOPMENT AGENCY r! rMM!"f DEPT. 3675 MT. DIABLO BOULEVARD ' SUITE 210 LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 Subject: LAFAYETTE RECEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCH if: 94033001 1 Dear NIROOP SRIVATSA: 1• The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. ' Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State ' Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ' Mich el Chiriat Chief, State Clearingh use i t 1 1 . i 1 B. EAST Sar JOHN B.LAMPE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OREC70R OF WATER PLANNING October 27, 1994 Mr. Charles G. Kovac Senior Planner Urban Futures, Inc. Advisors to the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency 3111 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 230 Orange, CA 92665 SUBJECT: The Lafayette Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Mr. Kovac: Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject environmental document. The District has the following comments regarding water service to the proposed project. IMPACTS ON EXISTING EBMUD FACILITIES The subject project is located in the District's Colorados Pressure zone which serves the elevation range from 250 to 450 feet. major District water facilities that are located within the subject project area include: two 108-inch aqueducts (Lafayette No.1 and No. 2 Aqueducts) in a District owned right- of-way, one 66-inch aqueduct (Moraga N0.2 Aqueduct) in a District owned right-of-way, Leland Rate Control Station, Diablo Vista Pumping Plant on District owned property, and a 30-inch transmission main in Mount Diablo Boulevard (see attached maps) . These facilities are extremely critical to the operation of the District's water supply and distribution system; therefore, measures to prevent any construction impacts to these facilities need to be addressed. The project sponsor should work closely with the District's Property Section and Design Division to minimize the potential of damaging these facilities. Please contact the District's Properties Section at (510) 287-1244 to determine terms and conditions for the proposed work within the District right-of-way. WATER SERVICE 2. This project may impact the District'-s finite water supply. To help mitigate the impact of additional water demands, the District recommends that water conservation measures for both internal and external water use be required as a standard feature in the design and construction of the proposed project. The District encourages the use of equipment, devices, and methodology for plumbing fixtures and irrigation that furthers and local ordinances for water conservation. The District also 375 ELEVENr)i STREET.OAKLAND.CA 94607-4210.iS 10)a15-30W P.O.80X24055.OAKLAND.CA 94623-1055 BOARD OF DIRECTORS K47WERINE Mr-<ENNEY.STUART FLASHMAN.ANDREW COHEN JOHN,k COLEMAN.JOHN M.GIOM.NANCY J.NADEL.KENNETH H.SIMMONS Mr. Charles G. Kovac October 27, 1994 Page 2 encourages the selection of drought resistant plants, use of ' water conservation and will provide for long-term, efficient water use. The project should meet or exceed any federal, state, and local ordinances for water conservation. .The District also ' encourages the selection of drought resistant plants, use of inert materials, and minimal use of turf areas. j. The proposed project is an ideal candidate for the use of ' reclaimed/recycled non-potable water for irrigation use. The project sponsor should design project plumbing systems for future use of non-potable water, including recycled water. Appropriate non-potable water uses in approved circumstances include landscape irrigation, landscape impoundments, and construction water. The project sponsor should contact the District's Office of Reclamation at (510) 287-1687 for more information. , 4. The District's ongoing San Ramon valley Master Plan/EIR will be evaluating alternatives to increase the treated water supply and transmission capacity to the District's service area south of ' Walnut Creek. While these alternatives are still in the development stage, additional pipeline transmission capacity between Lafayette and Walnut Creek is under consideration. Probable alignments for these pipeline projects would include Mount Diablo Boulevard in Lafayette to Pleasant Hill Road, Pleasant Hill Road to Olympic Boulevard, and possibly Old Tunnel Road towards Leland Reservoir. , 5. Off-site pipeline improvements, at the project sponsor's expense, may be required to meet fire flow requirements established by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The location, , extent, and cost of these pipeline improvements will be determined when the project sponsor requests water service to the project site(s) . The project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to initiate a water service estimate to determine ' costs and conditions of water service. Engineering and installation of water mains often requires substantial lead time which should be provided for in the project sponsor's development ' schedule. Other comments on the DEIR are as follows: �. On page 82, paragraph 2 under 2.8.1 Water Resources A. Existing ' Resources, it should be changed to read as follows: The number of District customers in Lafayette increased from 9,443 in 1991 to 9,477 in 1993. Water consumption increased, from 4.1 million gallons per day in 1991 to 4.8 million gallons per day in 1993 which is an increase of 17% from. 1991. The 1993 usage is currently considered to be the Mr. Charles G. Kovac October 27, 1994 Page 3 best representation of water use not affected by drought conditions which 1991 usage was affected by. Within the proposed Project Area, an estimated 833,324 gallons per day ' (gpd) of water is being consumed which represents 19% of the total amount of water consumed in the City. In the future, all correspondence related to the environmental ' documents should be sent to me at the following address: John B. Lampe Director of Water Planning ' East Bay Municipal District P.O.Box 24055, M/S 901 Oakland CA 94623-1055 ' If you have any questions, or if the District can be of further assistance, please contact Prab M. Jog, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287-1026. ' Very truly yours, ' o B. L e rector o ater Planning JBL:DJR:dd 9414.wp6 Attachments 1 1 1 I , I� jw AW6 �`� Z, LAFAYETTE NO. i AQUEDUCT LELAND RATE CONTROL STATION LAFAYETTE NO.2 AQUEDUCT °�''` .� , It - • �g 64, ...+r i ,,,�-^:• 's`1 .-�- -ti1F•■ L *. .IA Off' •�� 'Aa. .�F- �` � V Int y .+l1- -w- iL I V1 < � _I ,:f � , +� � � "e J � �+ I;:: �'•fid i U k [ '�' b ~~ j' l+� W ;�. MAP1OF4 KEY MAP _ EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT i THE LAFAYE I TE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DEIR L _ SCALE.t'=304 PREPARED BY.D.J.R&WSTROM '� ; / DATE: OCT.11 1994 I WATER DISTRIBUTION PLANNING .....- ►..►•.�"'.`...---.T ®_�o• `., ♦it i..'.,_ ea.,.y�• R , 1 , i'j, f !t 111 1' `\ �/��`.,�.'.�..,... \�•-.�T T ` ------------------------------ ._.-._...—---t. h b s r ----------------- ------------��• Haa • masa ••iaaaRaaaaaaafaat� FFA c ;": !.. I • i Ti E NO. ?AQ EU pUCT Ar -_ - KS ' c •# ,a_- a - , y SAF E7'TE N©,—----. " • _ �,• i 2 AQUEDUCT * t Qk Awk 1 ' a I r 44 ......... t t � � � � '� � °� k` a r, � � � ��r+ECJ�-+�- �i'�•-- t a r N it a/ AOL A owe x It /1�� •,:a �.. i err - / �"/ �" • i-u� -�" . EAST R Mq 8 V A, P s `. Th! AR �i/r �At l•� AYE7j�aRYED o-'L` DtS 4 SENT P rR�eT 1 � wATPgRED gy.QOJECT pEIR ER UISTRIBUTIO EHNSTR01W N PLgIyNIhtG . u� -- �=-=-=--=_--'--•'-=---'--------'"' �� -_ _ __^----'---------------- ------------- ----------- _ --- ---------''."_'_ - ------------ -- ' f tAFAYETTE �` 'k „\, y',._- v�F__� pc .� ♦ ♦ �i ;ry fes` c DIABLO VISTA AUMPING PLANTR It 49 Ar pt ��ta� i +.i + ' ""'s�'�'e w`a. . tt t t .♦- t ¢,� s T . Ar T. AV �`.V X• .�• rye,• 1 C qL '$` ..,+! 3 °r i �s . } Air 4r A• .Nr P i:l V 11t s 4 MAP 4 OF 4 KEY MAP 1 2 1 3 ST AY MUNICIPAL THE LAFAYErsFR— IC—'L.UTILITY DISTRICT E MLOPMFNt'PROJECTOEIR SCALE.V R 3W ��R.DB J.RR � PREPARED$Y-0 O,J. EHNSTR(>trt 114TC. fN`T 17 tlfp� u,.x'.�...�.......�,�............... 10-25-1994 12:15PM FROM CITY of L.AFAYETTE TO 1?142839319 P.02 +.� October 10, 1994 t To: Urban Futures " From: Niroop K. Srivatsa - . t Subject: Planning Commission's Comments on the DEIR On October 6, 1994, the Lafayette Planning, Commission approved transmittal of the following comments on the DEER: S 1. As the draft Redevelopment Plan currently reads, authority for land use decisions continues to remain in the hands crf the Planning Commission and City Council, i.e., outside the authority of the Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, the maximum amount of development which would be allowable t under the General Plan is not altered by the Redevelopment Plan. The subcommittee felt that this fact should be clearly stated in the beginning of the DEIR. It would provide the reader with the knowledge and understanding that the General Plan will remain the land use document for the City. 2. The DEIR makes frequent reference to the current General Plan, its goals and policies. However, the data used in the DEIR is from the background reports of the new General Plan. The subcommittee recommended that references to these different documents be more clearly identified. In addition, an explanation of the status of the General Plan revision would also be useful, 3. Many of the mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR were, in the subcommittee's opinion, too specific and too restrictive. Some of the standards' required in the DEIR may not be valid ten or twenty years into the future. They suggested that the tone of the document be changed to make it less . prescriptive. t}, In addition, the Planning Commission had specific questions/comments on the following items: Page 3, Item 3: Starting with "Al! construction activities....' • Delete. Page 5, Item 3a: Delete last four builets, starting with 'Suspend grading operations...*. Page 5, Item 3b: Delete. Page 5, Item 3c: Delete first and last bullet. The subcommittee felt that the above items recommended for deletion were too i l s ; 10-25-1994 12:15PM FROM CITY of LAFAYETTE TO 17142839319 P.03 .restrictive, and inappropriate for the draft EIR of a Redevelopment Plan. 5. Page 9, Item 1: Add a requirement for the evaluation of the cumulative 1 impacts of development under Long Term Vehicular Transportation. 6. Page 9, Public Transit Refer to higher intensity uses around the BART station, in conformance with ft General Pian. 7. Page 10, Item 3: Delete references to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Audobon Society and the California Native Plant Society. 8• Pages 12, 13: The subcommittee questioned whether the recommendations on the interior and exterior use of water resources were relevant or needed in the draft EIR for a Redevelopment Plan. They recommended that this section be deleted. 9• .Page 14, bullet #1: Is there sufficient pressure and flow for new sprinklers? Should this issue (upgrading capacity and pressure of the pipes) be added to the Projects List which is part of the draft Redevelopment Plan? 10. Page 14, Flood Control: Bullet #1 references the 100 year flood. A corresponding ' map should be provided. i i The DEI R references the Happy Valley Creek only, even ; ! though other creeks traverse the Project Area The Commission asked that all creeks be referenced in the report. 11. Page 39, Para 3:. Add a reference to BART, in addition to automobiles, trucks, buses and motorcycles. 12. Figure 7, Page 58: Map is difficult to read. It does not show the Las Trampas Fault, which is referenced in Page 59. 11.Page 27: Check the accuracy of Table 1. � I 14. Page 95, Para 2: The document states that the District is proceeding with a $34 million renovation project - what is the source of this information? 15. Page 97: Update status of the Christensen site - 18 homes approved f on 7.6 acres. f 10-25-1994 12.15PM FROM CITY of LAFI;41it TO 17142939319 P.e4 f 16. Page 99, section B: The document states that there is a shortfall of 31 acres of parkland within the City. This is incorrect, should be deleted. 17. Page 118: Check accuracy of the buildout figures. 18. Pages 123 and 124: The Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program should be modified to state that each development within the Project Area will be evaluated on its own merits, and suitable mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with appropriate CE©A regulations. 19•Appendix A. The Projects dist was not included in the DEIR. i 20. Appendix C: Has the consultant adequately responded to the comments received from a number of agencies on the Notice of �! Preparation? ,i cc: Executive Director Mark Huebsch I i I i i 4 ? TOTAL P.04 �t D. The Law Offices of GOLDFARB & LIPMAN One Montgomery Street Telesis Tower Twenty-Third Floor San Francisco California 94104 October 28, 1994 FAX (714) 283-9319 Steven H.Goldfarb Charles Kovacs M David Kroot Urban Futures Lee C.Rosenthal 3111 X. Tustin Avenue, Suite 230 Roger A.Clay,Jr. Orange, CA 92665 John T.Nagle Re: Draft EIR for Proposed Lafayette Polly VRedevelopment Plan .Marshall Lynn Hutchins Dear Mr. Kovacs: Richard A.Judd we write on behalf of the County of Contra Costa as Peter Franklin well as the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and the Contra Karen M.TiedeznannCosta County Library District (collectively the "County") Thomas H.Webber regarding the draft environmental impact report (11DEIR11) for John T.Haygood the proposed Lafayette redevelopment plan. Dianne Jackson McLean As you will recall, I wrote to you on October 17, 1994 Michelle Brewer Byrd requesting that the review period for the DEIR be delayed until the Preliminary Report is complete. The Preliminary R Rende Glover Report is a document specifically incorporated in the DEIR Andrew Z.Shagrin and referenced at various points throughout the DEIR. Yet that Preliminary Report is still not available for review by Lissa L Lim those interested in the DEIR. To date, we have not received David M.Robinson a formal response to our request and therefore assume the request will not be honored. Of Counsel in addition, on October 17, 1994, 1 spoke with Todd Barry R.LipmanMcCown at the City and requested the other documents incorporated by reference in the DEIR. He told me he would get the documents together and call me. When I had not heard from him in a week, I called him back on October 21, 1994. Mr. McCown was not in and did not return my call until October 22, 1994. At that time Mr. McCown told me that he had been instructed not to provide the documents and that they would be provided at a meeting the City Manager was trying to set up next week with county representatives. I told Mr. Cowan that the documents would not be helpful San Francisco next week in commenting on the DEIR since the deadline for 415788-5335 comments was Friday October 28, 1994, but Mr. McCown 415 788-0999 FAX Los Angeles 213 627-6336 3200NIP50 Charles Kovacs October 28 9 1 94 Page 2 nevertheless again informed me that he was going to follow -1 the instructions he was given and would not provide the documents. As a result of Lafayette's failure to extend the review period for the DEIR despite the missing Preliminary Report and its unwillingness to provide existing documents ` incorporated in the DEIR, the County is at a disability in responding to and commenting on the DEIR, because the current con1ditions ir, he Prcjec:t area and Ocher inforSiatis . in the Preliminary Report as well as the information in the other referenced documents is not available. Therefore, our comments on the DEIR set forth below are provided under protest and with the disability of not having available all the information incorporated in the DEIR. Our comments are as follows: 1. Transportation and Circulation A. The project is expected to increase automobile trips by approximately 300. The DEIR attempts to minimize this impact by pointing out that the growth in trips, if spaced evenly .over the 30 year life of the Plan (an unlikely outcome) , would have "insignificant" impact. The DEIR .is required, however, 'to examine the aggregate effect of the project and cannot minimize the traffic impacts by chopping the increase in traffic into 30 separate segments, each with minimal impact. This is especially important given the fact that seven of the major intersections serving the project are, as the DEIR points out in Table 11, already at level of service D, E or F and at 80% to 1300 of capacity. The effect of a 30% increase in vehicular trips on those seven and other affected intersections should be included in the DEIR. B. The DEIR assumes that the roadway infrastructure improvements that are proposed as part of the project will serve to mitigate any adverse impact of the projected 30% increase in traffic. However, there is no analysis or explanation in the DEIR as to how these projects will create the additional capacity to, for example, prevent the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Reliz Valley Road going from level of service E to level of service F once the 30% increase in project trips occurs. 3200N3.PS0 l� Charles Kovacs October 28, 1994 Page 3 2. Air Ouality The DEIR fails to examine the aggregate impact of the projected 30% growth in automobile trips on air quality. The project is expected to produce an additional 18,386 daily automobile trips in the aggregate over the life of the project. Despite this significant increase in vehicular trips, the DEIR concludes with respect to vehicular emissions that those additional trips will not be �i "contributing significantly to a decline in air quality. " This conclusion is reached only by dividing the total traffic growth into 30 annual equal segments of 613 trips per day increase in any single year and only examining each segment separately. In fact, the projected addition of 639, 070 square feet of commercial office floor space is far in excess of the threshold set forth in Table 8 of the DEIR for a project to have a significant impact on air quality. 3. Water Resources The DEIR estimates that demand for water would increase by only 23,892 gallons per day, an increase of less than 1% over existing City consumption. This estimated increase in water consumption is based solely on the increase in water use that will be generated by new residential population (181 gallons per day times 132 new residents equal 23,892 4. gallons of water per day) . This analysis totally ignores �� the projected increase of 639,070 square feet of office and commercial development in the project area. That development will generate employment for 2556 additional people (See Table 1 of the DEIR) who will also use water. Based on the consumption factors used in the DEIR, those additional 2556 people could generate demand for an additional 462,636 gallons of water per day. As a result, there is no analysis in the DEIR to indicate the availability of water to serve the projected growth in daytime employment population. 4. Wastewater Like the situation with water consumption, the wastewater analysis is based only on the increased wastewater generated by the 132 additional project area residents. See Table 1 of the DEIR. The analysis totally ignores the additional wastewater that will be generated by the 2556 employees in the 639,070 square feet of new office/commercial development. Thus, the DEIR contains no 3200NIP50 Charles Kovacs r October 28, 1994 Page 4 I� analysis regarding the availability of wastewater facilities to serve the daytime project population. 5. Solid Waste The solid waste analysis in the DEIR .also is -based only i on the 132 person increase in residential population and ignores the solid wastes generated by the new commercial development that is expected to occur. As a result, the DEIR lacks any analysis of the availability of solid waste facilities to serve that development. 6. Cumulative Impacts• There is absolutely no analysis of cumulative impacts other than an acknowledgement that such impacts might exist. Although the DEIR has projections for subregional growth in housing, population and employment, there is no data regarding the impact of that growth on the other topics examined in the EIR. For example, the subregional population growth of 300,968 and employment growth of 124,980 jobs might have an impact on vehicular traffic conditions in Lafayette, but the DEIR makes no effort to quantify or analyze that cumulative impact. Sincerely, LEE C. ROSENTHAL LCR:mm cc: Mark Huebsch Tony Enea Jim Kennedy 3200NIPS0 The Law Offices of GOLDFARB & LIPMAN One Montgomery Street _ Telesis Tower Twenty Third Floor San Francisco California 94104 November 15, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE (714-283-9319) Steven H.Goldfarb Charles Kovacs M David Kroot Urban Futures Lee C.Rosenthal 3111 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 230 Roger A.Clay,Jr. Orange, CA 92665 John T.Nagle Re: Lafayette Redevelopment Plan Draft Polly V.Marshall Environmental Impact Report Lynn Hutchins Dear Mr. Kovacs: Richard A.Judd As I understand it, the City and Agency have extended Peter Franklin the period for making comments on the draft environmental Karen M.Tiedemann impact report for the proposed Lafayette redevelopment plan ("DEIR") . On behalf of the County of Contra Costa, and the Thomas H.Webber County Fire Protection District, County Library District and John T.Haygood County Flood Control District, we write to provide the additional comments regarding the DEIR outlined below. Dianne Jackson McLean Michelle Brewer Byrd 1. Proiect Description. The project description in the DEIR is not consistent with the project description in the Andrew Z.Shagrin Preliminary Report. Despite the fact that the Preliminary Lisa L.Lim Report contains a specific program of activities proposed, the DEIR project description is general in nature without an David M.Robinson explanation or list of the specific activities contemplated. Moreover, the level of funding for some activities described in the Preliminary Report suggests that the scope of Of counsel activities will be substantially broader than contemplated Barry R.Lipman by the DEIR. For example, the Preliminary Report contemplates assistance to commercial development totaling about $43,000,000 and $10,000,000 in assistance for new low and moderate income housing. The large dollar amount of this assistance to private development suggests a program ` much broader in scope than the 630, 000 square feet of commercial space and 157 residential units contemplated by the DEIR. 2. Services and Utilities. In determining the significance of effects of the project on services and San Francisco utilities, the DEIR uses AEP standards, despite the fact 415786-6336 that the City's general plan should incorporate the Measure 415 788-0999 FAX Los Angeles 213 627.6336 863020.P50 Charles Kovacs November 15, 1994 Page 2 C-1988 standards for growth management. Since the Measure C standards must be part of the general plan in order for Lafayette to receive sales tax funding for its projects, those general plan standards, not AEP standards should be used to measure significance of effects. 3. Police Services. The DEIR indicates that response times could increase as a result of the project, but does not provide any mitigation for this "potentially significant" effect. 4. Parks. Although the DEIR concludes that the project will create demand for additional park space and that Lafayette is already suffering a shortfall of 31 acres of park land, the DEIR somehow concludes that the lack of parks is not significant and does not propose any mitigation. 5. Flood Control. This section of the DEIR does not contemplate any additional flood control facilities, yet the "No Project" alternative and the Preliminary Report contemplate up to $7,000,000 in drainage in improvements. Mf The stated need for these improvements certainly suggests that the effect of the project on drainage and flood control will be significant. 6. Alternatives. The DEIR's examination of alternatives consists largely of conclusionary statements and devoid of any analysis of the environmental effects of implementing .the alternatives. In addition, none of the alternatives is environmentally superior. The failure to examine an environmentally superior alternative is a violation of CEQA and indicative of the self-serving nature of the alternative analysis. Sincerely, LEE C. ROSENTHAL LCR:mm cc: Mark Huebsch Tony Enea Jim Kennedy 863020.PSO 9.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR 9 0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR The following agencies, groups and/or individuals submitted written comments on the Draft EIR prepared for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (SCH No. 94033001): A. Governor's Office of Planning and Research B. East Bay Municipal Utility District C. The Lafayette Planning Commission D. Goldfarb and Lipman (Advisors to the County of Contra Costa) The written comments submitted by this Agency have been reproduced and included in this supplement as Section 8.0 Comments Received on the Draft EIR. The 45-day review period ended on October 28, 1994. The entity's comments have been responded to by reference paragraph number in conformance to the entity's comment methods. A. Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1. Comment so noted: As no state agencies have comments on the Draft EIR, no responses are required. B. East Bay Municipal Utility District 1. Comment so noted. An additional mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Final EIR which addresses cooperation between Agency, City and EBMUD officials during construction activities which reads as follows: 2. Agency staff working with City staff and EBMUD officials shall insure that all Plan-related projects do not impact existing water distribution infrastructure during construction activities. 2. Comment so noted. All Plan-related projects will conform with all State and local regulations pertaining to water conservation and as set forth in Section 2.8.1.C, it is recommended as a condition of Project approval that all Plan-related growth inducing projects be evaluated by Agency and City staff and that no project be approved unless available water resources are adequate to meet demand, thus reducing the impact on the District's water supply. In addition, while not recommended as a condition of Project approval, Section 2.8.1.C, Water Resources, also lists recommendations that should be implemented for all Plan-related construction projects when and where appropriate. These suggested measures include the installation of plumbing fixtures that will reduce water usage, the use of drought-tolerant plant species and drip �1 irrigation systems to reduce water usage, the installation of ultra-low flush toilets in all new construction, the installation of low flow showers and faucets and additional measures regarding interior and exterior improvements to reduce water usage. As the specifics of particular projects to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan are unknown, it is impossible at this point to determine which of the suggested water conservation measures are best suited to the particular project. Applying and incorporating the suggested conservation measures on a project by project basis, where appropriate and �i when required to comply with state legislation, will ensure that the measures are sufficiently tailored to the project and the specific water usage accompanying that / 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 139 project. This case p jb case approach y pp oach will allow both the Agency and the Distract to maximize the benefit of specific water conservation measures thereby assisting both entities in meeting the twin goals of conserving water and protecting the areas finite water resources. 3. Comment so noted. At this time,the project specifics,-such as size, location, and type of Plan-related developments are not known. Once project specifics are known and subsequent environmental analysis is conducted, if . required, then the use of reclaimed/recycled non-potable water for irritation purposes can be addressed. The Agency is aware of and supports this type of usage and one of the recommendations in section of Section 2.8.1.C, Water Resources provides the where appropriate and on a project by project basis, the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation will be investigated. As with the response to Comment 2, above, approaching the use of reclaimed water on a case by case basis will ensure that it use is tailored to the particular project. 4. Comment so noted. No response required. 5. Comment so noted. Although not required as a condition of Project approval, when required in connection with a specific project,the Agency will take steps to ensure that the necessary actions to comply with the fire flow requirements established by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District are undertaken. 6. Comment so noted. The District's recommended revisions to Section 2.8.1A have been made and are incorporated into the Final EIR. C. The Lafayette Planning Commission ; 1. Comment so noted. Additional text has been added to Section 1.6 of the EIR, Relationship to General Plan Build-Out, stating that the maximum amount of development allowable under the General Plan will not be altered by the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Comment so noted. Section 1.4 of the EIR, Project Objectives and Characteristics, has been revised to include text on the status of the updated General Plan and the relationship between the current General Plan and the background reports of the updated General Plan. 3. Comment so noted. - Since this a Program EIR, a lot of the mitigation measures are general in nature because project specifies such size, location and type of Plan-related development that may be contemplated by the Agency are not known. However, for certain issues such as water resources and air quality, additional recommendations are listed. These recommendations are not a condition of Project approval and are listed as examples for the purpose of identifying ways for future environmental impacts to be eliminated once additional environmental analysis is prepared,as necessary,for specific- ! Plan related projects. These recommendations, where applicable and feasible, are presented only as examples for the decision.making body's consideration to further reduce environmental impacts to the related issues and do not constitute mitigation ' measures. 4. Comment so noted. Please see response No. 3. 5. Comment to noted. The recommendation that all Plan-related development activities t ' 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 140 be evaluated for o cumulative impacts has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure No. 1 of Section 2.6.0 (Transportation and Circulation) of the Final EIR. 6. Comment so noted. Reference to higher intensity land uses around the BART station has been incorporated into the Final EIR. 7. Comment so noted. The recommended deletion has been incorporated into the Final EIR. 8. Comment so noted. Please see response No. 3. 9. Comment so noted. There is sufficient pressure and flow for new sprinklers. However, this recommendation, while not a condition of Project approval, addresses the inadequate fire flow to the fire hydrants as described in Section 2.8.5A (Fire Protection) of the Draft EIR. When required in connection with a specific project, the Agency will take steps to ensure that the necessary actions to comply with the fire flow requirements established by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District are undertaken. As shown in Appendix A, the Project's List was developed by Lafayette residents and staff members from various City departments addressing the needs and priorities of projects and programs for the Project Area. 10. Comment so noted. A 100-year flood zone does exist within portions of the Project Area. However, this zone is very small in which a map showing the boundaries would be very difficult to interpret. For that reason a map of the 100-year flood zone was not included in the EIR. Generally, the flood zone follows the path of the Lafayette Creek which transcends through portions of the Project Area. Furthermore, due to the topography, the southern portion of the Project Area near Moraga Road is suspectable to the 100-year flood. 11. Comment so noted. This recommended reference to BART has been incorporated into the Final EIR. r 12. Comment so noted. Figure 8 of the EIR contains the Las Trampas fault and the traces of this fault. The Las Trampas fault is now identified in Figure 8. 13. Table 1 is based upon build-out of the Project Area in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan. The Planning Commission is concerned with the accuracy of the numbers in this table. This may be the result of column two (Potential Long-Term Growth Statistics) where it states that 157 dwelling units could be developed at General Plan ' built-out, yet the net population increase is only 132 people. Most of the residential development that could take place at General Plan build-out whether it is Agency assisted or not will be multi-family residential as opposed to single family residential. t As shown in footnote number 2 of table 1,the average household size for multi-family residential is significantly lower than the singe family residential household size. Therefore,to achieve maximum build-out in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan, many single family dwelling units will be recycled to a higher density or other use (e.g. commercial) which in turn will decrease the amount of larger household sizes (single family) and increase the amount of dwelling units with smaller household sizes. Thus, the recycling of the Project Area in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan will increase the available multi-family housing stock and decrease the single family housing stock, however, the population growth will not increase proportionately due to the low 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 141 household size for multi-family units. 14. The source of this information is the Schools Section (page 39) of the updated Data Base prepared for the Lafayette General Plan. 15. Comment no noted. Reference to the Christansen site has been deleted from the EIR. 16. Comment so noted. The recommended deletion has been made and is incorporated into the Final EIR. 17. Comment so noted. Please see response No. 13. 18. Comment so noted. The recommended revision has been made and is incorporated into the Final EIR. 19. In preparing the Planning Commission packets, the Projects List was accidentally omitted from the document. However, the Redevelopment Plan accompanying this Draft EIR contained the Projects List. 20. Comment so noted. The Agency's consultants have addressed all pertinent environmental issues raised by various agencies/entities in their responses to the Notice of Preparation prepared for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project. D. Goldfarb & Lipman (Advisors to the County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa County Flood Control District, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and the Contra Costa County Library District, collectively the "County") General Overview The Agency has received two separate sets of comments on the Draft EIR from the County. The first set of these comments are set forth in a letter dated October 28, 1994 and the second set of comments are set forth in a letter dated November 15, 1994. Although the second set of comments were submitted and received well after the review period for the Draft EIR closed and,therefore,the Agency would not be legally required to respond to such comments;in order to give the County ample time to review additional documentation which the County requested, including the Preliminary Report, the Agency has agreed to accept and respond to the comments set forth in the letter dated November 15, 1994 as though they were timely received. Responses to Letter Dated October 28, 1994 1 A. The County asserts that the Agency is attempting to "minimize" the impact of the Project in connection with.increased automobile trips by averaging the total, potential, number of increased trips over the thirty year life of the Redevelopment Plan. First, as set forth in the Draft EIR, it should be noted that the traffic analysis is a "worst-case" scenario, based on complete build-out which is not likely to occur in the next 10 or 20 year period and may never occur. Far from trying to minimize the impact which may be caused by any increase in vehicle trips,the Agency utilized this straight line method of assessment in order to provide the most clear picture of the potential impact of the 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 142 �1 Project.. Redevelopment plans are complex and take place over such an extended period of time that the exact location, scale, cost, design and time of implementation of specific projects to be implemented in accordance with the redevelopment plan cannot be accurately forecasted at the time of the plan's adoption. In this circumstance, it is impossible to accurately forecast the environmental impacts such projects may create. Such an analysis would be highly speculative and subject to a degree of change over the years prior to a specific projects actual development. The degree of specificity contained in the Draft EIR overall and particularly relative to transportation and circulation issues is consistent with direction given in Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines which provides that the degree of specificity in the EIR should correspond to the degree of specificity involved with the activity underlying the EIR. Once specific impacts are identified,then appropriate and realistic mitigation measures can be applied. By deferring to some degree, the Agency is not ignoring it's CEQA mandated responsibilities, but is allowing future decision makers the appropriate degree of flexibility to consider specific project facts when they become available and to make informed project specific decisions based on that information. Approval of the Plan should not be based upon conjecture and speculation, but in consideration of accurate facts known to the decision makers at that point in time. The Agency's approach in analyzing long term traffic impacts using straight line projections is appropriate considering the lack of specific information known about projects and programs to be undertaken in connection with the redevelopment plan at this time. In fact, any other approach would be speculative. The FEIR includes as a condition of Project Approval the requirement for the Agency and City Council to adopt a mitigation measure requiring additional environmental comment, on a Project specific basis, when those specific Projects that could generate increased vehicular trips or intersection(s) LOS are known. This approach makes perfect sense, complies with CEQA Guidelines, and does not pretend to disclose or interpret information or future planning or regulatory activities that cannot be known to the decision-makers at this time (such as possible amendments and/or updates to the City's General Plan and/or Zoning Code) which could significantly affect impacts to traffic/circulation and a host of other impact categories. 1 B. As previously stated,the Agency believes that the 30% increase in vehicular traffic will occur incrementally throughout the life of the Plan. The Plan proposes between $500,000 - $15,000,000 in circulation improvements throughout the Project Area which will in and of themselves work to mitigate both potential long and short term Project-related impacts.As set forth in the Draft EIR, such projects may include, but are not limited to improved roadway surfaces, installation and repair of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and upgrading of traffic control devices. These proposed projects would have a beneficial effect on the Project Area and the City, even if the improvements themselves are not made to the roads listed by the County, any improvements will help to alleviate the burden on such streets by potentially diverting traffic to other roadways. In addition to these projects and programs and other applicable mitigation measures, if the then current decision making body determines the existing analysis is inadequate, then future growth inducing projects, as stated in the Draft EIR, will have to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. 2. As discussed under 1B., the Agency's use of straight line projections method for calculating potential long-term impacts is completely appropriate in this case because ,� 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 143 i of the many variables that are not known at this time. Project related growth will be in accordance with the City's General Plan and affecting regional growth and air quality -, management controls. Those regional air quality and management agencies, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Air Resources Board and the Association _ of Bay Area Governments, have received the Notice of Preparation, the Notice of Completion and the Draft EIR and any and all concerns of these Agencies have been adequately addressed by the Agency. 3. Water consumption is based upon the per capita average of 181 gallons per day. This per capita average was derived from the total amount of water consumed by the City divided by the total population within the City. . The per capita average takes into consideration all non-residential uses. Thus,the figures utilized by the Agency includes water consumption by employees. The 2,556 employees that could be generated at General Plan build-out, will not increase the water consumption by 462,636 as stated by the County, because that would cause double-counting which would over inflate the amount of water to be consumed. Furthermore, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, which is a Responsible Agency pertaining to water resources, made no mention of this issue in their comments on the Draft EIR (see B. Existing Municipal Utility District). Therefore, it is reasonable for the Agency to assume that the District finds the analysis acceptable and that no additional analysis or mitigation measures are warranted. As stated in the Draft EIR, although the City has adequate water supplies to handle additional demand,the increased consumption of water projected with build-out of the .proposed Project Area is considered regionally significant. Therefore, future impacts upon water resources should be assessed on a project-by-project basis. Approvals for all proposed Plan-related projects that will directly contribute to a long-term increase in water consumption should concur only with the availability of adequate water resources. 4. Similar to water resources, the wastewater analysis was based upon the per capita average of 100 gallons per day. This per capita average takes into consideration all non-residential uses. As stated previously in the context of water consumption, the County's approach would cause double-counting which would over-inflate the amount of wastewater generated. Furthermore, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, which is the Responsible Agency regarding wastewater issues, responded to the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix C), but did not submit comments on the Draft EIR; therefore, it is reasonable for the Agency to assume that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District agrees with the wastewater analysis and that no further analysis or mitigation measures are warranted. 5. Like wastewater and water resources,the solid waste analysis was based upon the per capita average of 5.65 lbs. per day. This per capita average takes into consideration all non-residential uses. As stated previously in the discussions of water consumption and wastewater generation,there would be a significant amount of double-counting using the County's approach which would over-inflate the amount of solid waste that was or could be actually generated. Furthermore, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, which is the Responsible Agency regarding solid waste issues, did not submit comments on the Draft EIR; therefore, it is reasonable for the Agency to assume that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District agrees with the solid waste analysis and that no further analysis or mitigation measures are warranted. 6. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines directs that "Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant". The Agency has presented in Section 4.2 of the EIR a comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts to the subregion comprised of 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 144 Contra Costa County. This analysis, which is in compliance with all relevant provisions of CEQA, including Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, evaluated cumulative impacts upon population, housing, employment, water consumption, wastewater generation and solid waste. The Agency has provided a reasonable and good faith analysis of pertinent issue areas in the analysis of cumulative impacts. Responses to the Letter Dated November 15.1994 1. Section 33344.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq., requires that the Preliminary Report prepared in connection with the adoption of a redevelopment plan include, among other things, a description of the specific project or projects then proposed by the Agency. This list is not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive, it is merely illustrative of the types of projects which the Agency will attempt to implement over the life of the Redevelopment Plan. Appendix A of the Draft EIR contains the proposed Projects List of activities the Agency would like to implement over the life of the Plan. These activities include business revitalization,infrastructure improvements,housing programs and other activities related to eliminating existing blighting conditions within the Project Area. It should be noted that the Projects List is not definitive in that some of the activities outlined may not occur due to a lack of available funds. The Projects List contained in the Draft EIR is identical to that in the Preliminary Report. The Agency disagrees with the County's contention that the scope of the activities under the Preliminary Report will be broader than what is depicted in the Draft EIR. First of all, the same Projects List that the County keeps referring to in the Preliminary Report was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. The County's letter implies that the type of activities being proposed by the Agency were only included in the Preliminary Report and not the Draft EIR. Secondly,the County states that based upon the dollar amount for commercial development and low and moderate income housing, set forth in the Preliminary Report, a much broader scope of activities is being planned by the Agency as opposed to the potential development of 630,000 square feet of commercial development and 157 residential units as part of the General Plan build-out ' scenario. However, this same information is set forth in the Draft EIR. As shown in the Business Revitalization section of the Projects List, between a minimum of $2,000,000 and a maximum of $20,000,000 will be used for economic development. The County is under the impression that all of the maximum of $43,000,000 for Business Revitalization projects and programs will be used for commercial development. However, as shown in this list, over 50% of the activities proposed by the Agency for Business Revitalization do not include economic development. These projects and programs will consist of activities such as pavement and lighting enhancements,parking improvements, and the improvements of commercial facades. These activities do not constitute economic development and will not create significant environmental impacts. Thus, the County is misinterpreting the true intent of this Project which is to alleviate the existing blighting conditions within the Project Area. Furthermore, the County is assuming the maximum cost of $43,000,000 for commercial development will be achieved during the duration of the Plan. This is not likely for the reasons described above and since the Project Area is almost built-out. The opportunity to collect enough tax increment to provide $43,000,000 in projects and programs for business revitalization alone is not likely to occur. The County questions the amount of development that will occur as part of the General 02A.LF.12/08194-EIR 145 Plan build-out scenario as it relates to the Projects List. The General Plan build-out scenario is just that, the maximum amount of development that can be built in the Project Area in accordance with the Lafayette General Plan. No additional development within the Project Area beyond what is stated in Table 1 of the Draft EIR can be accommodated unless the Lafayette General Plan is amended to include higher densities for residential and commercial land uses. 2. The Measure C-1988 standards for growth management were incorporated into the Draft EIR for traffic and circulation, parks and recreation and to a certain extent for sanitary facilities, police, fire, water, and flood control. The AEP standards are very similar to the Measure C-1988 standards and in some cases more strict in terms of what is considered a significant impact. The only significant differences in the two types of standards were in police and fire were Measure C-1988 standards are more specific in detail regarding Level of Service and location of facilities. Thus, the text pertaining to thresholds of Significance has been revised to include the Measure C-1988 standards and are incorporated into the Final EIR where appropriate. 3. Comment so noted. The Draft EIR does provide sufficient mitigation for police protection as it relates to the Plan. Once Agency related activities are implemented then the Agency working with the Sheriff's Department, as outlined in Section 2.8.4.C, will determine the appropriate need for a specific environmental analysis to determine impacts upon the Sheriff's Department. To add one (1) additional officer to the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department due to the adoption of this Plan would be inappropriate at this time because it is not known, due to the lack of project specifics, such as type, size, and location of any Plan-related developments, if the response times will be affected as a result of Plan implementation. �} 4. Comment so noted. This section of.the Draft EIR has been revised to exclude reference towards a shortfall of 31 acres of parkland. As stated in the Draft EIR, due to the location of the Lafayette Reservoir and Briones Regional Park to the City and the recreational amenities that do exist at these parks,there is adequate park and recreation facilities for the residents of the proposed Project Area and for the City of Lafayette as a whole; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to park and recreation facilities as a result of Plan implementation. 5. As shown in Appendix A of the EIR, Proposed Projects and Programs List, the Agency will try to implement certain projects and programs including the replacement and reconstruction of storm drains. The estimated cost of these storm drain improvements is between $350,00047,000,000. The County states "the stated need for these improvements certainly suggests that the effect of the project on drainage and flood control will be significant." This statement is not correct. The Project Area as it exists is approximately 98% urbanized. Thus, surface water run-off will only increase marginally due to Plan implementation. The proposed storm drain improvements are necessary to correct the existing deficiencies within the Project Area and are not related to the proposed development of a specific project. Without these infrastructure improvements, some portions of the Project Area will continue to exhibit inadequate drainage which in turn creates flooding problems within portions of the Project Area. 6. Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR sets forth the Alternatives to the Proposed Project. As set forth in the CEOA Guidelines, the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 146 The Agency is in compliance with CEQA Section 21100 and Section 15021 and 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines as the Agency has provided a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project..." including the following: 1. No Project 2. Alternative Project Areas 3. Limited Redevelopment Activities 4. Financing Alternative The Agency has provided a reasonable discussion and analysis of each alternative presented and has explained why each of the alternatives were rejected in favor of the proposed Project. The EIR has identified the proposed Project as being environmentally superior. The"selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision making and informed public participation." A 02A.LF.12/08/94-EIR 147 1 1 i 1 Y 1 1 1 � APPENDICES 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPEND/X A PROPOSED PROJECTS/PROGRAMS LIST 1 City of Lafayette Lafayette Redevelopment Agency Proposed Project List Business Revitalization Landscaping, Open Space, and Aesthetics Infrastructure Circulation Community Facilities Housing Monday, August 29, 1994 Draft Introduction This proposed list of redevelopment projects was drafted and set into priorities by the Lafayette City Council and the following committee of Lafayette residents and staff members: Guy Atwood Chair, Lafayette General Plan Advisory Committee Member, Lafayette Homeowner's Council Sereta Churchill Realtor, Former President of the Contra Costa Board of Realtors Martha Lee Chair, Lafayette Design Review Committee Carl Piercy Chair, Lafayette Capital Projects Assessment Committee Member, Lafayette Taxpayer's Association Jay Strauss President, Lafayette Chamber of Commerce Member, Lafayette Planning Commission Art Ungar Chair, Lafayette Planning Commission Tim Ward Member, Lafayette Design Review Committee Bob Adams City Manager Steven Falk Assistant City Manager Niroop Srivatsa Planning Director 04.LF.09/16/94-PROJECTS r IntrOdUCt/On (continued) Note that this document was developed as a means of identifying those projects which would serve to most effectively revitalize and rehabilitate Lafayette's proposed redevelopment project area. The work-plan.proposed herein is subject to the approval of the Lafayette City Council, serving as the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency. All costs identified in this document are estimates expressed in 1994 dollars. Because improvements will be provided at different times over the life of the plan, the dollars ultimately expended for the foregoing improvements may exceed the numbers shown due to such factors as: (1) increases in construction costs over time, (2) inflation, and (3) financing costs. Based upon the current state of economic and physical conditions in the downtown area, the projects in this list have been ranked according to priority. "First Priority" projects are designated by two stars (**), second priority projects are designated by one star (*), and the 1 remaining projects receive no stars. Note that the achievement of the various enumerated improvements on this project list will be affected by such factors as (1) gross revenues available to the agency, (2) appropriation priorities as established from time to time by the governing board of the agency, (3) the availability of the other "matching" or supplemental funding, and (4) other activities of the agency. 04.LF.09/16/94-PROJECTS 2 Business Revitalization Mission: The mission of the business revitalization program is to enhance the long term economic well-being of the community. The program will use various financial incentives to improve and invigorate Lafayette's business climate, attract new business ventures, provide adequate and convenient off-street parking and other public improvements as necessary, and maintain and improve upon the City's small town character. e Programs include: .. Pnonty� Program Min Cost Max Cosi XXX . .... .: f$�. �S). .. ..: BR1 ** Procure land and provide convenient off- 2,000,000 10,000,000 street parking lots in the downtown area according to the City's master parking improvement plan 13112 ** Provide incentives to improve commercial 500,000 8,000,000 projects and facades 13133 ** Promote economic development within 2,000,000 20,000,000 the downtown business corridor on a scale complimentary to the existing development patterns and consistent with the City's general plan 13134 Pavement and lighting enhancements for 3,000,000 private parking lots 13135 Provide incentives to retrofit buildings 2,000,000 located in the downtown area constructed with unreinforced masonry 13136 Develop programs to retain current 11000,000 businesses and attract new business ventures Subtotal 4,500,000 43,000,000 04.LF.09116194-PROJECTS 3 Landscaping, Open Space, and Aesthetics Mission: The mission of the landscaping, open space, and aesthetics program is to preserve Lafayette's natural setting, beautify the downtown and surrounding areas, preserve and enhance historic sections of the City, and implement the General Plan. Programs include: # I.nor�ty7 Program Min Cost Max Cost 151: tSl.. ..<....; LOA1 ** Implement the City's approved 500,000 5,000,000 downtown master landscaping plan, which includes planting new and replacing deficient street trees, improving and irrigating street islands, and improving pedestrian walkways LOA2 • Rehabilitate and reconstruct the Plaza 250,000 500,000 Park area with special emphasis on its historical significance LOA3 • Stabilize and improve visibility and 250,000 3,000,000 access to creeks located in the downtown core area LOA4 * • Redesign, revitalize, and improve 150,000 500,000 planting and signage at all significant gateways into the City Subtotal 1,150,000 9,000,000 04.LF.09116194-PROJECTS 4 Infrastructure Mission: The mission of the infrastructure program is to construct or reconstruct, where necessary, capital improvements located in the project area, including but not limited to streets, drains, and lights. The program will, where possible, supplement other available funding to achieve the same ends. This program also proposes to assist in funding the undergrounding of power lines in the downtown core area. Programs include: Pror�ty7 Program M'in Cost Max Cost . . (Sl 11 ** Replace and reconstruct storm drains in 350,000 7,000,000 coordination with street reconstruction projects 12 ** Undertake pavement management efforts 500,000 4,000,000 including reconstruction of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and other streets located in the project area 13 ** • Underground utilities and replace street 1,000,000 4,000,000 lights with "vintage" lamp fixtures on major streets in the core downtown area 14 • Complete street reconstruction and 11,000,000 pedestrian circulation projects as they become necessary within the project area Subtotal 1,850,000 26,000,000 04.LF.09/16/94•PROJECTS 5 i Circulation Mission: The mission of the circulation program is to improve traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation in Lafayette while maintaining the City's small town atmosphere. This program will also address safety problems in the redevelopment area. Programs include: # Pnonty? Program Mm Cost Maz Cost (S1 #$) C1 • Improve traffic and pedestrian circulation 500,000 15,000,000 in the core business district C2 • Improve parking and pedestrian 250,000 1,000,000 circulation systems along Lafayette Circle, Golden Gate Way, Brown Avenue,6 and other streets in the downtown area needing such improvements C3 Implement the City's bikeways master 500,000 plan in the downtown core area Subtotal 750,000 16,500,000 1 i 1 041F.09/16/94-PROJECTS 6 Community Facilities Mission: The mission of the community facilities program is to utilize limited redevelopment funds to reinvigorate certain civic facilities which provide services to the entire community. Programs include: �I... : -,....... .................... ........ ......... ...... .. ..... .......................- Tiont ....... Program Min Cost . Max Cast: .......... ............... ..... ...................................... ........ . ............. ...... ......................... .......................... ......... .......... ..............11..... I:..: ............. t$ ... ....... ...............I .... ..................................-.......... ......- .................................... ............... ....................... ............................................. ........... .................... . ............................... . ................ ........... ........... .. ................ .......... ....... ....... .... .......... ............................... ..........-............. ................--............................ ,.......I...... .......... ........... ........--- CH Improve meeting places and provide 1,000,000 gathering points and activity areas for Lafayette's senior citizens CF2 Rebuild and/or upgrade the Lafayette 3,000,000 Library facility CF3 Provide a well-designed and seismically- 2,000,000 stable Police substation and Emergency Operating Center Subtotal 6,000,000 04.LF.09/16/94-PROJECTS 7 Housing Mission: The mission of the housing program is to preserve and promote the high quality of Lafayette's affordable housing stock and implement the housing element of the City's general plan. Programs include: # PnMaxoCost {XXXj H1 '* • Construct new and/or rehabilitate existing 1,000,000 10,000,000 senior citizen living facilities; provide incentive programs to construct new senior units H2 • Provide incentives to rehabilitate 500,000 8,000,000 Lafayette's housing stock, including upgrades to appearance, wiring, plumbing, painting, roof repairs, and seismic upgrades H3 • Develop programs to implement the 500,000 2,500,000 housing element of the City's General Plan H4 • Provide assistance for first-time home 1,500,000 buyers in the form of low interest loans, assistance with down payments, and/or other programs as may be approved FTSubtotal 2,000,000 22,000,000 04.LF.09116/94-PROJECTS 8 a Attachment A: Summary of First Priority Projects a # Prwnty. Program Mtn Cost .. ; ......:. .... ; ($1 . <,. ..................................... BR1 ** Procure land and provide convenient off-street parking lots 2,000,000 in the downtown area according to the City's master parking improvement plan BR2 ** Provide incentives to improve commercial projects and 500,000 facades BR3 ** Promote economic development within the downtown 2,000,000 business corridor on a scale complimentary to the existing development patterns and consistent with the City's general plan LOA1 ** Implement the City's approved downtown master 500,000 a landscaping plan, which includes planting new and replacing deficient street trees, improving and irrigating street islands, and improving pedestrian walkways 11 ** Replace and reconstruct storm drains in coordination with 350,000 street reconstruction projects 12 ** Undertakeavement manage efforts including P 9 g 500,000 reconstruction of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and other streets located in the project area 13 ** Underground utilities and replace street lights with 1,000,000 "vintage" lamp fixtures on major streets in the core downtown area H1 ** Construct new and/or rehabilitate existing senior citizen 1,000,000 living facilities; provide incentive programs to construct new senior units Subtotal 7,850,000 a 04.LF.09/16/94-PROJECTS 9 a i Attachment B.- Summary :Summary of Second Priority Projects # Prrority Program Min .Cost ( ) LOA2 Rehabilitate and reconstruct the Plaza Park area with special 250,000 emphasis on its historical significance LOA3 * Stabilize and improve visibility and access to creeks located 250,000 in the downtown core area LOA4 Redesign, revitalize, and improve planting and signage at all 150,000 significant gateways into the City C1 * Improve traffic and pedestrian circulation in the core 500,000 business district C2 Improve parking and pedestrian circulation systems along 250,000 Lafayette Circle, Golden Gate Way, Brown Avenue, and other streets in the downtown area needing such improvements H2 * Provide incentives to rehabilitate Lafayette's housing stock, 500,000 including upgrades to appearance, wiring, plumbing, painting, roof repairs, and seismic upgrades H3 * Develop programs to implement the housing element of the 500,000 City's General Plan Subtotal 1,900,000 04.LF.09/16194-PROJECTS 10 Attachment C. Summary of AH Projects _. Prioraty? Program Min Cost Max Cost . ($) 0 .. BR1 ** Procure land and provide convenient off- 2,000,000 10,000,000 a street parking lots in the downtown area according to the City's master parking improvement plan BR2 *' Provide incentives to improve commercial 500,000 8,000,000 projects and facades BR3 '" Promote economic development within the 2,000,000 20,000,.000 downtown business corridor on a scale complimentary to the existing development patterns and consistent with the City's general plan BR4 Pavement and lighting enhancements for 3,000;000 private parking lots BR5 Provide incentives to retrofit buildings 2,000,000 located in the downtown area constructed with unreinforced masonry BR6 Develop programs to retain current 1,000,000 businesses and attract new business ventures LOA1 " Implement the City's approved downtown 500,000 5,000,000 master landscaping plan, which includes planting new and replacing deficient street trees, improving and irrigating street islands, and improving pedestrian walkways LOA2 * Rehabilitate and reconstruct the Plaza Park 250,000 500,000 area with special emphasis on its historical significance LOA3 * Stabilize and improve visibility and access 250,000 3,000,000 to creeks located in the downtown core area LOA4 * Redesign, revitalize, and improve planting 150,000 500,000 and signage at all significant gateways to !� the City 04.LF.09/16/94-PROJECTS 1 1 1 ............. # Prionty:7 Program Min Cost Max Cost t$ . # ) 11 *' Replace and reconstruct storm drains in 350,000 7,000,000 coordination with street reconstruction projects 12 *' Undertake pavement management efforts 500,000 4,000,000 including reconstruction of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and other streets located in the project area 13 *' Underground utilities and replace street lights 1,000,000 4,000,000 with "vintage" lamp fixtures on major streets in the core downtown area 14 Complete street reconstruction and 11,000,000 pedestrian circulation projects as they become necessary within the project area C1 * Improve traffic and pedestrian circulation in 500,000 15,000,000 the core business district C2 Improve parking and pedestrian circulation 250,000 1,000,000 systems along Lafayette Circle, Golden Gate Way, Brown Avenue, and other streets in the downtown area needing such improvements C3 Implement the City's bikeways master plan in 500,000 the downtown core area CH Improve meeting places and provide 1,000,000 gathering points and activity areas for Lafayette's senior citizens CF2 Rebuild and/or upgrade the Lafayette Library 3,000,000 facility CF3 Provide a well-designed and seismically- 2,000,000 stable Police substation and Emergency Operating Center H1 ** Construct new and/or rehabilitate existing 1,000,000 10,000,000 senior citizen living facilities; provide incentive programs to construct new senior units H2 ' Provide incentives to rehabilitate Lafayette's 500,000 8,000,000 housing stock, including upgrades to appearance, wiring, plumbing, painting, roof repairs, and seismic upgrades H3 Develop programs to implement the housing 500,000 2,500,000 element of the City's general plan 04.LF.09116194-PROJECTS 12 #: Pr�ority7 Program Min Cost Max Cost ...... . I5) L � H4 Provide assistance for first-time home buyers 1,500,000 in the form of low interest loans, assistance with down payments, and/or other programs as may be approved TOTAL 10,250,000 123,500,000 A i 04.LF.09116/94-PROJECTS 13 i 1 i 1 1 1 i i � APPENDIX 1 NOTICE o.PREPARATION 1 i 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 This Page Left Intentionally Blank CERTHMI) MAIL NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: FROM: Urban Futures, Inc. 801 Chapman Avenue Suite 106 Fullerton, CA 92631 -- SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency inthe Lead Agency and will prepare Program Environmental Impact Report (E|R) for the project identified below. The /40onny needs to know the views of your agency mmtothe scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to U� use the Final E!R prepared by the Agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description and location map are attached. /\copy pfthe Initial Study_x_is,____isnot, attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date V� but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. �N Please send your response tp Mr. Jon Huffman, Urban Futures, Inc., 801 E. Chap-man Avenue. Suite 106, Fullerton, California 92631. P|aosa include the.name of a contact person in your agency. PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT APPLICANT, |FANY: Done DATE: 2/15K94 Signature J �H� 4 V #rban--'- ''-- ' '----' , ' '-''' '~ Futuroo, Ino. 7lda: Advisors to the Lafayette Redevelovment Agency Telephone: (714) 738-4277 ~� Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14' Sections 15035.7, 15054.3' 15066(o). 011F.0194 NOP PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Plan" or "Project"). Project Objective The primary objective of the Project is to eliminate blight in the proposed Project Area (see Figure 1). The Agency will undertake a variety of activities designed to eliminate the blight conditions which include, but are not limited to, the following: the construction, reconstruction and improvement of structures, public walks, infrastructure improvements, such as drainage and circulation improvements, and development assistance programs such as land write-downs and low-interest loans; this list of possible actions is for discussion purposes only. The possible actions are not proposed projects at this time, but only possible actions that may be undertaken in conjunction with the proposed Plan. The land uses permitted within the proposed Project Area will conform with the City of Lafayette General Plan and Zoning Code regulations, as amended from time to time, and all other applicable state and local building codes and guidelines, as appropriate. Within the confines of General Plan Land Use designations, a range of development will be permitted. Population densities will conform to goals set forth in the General Plan. Building standards will conform to the building requirements of all applicable state statutes and all applicable local county and city codes and ordinances. According to the State EIR Guidelines(Section 15180), "all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project, which shall be deemed approved at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the legislative body". It is recognized that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on a proposed redevelopment project is necessarily general in nature and cannot reflect detailed impacts of specific developments that will occur because the exact design, scope and location of such developments are generally not known at this point in time. It is for this reason that the State EIR Guidelines (Section 15180) state that "an EIR on a redevelopment plan shall be treated as a program EIR with no subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR would be required by Sections 15162 or 15163". Location and Boundaries The proposed Project Area in its regional context is located within Contra Costa County, approximately 17 miles east of San Francisco, 6 miles south of Concord, and 45 miles north of San Jose. The City of Lafayette is bordered by Briones Regional Park to the north, the City of Walnut Creek and the City of Pleasant Hill to the east, the City of Orinda to the west and the Town of Moraga to the south. The specific location and boundaries of the approximately 582 acre proposed Project Area are presented in Figure 1. Relationship to General Plan Build-Out It is anticipated that, for the most part, the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project will be beneficial in that conditions of blight in the proposed Project Area will be reduced or eliminated over the long-term. 01.1F.02/09194.MOJDESC 1 r R,�II��r� � ._,sun• ���A r� � • ai .ma ■ ..r r ..ii1j ■11i'Inf� r �``►.`• �,ga -�t' }�q �` �,,-,}'<'.:y3E ���a. • � i.fl'j� .� �� I Via. •I"^ ,.:.., s'3�'--g �. & }" cs�� ? x� .� fc', __ws ,,o a?r3Y.�s3�d':-Cid Y°�F���}�;:�"•�:y�°aI°I.*•�;J? � �:;;'t3� flims •':+4 �rf1• ..�:Ml'�e.: ` rY�� 8`��1 �'ui t t2a,..#,�'S�y,y,� .:v�'�. ♦ "'nn�i ie. �1►t� " ■I�. `'■win aal■■M�NA �'• . "� r� +ilmx• *�—�Ilrt■►, 1>��3}��+'� • .. Ij 'O� IO Y� iN` °'r'ri' i.�� :�itf111i• 'Ir��: � � tt IF■� �/ _ f'x � t .`^` 1:5■-,♦ •'.tar& ���� 't:.` river' ,� �y,� ,Ips'r✓\r= L •„ � : �h��[� ` •,@�o �� • p f��� �tq V �`/i ♦�� . iii! \� : ��� ■ 1f w •r�, ■ f w�'rytr :.�♦y .w The proposed Plan will be effective for 30 years from the date of its adoption; implementation will be generally guided by market demand, property and business owner participation, and availability of funding sources. No specific development projects are known to the Agency at this time, hence,there is no way for the Agency to forecast or predict with great detail what degree of impact the proposed project will have upon the long-term growth of the proposed Project Area. The Agency can only project, based upon the success of most other redevelopment projects within the State of California, that the Project will be the catalyst for positive, long-term economic and physical growth within the proposed Project Area. It is difficult, therefore, to determine to what degree of specificity to calculate potential growth and possible related negative impacts resulting from the proposed Project's long-term implementation. The Agency has determined that, because the proposed Project is a tool that can be used by the City,of Lafayette to affect implementation of their General Plan, the appropriate measurement of Project impact is best evaluated in terms of General Plan build-out of the proposed Project Area. As such, the Agency will base all projections within the EIR upon a General Plan build-out scenario. The exact degree of the proposed Project's influence upon ultimate General Plan build-out within the proposed Project Area is indeterminable at this time, but, it does allow the Agency to quantify, within parameters established by existing General Plan policies and guidelines,potential long-term Project-related impacts. At this time, only the general nature of possible redevelopment activities or projects is known. These may include the rehabilitation and improvement of existing structures and infrastructure, the construction of needed public facilities such as community buildings, low income housing programs, infrastructure and circulation improvements, and grants,and/or loans to encourage long-term economic development. Purpose and Intended Use The Program EIR is intended for use by the general public, officials of the City of Lafayette, the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, State level responsible agencies and other interested agencies wishing to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Project. It is designed to be a full ■ disclosure document that will accompany the proposed Project through the adoption process. The following agencies will be responsible for taking certain actions regarding the Plan's adoption: 1 Lafayette Planning Commission: evaluate the Project's conformity with the City General Plan and adopt respective conformity resolutions; 2) The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency: approves and recommends the Plan's adoption; 3) Lafayette City Council: approve and adopt the Redevelopment Plan prepared for the Project by City ordinance. The Program EIR prepared for the proposed Project will not be used for any specific project approvals beyond adoption of the proposed Plan itself. Beyond that approval, this document may be used as a base document for the evaluation of project-specific development proposals, whereby, in conjunction with CEQA requirements, a determination will be made regarding the need for further or additional specific environmental impact review and analysis. 011F.1 1/30/93-PROMESC 3 APPENDIX ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) 1. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Lafayette Redevelopment Agency 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210 Lafayette, CA 94549-1968 (510) 284-1968 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 2/15/94 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Lafayette RedevelOPInent Agency 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Lafayette Redevelopment Project 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes", "maybe" and no" answers are required on attached sheets) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surfaces relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alternation of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X , d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e.. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life, Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 2 Yes Maybe No 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Lioht or Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Unset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances ;including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation} in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fre protection? X b. Police protection? X 3 Yes Maybe No c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Enerov. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X 4 Yes Maybe No d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause of fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ' disadvantage of a long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Ill. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 06.MSC.0891 UFI 5 SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST FOR THE PROPOSED LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The following defines the types of environmental impacts which may affect the existing environmental setting within the proposed Project Area for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Project" or "Plan") should it be adopted and implemented. This supplement is intended to supplement the Initial Study Checklist. The EIR will evaluate each of the areas of concern outlined in the Environmental Checklist accompanied by a "Yes" or "Maybe" response, to determine significant impacts, if any, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures to lessen those significant impacts to a level'of ' insignificance if possible. Those items accompanies with a "No" response on the attached checklist will not be evaluated further. 1. EARTH RESOURCES Implementation of the proposed Project could ultimately cause the displacement, compaction or over-covering of previously pervious surfaces caused by construction of new structures and public facilities. These new structures and public facilities could also be exposed to primary and secondary seismic hazards from the nearby faults such as the Hayward, Concord and Antioch faults. Such hazards may include ground shaking, liquefaction, soil instability and land subsidence. 2. AIR RESOURCES Due to the degree of urbanization already existing within the Project Area and the nature of the redevelopment activities, as described within the Project Description, there will be no adverse environmental impacts to the overall air quality within the City of Lafayette and surrounding areas as a result of Project implementation. 3. WATER Implementation of the proposed Project may result in increases in the rate and amount of surface run-off due to the covering of pervious surfaces with impervious building and paving materials. However, this may or may not be significant depending on the size ' and location of specific developments. The introduction of urban uses, to presently undeveloped areas, could affect the supply ' of ground water that might be available. Implementation of public improvements to water delivery systems and storm drain systems could result in changes in the pattern of existing surface drainage. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (4. Plant Life and 5. Animal Life) Implementation of the Project may result in a change in the diversity or number of species of plants or animals or their habitat due to the proximity of such species located 01.LF.1193-SUPPL 1 in the region. An assessment of impacts will be made based upon the existing data , available as stated in the Lafayette General Plan. The Agency may require additional environmental impact assessment on a project-by-project basis once project specifics are known such as location, size and type of development. , 6. NOISE ' Implementation of the Project is anticipated to result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction projects and construction equipment. Potential long-term ' noise impacts affecting the proposed Project Area or'caused by proposed Project related projects could result from increased motor vehicle noise, railway noise and industrial noise. Long-term increases in the existing noise levels caused by increased urbanization will be at levels permitted by the City of Lafayette's General Plan and Zoning Code. , These levels, which will be assessed using existing data, are generally seen as acceptable conditions within the parameters of an urban setting. The Agency may require additional , environmental impact assessment for projects that may have the potential for generation of significant noise levels. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE The implementation of the proposed Project should not produce a significant increase in light and glare due to the nature of the redevelopment activities as previously described in the Project Description. 8. LAND USE The proposed Project will comply with, and conform to, the goals, objectives and policies of the Lafayette General Plan and Zoning Code, as amended from time to time, and all other applicable City, State and County land use laws, restrictions and guidelines. Improvements to the proposed Project Area's level of land use utilization, made possible in part by the proposed Project's implementation, are expected to increase the proposed Project Area's level of land utilization to the long range levels designed in the City's General Plan. As a result, all related impacts are anticipated to be positive in the long- term. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed Projects implementation may cause an increase in the rate of consumption of natural resources such as water, building materials, petroleum products and land. However, the rate of increase will be consistent with existing growth and land use policies established within the City's General Plan, and as policies may be amended from time to time. 10. RISK OF UPSET The proposed Project is not anticipated to cause a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response plans due to the nature of the OLLF.1193-SUPPL 2 redevelopment activities which, consistent with General Plan land use policy, are primarily industrial, commercial and residential in nature. DEMOGRAPHICS (11. Population and 12. Housing) Implementation of the proposed Project may ultimately generate the need for additional housing inventory within the City caused by related population and employment increases within or related to growth and redevelopment within the proposed Project Area. These increases will generally be caused by an improvement in the City's economic, social and physical settings. All long-term increases will be in accordance with existing General Plan growth and land use policies. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The proposed Project will comply with, and conform to, the goals, objectives and policies of the Lafayette General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate positive changes to the proposed Project Area's existing circulation system caused by roadway traffic control and pedestrian oriented improvement projects implemented throughout the proposed Project Area. Because of the proposed Project's growth inducing nature, it will indirectly generate additional vehicular traffic which will impact existing Project Area roadways. The degree of this impact will be assessed using existing data. The City may require additional environmental impact assessments for specific projects that have the potential for generating significant increases upon the existing circulation system. Increased commercial/industrial development activities may require new parking facilities, however, these facilities would be integral to any new development project. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed Project's implementation will increase the demand for public services and facilities. This increased demand will be fueled by an increaser) population and related growth which will be the end result of improved economic, physical and social settings. However, the adoption and subsequent implementation would ultimately result in positive impacts to existing public services and facilities caused by the provision of funds to construct needed facilities and provide adequate levels of service. 15. ENERGY Implementation of the proposed Project will not generate the need for additional energy production due to the degree of urbanization within the proposed Project Area. 16. UTILITIES Similar to Public Services above, the proposed Project's implementation will ultimately have some impact on utilities; however, the impact is anticipated to be positive in that O1.LF.1193-SUPPL 3 the proposed Project would provide a funding and administrative vehicle that can be used , to facilitate the expansion and/or upgrading of deficient utility delivery systems. 17. HUMAN HEALTH ' Due to the type of redevelopment activities stated earlier in the Project Description, it is anticipated that the proposed Project will have no adverse environmental impacts to ' human health. 18. AESTHETICS ' The proposed Project's implementation will enhance the quality of the proposed Project Area due to redevelopment activities, as previously described in the Project Description. , No negative impacts are anticipated. 19. RECREATION ' The impact upon recreation facilities due to redevelopment activities will be positive in nature because these activities may include the construction of park facilities to offset any ' deficiencies that may currently exist. However, an increased population could place demands upon existing facilities that are beyond acceptable levels. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES , Due to the degree of urbanization there are no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites , within the Project Area. The Project's implementation will not cause any environmental impacts to prehistoric or historic structures or buildings. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE , Cumulatively, redevelopment of the proposed Project Area may have an impact on the ' proposed Project Area and the City in general. This impact will be generated by the Agency's ability to fund and administrate projects and programs that will ultimately, while causing an increase to the City's population, eliminate blight, provide decent, safe ' and sanitary housing, provide jobs and increase the City's tax base. Because the potential does exist for significant impacts to the existing environmental ' setting caused by the proposed Project's implementation, a Program EIR is deemed necessary. 01.LF.1193-SUFYL 4 , APPENDIX C ' RESPONSES TO NOT/CE OF PREPARA TION "LI)ARKS 1 R T BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECEIVEDJocelyn Combs,President Ted Radke.Vice President March 14, 1994 MAR 1619% Oliver Holmes,TreasurSusanSmartt,Secretaryer John O'Donnell Douglas Siden AW.......... Jean Sin Pat a Been General Manager Mr. John Huffman Urban Futures, Inc. 801 E. Chapman Ave. , #106 Fullerton, CA 92631 SUBJECT: EIR FOR THE LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT LAFAYETTE-MORAGA REGIONAL TRAIL Dear Mr. Huffman: The East Bay Regional Park District has reviewed the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the subject document. The District requests that the EIR specifically address the potential for significant adverse impacts upon the portions of the Lafayette-Moraga trail which exists within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The District also requests that the EIR evaluate the potential for the project to substantially inhibit or preclude the District' s planned trail, through the Redevelopment Area, connecting the Lafayette-Moraga trail to the Lafayette Ridge trail in Briones Regional Park. The contact person for the subject document is the undersigned who may be reached at (510) 635-0138, extension 2622 . very trul S, T.H. Lindenmeyer Environmental Specialist c:\t\94\huffman.1tr 2950 Peralta Oaks Court-PA.Box 5361-OakJand CA 94605 0381•510.635.0135-FAX 510.569.4319 PUBLIC EcoNomics, INC. k7,?Wr- t I . "F I VE rD" Public Finance. asst{ ' Urban Economics Development Services March 11, 1994 Mr. Jon Huffman Urban Futures, Inc. 801 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 106 Fullerton, CA 92631 Dear Mr. Huffman: Public Economics, Inc. has received your Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the City of Lafayette Redevelopment Project ("Project"). Our client, the Contra Costa Community College District ("District"), has requested that we respond to this notice on their behalf. The District provides- services within the Project area and exercises authority over resources which may be affected by the Project. The District is also an "affected taxing entity" as defined in Section 33353.2 of the California Health and Safety Code as it levies property taxes within the Project area. Based on Section 21080.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the District requests that school impacts be identified and evaluated in the EIR since schools were identified in the Initial Study as a public service which may be impacted by the Project. The EIR should identify impacts of the Project on the District based on existing land uses, maximum development potential to General Plan buildout, population and housing growth, and direct and indirect effects of job creation on household growth. The EIR should also recommend quantifiable measures to fully mitigate impacts of the Project on the District. The District requests that the EIR evaluate sources of mitigation including, but not necessarily limited to, statutory pass-throughs to the District pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993 and mitigation from the City of Lafayette and developers. Please call me if you need any additional information regarding this response. Sincerely urs, Sincerely Kerry Consultant cc: Mr. Chuck Ely, Contra Costa Community College District Mr, Dante Gumucio, Public Economics, Inc. m:\1afayett\nop-1tr.sam 2 100 E.Katella Avenue,Suite 195 980 Ninth Street,Suite 7600 Anaheim,CA 92806 Sacramento,CA 95814 (714)937-0806/ FAX(714)937-1804 (916)449-9646 / FAX(916)446-7104 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY C N t Ll C PETE WILSON, Govemor ' DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME POST OFFICE BOX 47 MAR 2 11"4 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 `� -e (707)9445500 March 15, 1994 t Mr John Huffman ' Urban Futures, Inc. 801 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 106 Fullerton, California 92631 Dear Mr. Huffman: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Program Level ' Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the NOP ' described above. The proposal is for a variety of activities including infrastucture improvements, such as drainage and circulation improvements and construction of structures. Please ' address the following concerns while preparing the document. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should contain a complete description and map of the vegetation and creeks within ' the planning area. Impacts to habitats and mitigation measures necessary to offset those impacts should be identified and discussed. We recommend impacts be mitigated by avoidance, minimization of impacts, and acquisition and preservation as open space of at least an equal area and quality as that lost. It is the policy of this Department that a project should ' cause no net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat value. We recommend impacts to creeks be avoided where possible. Impacts would include, but are not limited to, road crossings, culverts, channelization, and rip rap. If improvements to the creek must be made for reasons of public health and safety, retention basins would be preferable to channelization of the entire stream. In areas which must be channelized, we recommend the channel be oversized in order to allow for vegetation along both banks. Unavoidable impacts should be identified and mitigation provided for in the document . Mitigation for lost wetlands or creeks must include the creation of new wetlands on at ' least a 1:1 basis. Higher value wetlands will require higher ratios for compensation. Areas proposed as wetland mitigation sites must be identified specifically in the document. Riparian vegetation removed should be replaced on a 3 : 1 in-kind basis using native species . Mr. John Huffman March 15, 1994 Page Two The Department recommends a minimum 100-foot buffer be established to protect streams and wetlands and their associated vegetation, and provide a travel corridor for wildlife. The buffer should be measured outward from the top of each streambank or from the edge of any wetland. In the case of riparian vegeration along stream courses, the setback should be measured outward from the development side of the vegetative canopy. No roads or structures should be permitted within the buffer. Pedestrian trails should be located along the outside edge of the riparian vegetation. Any work within the banks of any creek, including road crossings and culverts, will require a streambed alteration agreement with this Department . The Department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code sections 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. We recommend early consultation since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources . Formal notification of proposed channel modifications under Fish and Game Code Section 1603 should be made after all other permits and certifications have been obtained. Work cannot be initiated until a streambed alteration agreement is executed. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the discharge of fill to streams and wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If work is to be done in any creek or wetland, we recommend the Corps be notified to determine if they have jurisdiction and require a permit. Runoff from parking lots contributes to non-point source pollution in creeks which impacts aquatic species. To mitigate these impacts, we recommend oil/grease separators be required in the storm drain system of all 50-car or largerparkinglots. Annual maintenance of the separators, as well as a sweeping program for the lot itself, should also be required. Properly sized and maintained separators will reduce the amount of oil flowing into the creek, as well as allow time in the summer for the degradation of biodegradable materials such as some detergents used to wash cars. Surveys should be conducted for any rare, threatened, or endangered species which may exist onsite. Federal candidate species, wildlife listed as species of special concern, and plants listed by the California Native Plant Society should be included. TheDepartment' s Natural Diversity Data Base should be consulted for any known site-specific occurrences and for a list of species found in the general area. . A report from the Data Base which lists no findings for the project site does not indicate these species do not exist there, only that no information is in the file. Consequently, a negative result from a Data Base search must not be used to obviate the need for requisite surveys. Mr. John Huffman March 15, 1994 Page Three Surveys for sensitiive species should be conducted at the proper time of year to locate them. Impacts to these species and their habitats should be avoided. Impacts which are unavoidable should be identified and appropriate mitigation provided. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15126d) state that discussion of alternatives shall focus on those capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignifi- cance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. it requires that the "no project" alternative be evaluated. State and Federal policy state that the preferred method of mitigation is impact avoidance. The DEIR must provide a thorough description of mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate any significant impacts. The monitoring program, required by Assembly Bill 3180, (CEQA Section 21081. 6) must ensure that mitigation measures are effective and must provide for corrective action if they are not. Thank you for considering our concerns. If you have any questions or comments regarding any of the above, please contact Caitlin Bean, Environemtnal Specialist III, at (707) 944-5570; or Carl Wilcox, Environmental Services Supervisor, at (707) 944-5525 . Sincerely, Brian Hunter Regional Manager Region 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 2101 WEBSTER STREET, SUITE 500 RECEIVED OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 28&1255 MAR 1 7 1994 CITY OF WW1,0'71 E March 15, 1994 RECEIVED File No. 2118,04(MYM) MAR 2 119% Mr. Jon Huffman A0...... Lafayette Redevelopment Agency 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Suite 210 Lafayette, CA 94549 SUBJECT: SCH # 94033001: Lafayette Redevelopment Project, Contra Costa County Dear Mr. Huffman: We have reviewed the subject notice of-preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report. In the NOP the proposed project is described 'to include, but not limited to, the following: the construction,reconstruction and improvement of structures,public works, infrastructure improvements, such as drainage and circulation. improvements, and development assistance programs such as land write-downs and low-interest loans. We have the following concerns and comments: 1. The project may be subject to coverage under the statewide general construction permit for stormwater. Under this program, the City will be required to apply for coverage under the permit if the total amount of land area disturbed during construction is equal to or greater than five acres. The permit requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, addressing erosion control and runoff during construction and longterm measures for runoff control following the completion of construction. 2. If wetlands are affected, the EIR should note the Regional Board's Wetland Fill Policy, which requires no net loss of wetland acreage and no net loss of wetland value. Mitigation may be required, preferably in-kind and onsite with no destruction of habitat value. Huffman Page 2, 3. If the project requires a U.S. Corps of Engineers permit,the Regional Board must certify that the Corps permit complies with water quality standards, or waive such certification. If not waived, the certification can be granted or denied. If two or more acres of wetlands are affected, the certification, must be voted on by the Regional Board in a public hearing. However, if the area is less than two acres,certification can be handled administratively. Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me.at (510) 286-4264. Sincerely, M*aY. Mus ng , Sanitary Engineering Associate Centrad Contra Costa Sanitary District , 5019 Imhoff Place,Martinez,California 94553-4392 !)228-950 March 15, 1994ROCER1DOLAN RECEIVED R CeneraiManager ChietEngineer MAR 21 M KENTONL.ALM Counsel!or the District Urban Futures, Inc: Apg ............ ($10)93&1430 801 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 106 JOYCE E.MURPHY Fullerton, CA 92631 Secretary ofthe District ATTENTION: JON HUFFMAN Ladies and Gentlemen: �i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WS: 22 The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is a public service provider for the proposed project under CEQA. The District is responsible for determining the route and design capacity of sewers serving property within its boundaries and for providing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services. We request that the following comments be addressed in the EIR. 1 . SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS i 1.1 The project site is within the CCCSD boundaries, and sewer service has been planned for this area. 1.2 Some new development in the redevelopment area may require the ; construction of sewer mains. The developer should be aware that District policy requires gravity sewers in preference to pumped systems and the location of public sewers in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the extent possible. Variances from this policy are discouraged. However, the District will consider alternatives on a case-by-case basis where the project engineer justifies such alternatives to the District's satisfaction. ) Specific requirements are: Gravity Service. Sewers are to be designed to operate under gravity flow to the District's existing sanitary sewer system. The use of sewage pumps for individual lots will not be permitted unless it is economically impractical to construct a main sewer to provide gravity service. The District's current "Standard Specifications" document provides criteria for allowing the use of sewage pumps at individual lots. Location in Streets. As a minimum, an 8-inch public sewer must be Recyd W Paper HOB ` _~ Urban Futures, Inc. Page 2 March 15. 1894 extended by the developer to serve each parcel (residential or oon)nmeroie| ~ lot, townhouse unit' condominium building, or apartment complex, as appropriate). New sewer systems are to be designed with the rnaxirnurn amount of public sewers located in streets. U public sewers proposed for this project are to be located in an off-street location, the project engineer rnust 'us1ifv such location tothe satisfaction of the District. Easements. An exclusive public sewer easement must be established over the alignment of each public mavver in on off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance. The following criteria are used todetermine the public sewer easement width: � The sewer easement width shall be 15 feet where the public sewer is less than 12 inches in diameter and the depth is 9 feet or less. � The sewer easement width shall be 20 feet where he public sewer ia12inches and larger indiameter orthe depth kSgreater than 9feet. � If new public sewers are being installed across properties where existing improvements will remain inplace adjacent t0the new public sewers, sewer easement width may be reduced at the discretion of the l]iatriot, but in no ogae can the width be less than 10 feet. ��. In addition, all-weather access for the District's maintenance vehicles toall manholes and rodding inlets inoff-street locations is required. All-weather access typically consists of m 10'foot wide cross section with a surface course ofturf'b|oCk' 2 inches Ofasphalt concrete, orother equivalent all- weather surface acceptable to the District, over 6 inches of aggregate |l-vveathersurfmcaaocaptob|etotheC>istrict. overGinchenOfaggregote base. The use of sanitary sewer easement surfaces shall be limited to paving, shrubbery, gardena, and other landscaping, excluding trees. Parallel surface drainage ways and permanent structures including, but not limited to, buildings,, mvvirnrning pools, decks, and retaining vvoUa are not permitted within the easement area. 2. SOURCE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ` The District has reviewed this project for source control requirements. Base wastewater flow fronnthis project appears to be domestic vvostevvatersuch as fromnresidential, office, or church sources. Specific source control requirements are normally not applicable to domestic wastewater,. However, materials such as gasoline, oil, sand, paint' pesticide reoidueo, or other toxic substances are prohibited from being introduced into the District's sewer system. The proposed ^ pr-'8ot includes Cmer�io| business activity use. The developer =- should be aware that the District's Source Control Ordinance is applicable to �� Urban Futures, Inc. Page 3 March 15, 1994 potential commercial tenants. Project and tenant improvement plans must be reviewed by the District to determine the specific source control requirements which will apply. r 3. SEWER CAPACITY Within the project area, several sewer deficiencies have been identified where existing 67inch diameter sewer mains should be upsized to 8-inch diameter: .Lafayette Circle (Hough Avenue to Mt. Diablo Blvd.), Mt. Diablo Blvd. (Lafayette Circle - east to Moraga Road), Moraga Road (Mt. Diablo Blvd., to Plaza Drive), and Plaza Drive (Moraga Road to Golden Gate Way). The Redevelopment Agency should consider including these improvements in the project description. The District has completed a capacity study for the sewer system downstream of the proposed project. This study determined that the existing sewer system will be deficient during extreme rain events. Improvements to correct the deficiencies r are in the District's Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plana Improvements to the District's existing facilities that are required as a result of new development will be „f funded from applicable District fees and charges. The developer will be required to pay these fees and charges at the time of connection to the sewer system. 4. PRIVATE SEWERS The proposed project includes side sewers. A side sewer is defined as a private sewer which is owned and maintained by the property owner and which connects the plumbing system of the building to the main sewer. The side sewer begins at the point of connection to the building plumbing system 2 feet outside the foundation line or building wall and terminates at the point of connection to the main sewer. District policy requires that the developer be responsible for installation of the side sewer,and the property owner be responsible for operation and maintenance of the side sewer. District review of the design and inspection of the work on the side sewer shall in no way constitute our acceptance of any responsibility for maintenance or damage to property due to construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of the side sewer. The design intent of the typical side sewer details included in the District's current "Standard Specification" document is to reduce the amount. of rainfall and groundwater that will infiltrate the sewer, thereby avoiding unnecessary pumping and treatment costs. The typical side sewer details are not intended to meet the geotechnical, structural, or drainage requirements of special situations. 5. HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREA SEWER POLICY ` Urban Futures, Inc. Page �N March 15' 1994 The District has a Hillside and Creek Area Sewer Policy which addresses the design and installation of sewers in hillsides or unstable areas. The requirements of this policy must be fOUVvved when construction p|8OS are prepared. For your convenience, a copy of the policy is enclosed. «� 8. TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY ._' The District's current discharge permit allows an average dry weather flow rate of 45 million gallons per day (rnpd) based on eaecondery level of treatment. The aotua/ averaQedryvveath8rf|ovvr8taiS33.8rngdbaSeduponthepastthreeyeara' data. The 45 mod treatment plant capacity should be adequate until the 1997- 2000 year time frame based upon historical connection rotes to the District's collection system. However, unforeseen circumstances in the Treatment Plant Expansion Program Or requirements imposed by state, federal, or regional authorities could affect the availability of sewer connections at any time. ' The Sanitary District must review and approve any construction plans involving work on the public sewer system prior to the developer's applying for a building permit. The District's Permit Section will receive and process the construction plans. /\|aO' contact the District's Permit Section regarding fees applicable to This project. Sincerely, Russell B. Leavbt, A|CP Planning Assistant -~ RBL:nS Enclosure o: City of Lafayette Planning Department V� 251 Lafayette Circle Lafayette, CA 84543 �� CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREA SEWER POLICY r• PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR r DESIGNING SEWERS TO BE LOCATED IN HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREAS 1, 1. Soils reports will be required where: a. Slopes of hills where sewers are proposed for installation exceed 15 percent. b. Sewers are proposed for installation within 50 feet of creek beds. C. Sewers are proposed for installation within the range of influence of a possible landslide from adjacent hill. r d. Sewers are proposed for installation in historical slide locations. 2. A soils report covering the proposed project must be prepared by a registered civil engineer practicing in Geotechnical Engineering and be submitted by the job engineer. 3. If the project geotechnical report does not cover an off-road sewer alignment, the District may require a supplementary report. This report, at a minimum, must address the following: a. Supplementary geological setting, general soils and bedrock conditions along the proposed sewer alignment and recommended setbacks from slides and creeks. b. Stability or instability of selected sewer alignment. C. Potential groundwater problems. d. Effect of trenching on slope stability (negative impacts on slope). e. Special backfill, special trenching requirements, or special supports that may be recommended. f. Erosion potential of soils around sewer near waterways. g. Recommended corrections if an instability exists or may develop. 4. Installation of sewers in unrepaired slide areas is to be avoided. a. If an acceptable gravity route is feasible around the unrepaired slide, the sewer must be installed around the slide. b. If the only feasible gravity route is through a slide area, a complete study of the slide must be made by a Geotechnical Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer must propose a solution which is satisfactory to the District. The normal solution is repair of the slide. C. If a satisfactory gravity solution does not exist, the pumping of sewage from individual homes will be considered. 5. The project engineer must furnish a map which shows existing creeks or swales which may convey water in the vicinity of any proposed sewer main alignments. (continued on other side) f 6. Sewers shall not be designed to be located in the bottom of swales or creeks. 7. For sewers which will be parallel to swales or creeks, the sewer must be designed far enough away from the drainageway to eliminate the possibility of future eroding around the sewer. A Geotechnical Engineer shall review the proposed alignment and furnish recommendations regarding long-term erosion potentials. a. If it is infeasible to locate sewer mains on the downslope side of future homes and maintain a safe distance from drainageways, consideration will be given to installing the sewers in street areas and installing residential sewage pumps on individual homes. 8. For sewers which crossr r creeks swales,o s a es, the crossing shall be as nearly perpendicular to the drainageway as feasible. a. Bank and bottom prote Lion shall be designed per the recommendatirm of a Geotechnical Engineer and shall be installed in the drainageway as a part of the overhead or underground crossing. b. The project engineers shall pay particular attention to designing adequate support foundations and protection for the foundation. 9. An access easement (minimum width of 10 feet) shall be granted by the developer from the nearest public street to the creek crossing structure along the route of the sewer main, if possible, for future maintenance. 10. The following design standards shall be used by thejroect engineer when designing sewers in P 9 9 9 hillside and/or creek areas. a. Sewers to be installed across hillside slopes (generally parallel to contours) shall be ductile iron (no bedding) if the cross slope of the hill exceeds 25 percent. b. Sewers to be installed parallel to defined creeks shall be located no closer than 20 feet from the top of the bank if the creek bank is defined; if not, no closer than 30 feet from the centerline of the creek. C. Sewers to be installed parallel to defined creeks from 20-50 feet away from the top of the bank shall be ductile iron (no bedding). 1 d. Manholes to be insta!led on either ends of creek crossings shall be located no closer than 20 feet from the top of the creek bank. r:k since 1918 CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL April 18, 1994 Jon Huffman Executive Vice President Urban Futures, Inc. 801 Chapman Avenue Suite 106 Fullerton, CA 92631 Dear Mr. Huffman: We are in receipt of your Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the , Lafayette Redevelopment Agency. We have no reason to question this project. Please send further notices to the Governing Board of the Canyon School District at the above address. ` Very truly yours, Ellen Flagg ,. Member, Governing Board 1� 1� P. O. Box 187 Pinehurst Rd • Canyon , CA 9451 6 ( 5 10 ) 376 - 4671 • Fax: ( 510 ) 376 - 2343 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 MAR 1 1994 (510) 286.4444 : TDD (510) 286.4454 CITY CF LAIFAYETTE March 28, 1994 �� 1 CC-024-6.51 SCH#94033001 CCO24145 Mr. Jon Huffman Lafayette Redevelopment Agency 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210 Lafayette,CA 94549 RE: Notice of Preparation of a Program EIR for the proposed Lafayette Redevelopment Project - The 582-acre proposed Project Area in its regional context is located within Contra Costa County. Dear Mr. Huffman: Thank you for including the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for projects in Contra Costa County. After reviewing the above referenced document, we have the following comments: �f • Section 15180, while stating that "an EIR on a redevelopment plan shall be treated as a program EIR," adds that a subsequent EIR and/or a supplement to an EIR may be required if conditions described under Sections 15162 or 15163 are applicable. I • A traffic impact analysis should be prepared to assess the impact of this proposal on State highway facilities. The analysis should include an assessment of this proposal's impacts on, at least, the following facilities: Route 24 (mainline) Acalanes Rd. I/C First St. I/C Pleasant Hill Rd. I/C �I State facilities distant from the project site which are operating, or are projected to operate, at a degraded level of service should also be evaluated if this project could add significant traffic volumes to the facility. The traffic study should include trip generation, distribution and assignment. The methodologies used in compiling the information should be explained. Trip distribution information should be based on a realistic estimate of where the residents of the development will work and shop. Huffman/CCO24145 March 28, 1994 Page 2 Traffic information should be presented in terms of average daily traffic volumes, AM and PM peak hour volumes and level of service for the above listed facilities. Traffic data should be calculated for each of the ■ following conditions: 0 Existing traffic 9 Existing plus project traffic • Existing plus project plus cumulative traffic Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic generating development that would affect the facilities evaluated, and should not be limited toprojects under the jurisdiction of the lead agency., Diagrams illustrating traffic distribution and assignment, and a map showing the locations of approved projects in the vicinity should be included. The traffic study must include adequate mitigation for impacts to State highway facilities. Mitigation measures considered should include highway and non-highway improvements. Special attention should be given to the development of alternative solutions to circulation problems which do not rely on increased highway construction. • Additionally, all mitigation proposed should be fully discussed in the environmental document. This discussion should include but not be limited to the following areas: • Cost • Financing • Scheduling • Lead agency monitoring • Implementation responsibilities A Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required for any work done within the State right-of-way. Before an encroachment permit can be issued, a completed application, final environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans will need to be submitted to the following contact person: Huffman/CCO24145 March 28, 1994 Page 3 r Mr. Bob Cashion, Chief Maintenance - Permits Caltrans District 4 P. O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Additionally, please be advised that a request for an encroachment permit would render Caltrans a responsible agency with a respect to a project. When a State agency is a responsible agency, negative declarations must be submitted to the Clearinghouse for review by State agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to continue close correspondence on its development. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Melinda Pagaduan of my staff at(510) 286-5544. Sincerely, JOE BROWNE District Director By IT CURTISS Senior Transportation Planner r cc: Mark Goss, SCH Craig Goldblatt, M i C Patricia Perry, ABAG Robert McCleary, CCTA _ t i CrrY of CONCORD Crry Ct)U;Y m, 1950 Parksidc Dric'c (:anter<I,(:alili rnia!PIGI!1-`�i>7S Mark DcS.uthticr,Mayor r;ts: (510)671-3381 Colleen Coil.Viec Mayor M/S 24 � llctcn Ni.Allen ^� Oft .. Michael A.Pastrick ( (510)671-3162 ConcoF*-- Lou Rosas Telephone: Farrel A.SU-Wart.City Utamtgcr February 23, 1994 RECEIVED FEB 2 61994 Assd............ Mr. Jon Huffman Urban Futures, Inc. 801 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 106 Fullerton, CA 92631 Subject: Notice of Preparation, EIR for Lafayette Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Huffman: The City of Concord has no comments on the Notice of Preparation for this project. Please sent the City of Concord a copy of the Draft EIR when it is completed. Thank you. Sincerely, \ 40 Janet Homrighausen, AICP Associate Planner JH:mmm dly\huff=nJh �.` APPENDIX D NO/SE DATA (prepared as part of the ' Lafayette Genera/Plan Data Base) TABLE 3 Location A Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements Off Dianne Ct.; Top of Ridge; Exposed to Noise From SR-24 Traffic Hour Date Beginning L� I, La, L,o L50 L90 2/24/92 2:00 pm 53 74 45 66 54 48 46 3:00 m 49 62 44 58 50 48 46 4:00 Drn 49 62 44 58 51 48 46 5:00 DM 48 58 44 54 50 48 46 6:00 Prn 52 66 46 62 53 50 48 7:00 DM 52 67 43 64 52 49 46 8:00 vm 51 65 44 61 52 49 46 9:00 m 50 74 45 61 61 48 46 10:00 m 49 56 44 52 51 48 46 11:00 m 44 55 38 49 46 44 41 2/25/92 Midnight 46 63 39 52 48 46 43 1:00 am 44 60 37 51 46 42 40 2:00 am 46 54 39 52 48 46 42 3:00 am 46 54 39 1 51 48 45 42 4:00 am 48 62 39 56 50 46 42 5:00 am 51 62 46 60 53 50 48 6:00 am 53 60 50 56 55 - 53 51 7:00 am 55 62 50 60 57 54 52 8:00 am 54 70 48 66 56 53 50 9:00 am 54 66 49 64 56 53 51 10:00 am 50 62 46 58 52 49 48 11:00 am 53 71 44 65 56 49 47 12:00 DM 50 68 44 60 52 48 46 1:00 m 50 64 44 61 52 48 46 Ld. = 56 dB 11 Table 3 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L�q Lftm Li. Lol L,o Lso Lgo 2/25/92 2:00 pm 50 66 44 60 52 48 46 3:00 pm 50 70 44 60 50 48 46 4:00 m 48 60 43 56 50 47 45 5:00 im 50 61 44 58 50 48 46 6:00 m 51 66 46 62 52 50 48 7:00 m 52 65 44 63 53 50 47 8:00 m 50 59 46 54 52 50 48 9:00 m 49 56 45 52 50 48 47 10:00 m 46 61 41 55 48 46 44 , 11:00 m 44 53 38 50 46 43 41 2/26/92 Midni ht 42 52 35 48 44 42 38 1:00 am 39 48 32 46 42 38 35 2:00 am 42 55 34 50 44 40 37 3:00 am 42 53 34 50 45 42 38 4:00 am 42 52 36 48 44 42 38 5:00 am 48 58 40 52 50 48 44 ' 6:00 am 50 59 47 56 52 50 48 7:00 am 56 66 50 62 60 55 53 8:00 am 58 65 55 63 60 58 57 9:00 am 53 62 44 59 56 52 48 10:00 am 47 57 43 53 49 46 45 11:00 am 50 66 43 62 51 47 45 12:00 ipm 50 64 44 59 52 1 48 46 1:00 m 48 62 42 56 50 47 45 L& = 54 dB ( 12 ) TABLE 4 Location B Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements Off Dianne Ct.; South Side of Ridge; Traffic on SR-24 Audible But Not Visible Hour Date Beginning Leq Lm" L.i. Lo, L10 Lso 1,90 2/24/92 2:00 pm 48 66 21 60 51 36 34 3:00 -pm 46 64 31 60 46 34 32 4:00 pm 46 78 30 60 48 36 32 5:00 pm 40 58 30 53 42 36 32 6:00 pm 48 66 32 63 50 38 3 7:00 T)m 50 68 33 65 50 39 36 8:00 Rm 47 66 32 62 44 38 36 9:00 Dm 40 58 33 51 43 38 36 10:00 pm 38 48 34 44 39 37 36 11:00 ipm 36 54 30 45 36 34 32 2/25/92 Midnight 36 51 30 41 38 34 32 1:00 am 34 46 28 40 36 - 32 30 2:00 am 35 44 30 41 38 34 32 3:00 am 37 56 30 47 38 34 32 4:00 am 36 51 30 41 38 35 32 5:00 am 46 66 36 62 42 38 37 6:00 am 44 54 39 50 46 44 41 7:00 am 48 62 42 58 51 45 44 8:00 am 52 71 42 67 54 44 42 9:00 am 50 68 41 64 52 44 43 10:00 am . 46 62 40 58 48 43 42 11:00 am 52 73 39 66 54 42 41 12:00 DM 49 70 38 62 52 42 40 1:00 pm 48 64 34 .-60 51 42 35 Ld. = 49 dB ( 13 ) Table 4 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lam, L. Lmj. Lp, L18 L50 L9 2/25/92 2:00 ym 49 68 32 62 50 36 34 3:00 m 44 65 310 44 6 36 33 4:04 m 44 62 31 56 48 36 32 5:00 m 44 64 31 58 46 36 33 6:00 pm 48 66 36 64 46 40 38 7:04 pm 50 68 36 64 51 1 40 38 8:00 m 42 58 34 54 44 38 36 9:00 12M 40 53 34 48 41 38 36 10:00 13M 43 67 31 56 40 1 36 34 11:00 pm. 37 54 29 48 38 33 31 I2 I . 2 6 92 Midnight 32 45 27 40 34 30 28 1:00 am 30 44 27 37 32 29 28 2:00 am 32 50 26 46 33 30 28 ' 3:00 am 34 50 27 40 37 32 29 4:00 am 36 - 44 28 42 39 36 33 5:00 am 40 52 32 50 42 40 36 6:00 am 50 65 44 62 50 48 46 7:00 am 50 65 44 62 50 48 46 8:00 am 50 64 44 62 51 47 46 !■ 9:00 am 48 62 41 58 50 45 42 �■ 10:00 am 44 54 38 52 46 43 41 11:00 am 50 69 40 64 50 1 43 41 `` 12:00 pm 48 66 38 1 60 50 42 40 1:00 pm 44 64 32 55 47 40 34 Ld. = 48 dB ( 14 ) 5 TABLE 5 Location C Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements At the Right-of-Way of SR-24; 50 Ft. From Near Lane of SR-24 Hour Date Beginning Lw L. L.. 1-01 L,o L50 L90 2/26/92 4:00 pm 80 88 72 84 82 80 78 5:00 pm 80 87 74 83 81 80 78 6:00 m 79 87 1 74 82 80 1 78 77 7:00 pm 79 87 68 82 81 79 76 8:00 pm 78 86 61 82 80 77 73 9:00 m 78 85 66 82 80 77 73 10:00 m 77 85 64 82 80 76 72 11:00 pm 76 88 58 82 78 74 68 2/27/92 Midnight 73 85 48 80 77 72 62 1:00 am 70 84 44 79 74 66 57 2:00 am 69 85 46 80 74 63 53 3:00 am 68 84 48 79 73 62 54 4:00 am 70 84 50 80 74 64 58 5:00 am 74 86 60 82 78 72 66 6:00 am 78 86 68 84 81 78 74 7:00 am 80 87 71 84 82 80 78 8:00 am 80 87 70 84 82 80 78 9:00 am 80 91 70 84 82 79 76 10:00 am 79 94 68 84 82 79 76 11:00 am 79 86 66 84 82 79 76 12:00 pm 79 86 66 84 81 78 76 1:00 m 79 88 70 84 81 78 76 2:00 pm 80 86 71 84 82 80 77 3:00 pm 1 80 88 74 84 1 82 80 1 78 L,,, = 82 dB ( 15 ) Table 5 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lw Lffm Li. 41 L,o Lso 1,90 2/27/92 4:00 pm 80 88 72 84 82 80 78 5:00 pm 77 86 68 82 80 76 73 6:00 pm 80 84 74 82 81 80 78 7:00 pm 79 92 68 82 80 79 76 8:00 pm 78 90 65 82 80 78 73 9:00 pm 78 -86 65 82 80 78 74- 10:00 12M 77 86 62 81 80 76 72 11:00 m 76 92 60 82 78 75 69 2/28/92 Midnight 74 87 56 80 77 72 63 1:00 am 72 86 51 80 76 1 69 58 2:00 am 70 84 46 80 74 65 56 3:00 am 69 83 47 80 73 62 54 4:00 am 70 84 50 81 74 65 58 5:00 am 74 84 59 82 78 72 66 6:00 am 78 86 6784 81 78 72 ' 7:00 am 80 86 7284 82 80 78 8:00 am 80 87 7184 82 80 77 9:00 am 80 92 691 88 82 79 76 10:00 atn 80 98 68 90 81 1 78 76 i 11:00 am 79 87 70 83 80 78 76 12:00 pm 79 87 68 83 81 78 76 1:00 pm 79 87 68 82 82 79 76 2:00 m 80 88 72 83 81 80 78 3:00 m 79 91 67 83 81 79 73 L,. = 82 dB ( 16) TABLE 6 Location D Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 54 Ft. From the Centerline of Mt. Diablo Blvd.; Corner with 2nd St.; Downtown Area Hour Date Beginning Leq LQ„x Lmin Lo, L,o L50 Lgo 2/26/92 4:00 pm 69 84 56 77 72 66 61 5:00 DM 68 83 56 1 77 72 66 1 60 6:00 m 68 82 54 76 71 65 59 7:00 m 66 79 54 74 70 62 58 8:00 Dm 64 76 54 74 69 61 56 9:00 pm 64 79 52 73 68 60 55 10:00 pm 62 78 51 72 66 57 54 11:00 yrn 60 80 1 50 72 64 55 52 2/27/92 Midnight 58 82 47 70 60 53 50 1:00 am 56 73 42 67 57 52 48 2:00 am 54 74 42 66 56 50 46 3:00 am 56 80 1 44 69 57 1 51 48 4:00 am 58 80 47 70 59 55 51 5:00 am 65 80 54 76 68 62 57 6:00 am 66 84 59 75 68 64 62 7:00 am 68 82 58 78 72 1 66 63 8:00 am 69 86 53 78 72 67 61 9:00 am 68 1 84 53 78 72 66 58 10:00 am 68 84 58 78 72 66 61 11:00 am 72 96 57 83 72 66 62 12:00 pm 71 100 1 55 78 72 66 62 1:00 m 68 84 58 76 72 66 61 2:00 pm 70 98 58 78 2 66 62 3:00 m 69 90 59 78 t-7, 2 66 1 62 Ld, = 70 dB ( 17 ) Table 6 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L-q L. L"i. LO, LIO Lso L90 2/27/92 4:00 ym 69 88 58 77 72 66 61 5:00 r)m 68 82 56 76 72 66 1 62 6:00 DM 68 83 54 76 72 65 58 7:00 m 66 85 53 74 70 65 58 8:00 DM 65 82 52 74 68 1 62 56 9:00 pm 64 80 52 74 68 60 55 10:00 pm 63 82 50 72 67 58 54 11:00 Dm 60 76 50 72 64 1 56 52 2/28/92 Midnight 60 80 47 1 72 60 52 50 1:00 am 57 74 46 70 58 52 50 2:00 am 56 74 42 68 56 51 48 3:00 am 56 78 42 67 54 50 46 4:00 am 59 78 46 72 60 54 50 5:00 am 64 80 52 76 67 59 56 6:00 am 65 80 56 73 68 62 58 7:00 am 68 84 57 79 72 66 62 8:00 am 68 86 56 78 72 66 61 9:00 am 68 82 56 78 72 66 61 10:00 am 68 85 56 76 71 66 60 11:00 am 69 88 57 78 72 67 62 12:00 DM 70 85 58 78 72 67 62 1:00 pm 69 83 56 76 72 67 62 2:00 ym 70 96 58 76 72 66 62 3:00 t)m. 68 1 86 53 77 72 66 60 L& = 70 dB ( 18 ) TABLE 7 Location E Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 45 Ft. From the Centerline of Glorietta Blvd.; North of Coralee Lane Hour Date Beginning Lw L.. L.,j, 41 LIO L50 Lgo 3125/92 2:00 pm 60 73 38 69 64 56 46 3:00 T)m 60 74 1 34 70 64 57 42 4:00 pm 61 84 32 70 65 57 40 5:00 T)m 61 78 36 70 65 57 43 6:00 pm 60 80 34 69 64 53 1 38 7:00 pm 58 74 34 68 63 51 38 8:00 pm 55 72 28 66 60 40 32 9:00 pm 56 78 29 68 62 42 32 10:00 yrn 54 79 28 66 56 36 30 11:00 pm 50 72 28 64 50 36 31 3/26/92 Midnight 50 75 28 65 42 36 30 1:00 am 42 67 28 57 38 34 30 2:00 am 42 64 28 57 38 33 30 3:00 am 47 66 1 28 64 42 32 29 4:00 am 44 69 28 58 40 34 30 5:00 am 56 80 30 69 54 40 34 6:00 am 56 76 36 67 61 46 40 7:00 am 60 79 39 69 65 56 44 8-00.am 61 76 38 70 65 58 46 9:00 am 60 76 36 71 64 52 42 10:00 am 58 74 35 68 63 50 39 11:00 am 58 72 36 68 63 52 40 1 12:00 T)m 58 76 37 68 64 51 42 1:00 prn 58 72 37 68 63 52 1 42 Ld,, = 60 dB ( 19 ) Table 7 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L-q LUM 14, LIO LSO L" 3/26/92 2:00 pm 58 72 35 67 63 54 42 3:00 = 60 83 38 69 64 1 55 42 1 4:00 DM 60 74 39 70 64 56 44 5:00 pm 60 76 35 68 65 58 43 6:00 Dm 60 72 36 68 64 56 42 7:00 Dm 58 74 38 68 62 51 42 8:00 pm 57 72 33 68 62 46 36 9:00.Dm 54 68 34 65 60 42 36 10:00 pm 52 70 32 64 57 42 36 11:00 T)m 49 70 30 64 46 38 34 3/27/92 Midnight 49 78 28 62 39 32 30 1:00 am 45 68 28 60 38 32 28 2:00 am 45 70 28 60 38 33 29 3:00 am 42 68 28 56 38 32 28 4:00 am 46 70 28 60 42 34 31 5:00 am 50 74 30 64 48 38 31 6:00 am 56 76 41 68 60 48 44 7:00 am 61 80 40 72 65 56 . 47 8:00 am 61 804 70 65 57 43 9:00 am 59 77 E351 68 64 52 40 10:00 am 60 84 344 72 64 52 40 11:00 am 70 102 34 70 64 52 38 12:00 pm 1 60 82 34. 70 64 52 38 1:00.pm 59 78 35 68 64 53 39 L, = 61 dB ( 20) TABLE 8 Location F Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 90 Ft. From the Centerline of Mt. Diablo Blvd.; East of El Nido Ranch Rd. Hour Date Beginning Lq L.. L.. 41 LIO 1-50 L90 3/25/92 2:00 pm 66 18 53 74 70 65 58 3:00 vm 67 78 1 55 74 70 1 66 60 1 4:00 vm 67 76 56 73 70 66 60 5:00 DM 68 75 56 74 70 66 60 6:00 DM 67 77 55 74 70 1 65 59 1 7:00 pm 66 78 52 72 68 64 58 8:00 T)m 63 76 50 71 67 59 54 9:00 T)m 62 74 48 70 67 59 54 10:00 pm 60 74 44 70 64 55 52 11:00 RM 58 73 44 70 62 54 50 3/26/92 Midnight 56 72 40 68 58 50 46 1:00 am 54 76 38 66 54 48 44 2:00 am 52 67 39 63 54 50 45 3:00 am 53 69 42 66 54 50 46 4:00 am 56 76 44 67 56 50 47 5:00 am 62 83 48 74 65 56 51 6:00 am 64 80 1 54 76 68 61 57 7:00 am 66 78 55 74 70 65 59 8:00 am 67 80 54 74 70 66 60 9:00 am 67 79 54 75 70 66 58 10:00 am 66 78 52 73 70 64 57 11:00 am 66 77 53 74 70 64 58 12:00 DM 66 78 53 74 70 65 58 1:00 DnI 66 78 54 74 70 65 59 Ld,, = 68 dB ( 21) Table 8 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lw L. L.. 41 LIO Lso L90 3/26/92 2:00 ym 67 77 54 73 70 66 60 3:00 pm 68 78 55 74 70 66 60 4:00 T)m 68 78 58 74 71 66 62 5:00 m 68 78 55 75 71 67 62 6:00 pm 68 78 56 75 70 66 61 7:00 -pm 66 76 53 74 69 63 58 8:00 pm 64 76 50 73 68 60 56 9:00 pm 62 76 51 72 66 59 55 10:00 pm 62 77 50 72 65 57 54 11:00 T)m 60 76 46 70 63 1 55 52 3/27/92 Midnight 56 75 42 68 58 52 48 1:00 am 54 75 38 67 56 50 45 2:00 am 52 72 38 62 54 48 42 3:00 am 52 74 39 64 54 48 42 4:00 am 55 75 39 68 56 50 45 5:00 am 60 76 46 173 1 64 56 51 6:00 am 64 82 54 74 68 61 57 7:00 am 66 78 54 74 70 65 59 8:00 am 67 80 54 74 70 66 59 9:00 am 66 82 53 74 70 66 58 10:00 am 66 - 80 50 74 70 64 57 11:00 am 67_ 90 52 74 70 65 57 12:00 r)m --66 76 52 74 70 66 58 1:00 DM -- 66 176 --52 74 Ld. 68 dB 70 65 58 (22 ) TABLE 9 Location G Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 60 Ft. From the Centerline of Happy Valley Rd.; East of Valory Ln. Hour Date Beginning Leq L. Li. LO, LIO L50 L90 3125/92 3:00 T)m 60 71 37 68 64 56 44 4-00 pm 62 74 38 70 66 58 43 5:00 T)m 60 72 32 68 66 56 41 6:00 Pm 58 72 30 68 63 49 38 7:00 ]2m 56 72 28 69 62 47 42 8:00 vrn 54 70 28 66 59 44 40 9:00 ym 53 72 24 66 57 41 29 10:00 Pm 51 71 24 65 52 39 27 11:00 Prn 48 69 22 63 46 30 24 3/26/92 Midnip ,ht 42 66 22 56 38 32 26 1:00 am 42 68 20 48 36 29 24 2:00 am 42 69 21 48 35 28 23 3:00 am 46 69 22 64 42 28 24 4:00 am 46 70 24 60 40 31 26 5:00 am 50 68 28 64 1 50 36 32 6:00 am 56 74 34 68 60 44 38 7:00 am 58 70 36 68 64 52 41 8:00 am 62 75 38 70 66 59 48 9:00 am 58 71 34 68 62 50 40 10:00 am 60 73 34 70 65 56 44 11:00 am 59 76 32 69 64 51 40 12:00 Rm 58 74 36 68 63 50 42 1:00 pm 57 73 36 67 62 50 40 2:00 m=60 72 36 69 64 55 44 Ld,, = 59 dB ( 23 ) Table 9 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lc LIn. L.. I-01 LII L50 1-90 3/26/92 3:00 pm 58 72 37 68 64 52 , 42 4:00 Dm 60 74 34 68 64 54 43 5:00 pm 58 73 32 68 63 51 40 6:00 pm 58 72 33 68 63 50 40 7:00 -1)m 58 74 1 37 68 62 49 42 8:00 pm 56 72 28 69 60 42 34 9:00 I)m 52 72 29 65_ 56 40 34 10:00 DM 52 70 28 65 54 40 34 11:00 pm 48 70 26 64 43 38 32 3/27/92 Midnight 47 72 25 62 38 32 28 1:00 am 48 72 22 64 38 29 25 2:00 am 30 53 22 40 32 26 24 3:00 am 40 62 22 55 36 28 24 4:00 am 43 70 22 54 40 32 28 5:00 am 48 70 27 64 48 36 32 6:00 am 54 72 36 67 57 44 39 7:00 am 59 73 34 68 64 52 42 8:00 am 61 73 35 69 66 1 58 44 9:00 am 58 74 36 68 63 50 40 10:00 am 61 73 36 70 66 56 42 11:00 am 60 74 36 69 64 54 44 12:00 pm 62 78 39 71 66 53 44 1:00 DM 58 76 38 68 62 50 42 2:00 DM 60 74 38 68 64 57 44 Ld. = 59 dB (24 ) TABLE 10 Location H Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 80 Ft. From the Westbound SR-24 Elevated Structure; 180 Ft. From the Centerline of the BART Elevated Structure Hour Date Beginning Lq L,,,,x L.. La, 410 L50 L" 3/27/92 2:00 pm 72 89 64 84 72 70 68 3:00 m 72 89 64 86 72 70 68 4:00 pm 72 90 66 86 72 70 68 5:00 pm 72 90 65 85 72 70 68 6:00 m 71 89 64 82 71 70 68 7:00 m 70 88 62 79 70 68 66 8:00 pm 68 86 61 78 69 67 64 9:00 pm 68 89 60 77 69 66 64 10:00 Drn 68 88 58 80 68 66 62 11:00 m 68 88 58 82 68 64 61 3/28/92 Midnight 67 88 56 77 66 63 60 1:00 am 64 88 56 69 64 60 58 2:00 am 61 72 56 69 63 60 57 3:00 am 66 74 55 69 63 58 56 4:00 am 61 74 56 70 64 60 56 5:00 am 67 86 56 78 68 64 60 6:00 am 68 86 58 78 70 67 64 7:00 am 70 87 60 78 71 68 66 8:00 am 70 60 63 79 72 70 68 9:00 am 70 86 64 78 72 70 68 10:00 am 71 88 63 80 72 1 70 68 11:00 am 70 86 64 80 72 70 68 12:00 vm 70 86 64 79 71 69 67 1:00 pm 70 1 86 64 78 1 72 70 68 La„ = 74 dB ( 25 ) Table 10 (cont'd) Hour � L. Lm;, 1-oi I-io Lso I.90 Date Beginning L 3/28/92 2:00 Dm 70 85 64 80 72 70 67 3:00 Dm 70 86 64 80 72 70 67 4:00 pm 70 86 63 78 72 70 68 5:00 pm 70 86 64 78 72 70 68 6:00 vm 70 89 63 78 71 1 69 67 7:00 Dm 69 87 61 78 70 68 65 8:00 pm 68 86 60 78 69 66 64 9:00 m 68 86 58 78 68 66 64 10:00 pm 68 88 60 77 1 68 66 64 11:00 m 68 88 59 78 68 65 62 3/29/92 Midnight 66 87 56 71 66 63 60 'R 1:00 am 64 88 55 68 64 61 58 2:00 am 60 69 54 66 62 58 56 3:00 am 59 72 54 66 62 57 55 4:00 am 60 72 54 67 62 58 55 5:00 am 62 74 54 69 66 62 57 6:00 am 65 75 56 70 68 64 61 7:00 am 66 76 56 72 68 64 61 8:00 am 69 88 58 78 70 66 64 9:00 am 70 87 60 82 70 68 66 10:00 am 70 88 62 84 71 69 66 11:00 am 70 87 64 82 71 69 67 12:00 m 72 88 62 84 71 70 68 1:00 m 1 70 1 8862 82 70 68 66 Ld. = 72 dB 3/29/92 2:00 pm 71 90 62 84 71 69 67 3:00 pm 71 90 62 82 70 68 67 4:00 Rm 71 89 64 83 71 70 68 5:00 pm 71 118 64 83 71 70 68 6:00 pm 71 88 63 85 70 68 66 {26 } � Table 10 (cont d) Hour Date Beginning Leq L. L.. Lo, L,o L50 I.90 3/29/92 7:00 m 70 90 60 83 70 68 66 8:00 Dm 70 88 60 83 70 67 64 9:00 m 68 87 58 83 68 66 63 10:00 m 68 88 56 84 67 64 60 11:00 m 68 90 54 1 84 65 61 1 56 3/30/92 Midnijzht 66 90 53 74 64 58 54 1:00 am 64 88 52 70 62 56 54 2:00 am 58 72 52 68 61 54 52 3:00 am 60 76 52 71 63 56 53 4:00 am 66 88 1 52 75 66 62 56 5:00 am 70 87 56 84 72 69 64 6:00 am 72 86 68 84 73 71 70 7:00 am 72 86 66 84 72 70 69 8:00 am 72 86 66 82 72 70 69 9:00 am 71 84 62 78 72 70 68 10:00 am 71 84 64 77 72 70 68 11:00 am 71 90 63 82 72 69 67 12:00 m 70 84 64 78 72 70 67 1:00 m 71 87 64 1 82 72 70 68 Ld. = 75 dB 2:00 m 72 88 64 84 72 70 68 3:00 pm 72 88 63 84 72 70 68 4:00 m 72 87 64 84 72 70 68 5 5:00 m 72 89 64 82 72 70 68 6:00 pm 70 88 62 80 71 60 67 7:00 m 68 88 59 78 70 66 64 8:00 m 67 86 56 77 f68 64 62 9:00 m 67 86 57 75 68 65 62 10:00 m 66 86 56 78 68 64 60 11:00 pm 66 87 53 78 65 61 56 ( 27 ) Table 10 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning LN L,,,,x L.. Lo, L,Q LSp Lgo 3/31/92 Midnight 66 87 51 76 64 59 54 1:00 am 60 74 50 70 62 56 53 2:00 am 60 72 50 70 62 56 52 3:00 am 6075 50 70 64 58 52 4:00 am 67 87 52 76 68 1 63 58 5:00 am 72 86 57 84 73 70 65 6:00 am 74 86 68 84 74 72 72 7:00 am 74 89 64 84 73 72 70 8:00 am 72 86 65 84 73 71 69 9:00 am 71 88 61 83 72 70 67 10:00 am 70 88 58 81 71 68 66 11:00 am 68 80 62 76 70 68 66 L = 75 dB ( 28 ) TABLE 11 Location I Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements Yard Area of the Residence at 3396 Goyak Dr. ' Hour Date Beginning Lw Lm,X Lmin 41 L,o Lso 1,90 3/27/9 5:00 pm 46 58 36 54 49 44 40 6:00 12m 48 71 40 56 50 44 42 7:00 m 48 1 64 38 58 1 52 44 1 40 8:00 pm 51 74 37 65 49 42 40 9:00 m 46 64 38 58 48 42 40 10:00 prn 42 54 36 52 46 40 38 11:00 m 40 59 34 50 42 38 36 3/28/92 Midnight 38 53 33 48 40 36 35 1:00 am 38 54 34 45 40 36 35 2:00 am 35 48 31 42 37 34 32 3:00 am 34 56 29 44 35 31 30 4:00 am 30 46 27 38 32 30 28 5:00 am 41 61 28 53 44 34 29 6:00 am 43 64 33 54 46 38 35 7:00 am 47 64 32 60 49 41 37 8:00 am 48 68 34 59 50 42 38 9:00 am 46 64 36 57 50 43 40 10:00 am 47 64 38 57 50 44 40 11:00 am 54 75 37 68 56 47 40 12:00 m 48 62 36 56 50 46 40 1:00 m 50 66 36 63 52 45 40 2:00 pm 50 68 36 61 52 46 40 3:00 m 54 68 38 65 54 46 44 4:00 m 50 70 38 64 51 46 41 L,,„ = 49 dB ( 29 ) i Table 11 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L-q L,,,,X Lmm [55 0, L:o T-so Lw3/28/92 5:00-1)m 45 60 36 48 42 38 6:00 m 45 63 34 56 48 1 41 36 7:00 vm 44 62 30 55 48 38 34 8:00 12M 40 54 30 50 43 36 34 9:00 ,pm 42 58 30 55 43 36 33 10:00 ym 40 52 31 50 43 1 38 34 11:00 m 42 60 34 50 44 40 38 3/29/92 Midniizht 40 57 32 48 43 40 36 1:00 am 38 52 31 46 40 36 33 2:00 am 37 53 32 44 39 36 33 3:00 am 34 50 29 44 36 33 31 4:00 am 34 50 29 41 36 33 31 5:00 am 40 55 28 48 44 38 32 6:00 am 42 58 34 51 46 40 37 7:00 am 44 60 1 32 54 47 ff4l 36 8:00 am 44 58 32 52 48 35 9:00 am 46 63 32 56 50 36 10:00 am 46 62 32 56 50 42 1 38 11:00 am 48 65 34 60 52 42 38 12:00 pm 48 70 33 60 49 42 38 1:00 pm 51 1 70 36 64 54 46 40 2:00 pm 51 69 38 62 54 46 1 43 3:00 m 51 68 32 1 64 52 42 36 4:00 pm 51 83 36 64 52 44 40 L,, = 48 dB 5:00 DM 44 64 34 55 47 42 38 6:00 pm 47 70 32 60 48 41 36 7:00 pm 46 66 30 59 48 38 33 8:00* m 41 58 30 54 44 34 32 9:00 pm 4363 30 52 48 36 33 t301 Table 11 (cont'd) Hour t. Date Beginning L� Lm,x Lm;. 1,01 L►o 1-50 1.90 3/29/92 10:00 m 41 58 32 54 43 38 34 11:00 m 37 53 28 46 40 34 31 3/30/92 Midnight 41 64 1 26 58 36 30 28 1:00 am 34 58 26 45 1 34 30 28 2:00 am 32 48 25 42 36 30 27 3:00 am 30 48 1 26 38 32 28 27 4:00 am 38 62 27 52 34 30 29 5:00 am 40 53 30 47 44 36 32 ' 6:00 am 44 58 34 54 47 40 38 7:00 am 49 72 1 32 62 50 44 36 8:00 am 52 71 34 65 52 45 39 9:00 am 50 64 36 60 52 45 40 10:00 am 46 61 34 56 48 42 38 11:00 am 50 69 31 64 54 44 37 1 12:00 pm 52 73 32 66 52 43 36 1:00 DM 50 68 30 62 54 43 35 2:00 m 52 71 32 64 54 44 36 3:00 m 45 61 30 56 48 40 34 4:00 DM 50 70 30 65 52 41 34 L& = 49 dB 5:00 m 44 56 30 54 49 40 34 6:00 m 48 67 32 60 51 41 36 7:00 pm 51 67 33 64 54 44 37 8:00 DM 44 62 31 58 44 36 33 9:00 m 41 57 32 52 44 36 34 10:00 m 42 56 32 54 45 38 34 11:00 pm. 46 68 32 61 40 36 34 3/31/92 Midnieht 38 51 32 44 40 36 34 1:00 am 35 50 31 42 3634 32 2:00 am 36 50 31 44 38 35 33 ( 31) i Table 11 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L q Lv= Lm;n Loi Lio Lso L90 3/31/92 3:00 am 37 53 32 48 37 35 34 4:00 am 40 62 34 1 51 39 37 36 5:00.am 43 58 36 50 45 42 37 6:00 am 49 64 41 58 52 46 44 7:00 am 50 66 42 1 62 53 47 44 8:00 am 52 70 42 64 54 47 44 L& = 50 dB ( 32 ) TABLE 12 Location J Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 75 Ft. From the Centerline of Pleasant Hill Rd.; 12 Ft. High in a Tree; North of Reliez Station Rd. Hour Date Beginning Lw L.. Lmi, Lo, L,o Lso L90 3/27/92 4:00 m 70 82 54 77 73 68 61 5:00 m 70 80 46 77 73 68 60 6:00 m 68 82 1 48 76 72 66 58 7:00 pm 66 82 44 75 70 62 53 8:00 pm 64 76 38 74 69 58 46 9:00 m 64 80 39 74 68 58 47 10:00 m 63 77 36 73 68 56 44 11:00 m 62 77 36 73 68 54 40 3/28/92 Midnight 61 80 34 73 65 48 37 1:00 am 58 78 30 71 61 40 34 2:00 am 56 76 31 70 55 36 34 3:00 am 54 79 28 68 50 33 30 4:00 am 50 72 28 65 46 36 29 5:00 am 55 77 1 28 70 56 1 36 30 6:00 am 60 80 33 72 64 48 38 7:00 am 62 84 35 73 66 56 43 8:00 am 66 84 40 74 70 62 51 9:00 am 66 79 42 75 70 63 56 10:00 am 67 80 48 75 71 64 58 11:00 m 68 79 44 76 72 65 57 12:00 m 68 88 46 76 72 65 58 1:00 DID 68 86 46 76 72 65 57 2:00 m 68 82 46 76 72 65 56 3:00 m 68 81 48 76 72 66 58 Ld„ = 68 dB ( 33 ) Table 12 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L Lm,x Lmj, La, Lro L50L90 3/28/92 4:00-pm 68 82 48 76 72 66 58 5:00 pm 68 80 49 75 72 64 57 6:00 vm 66 80 43 . 75 71 64 56 7:00 DM 65 81 34 74 70 60 50 8:00 m 64 86 33 74 69 59 46 9:00 pm 64 78 33 73 1 68 58 46 10:00 pm 64 84 34 74 68 58 46 11:00 pm 63 77 35 73 68 56 44 3%29/92 Midnight 60 75 38 72 66 52 44 1:00 am 58 78 34 72 60 44 40 2:00 am 56 78 32 70 57 40 36 3:00 am 52 76 31 67 48 36 33 4:00 am 50 72 30 66 44 36 32 5:00 am 54 78 31 68 53 40 34 6:00 am 59 81 36 72 61 46 40 7:00 am 60 81 34 72 64 52 38 8:00 am 64 83 34 74 68 58 46 ' 9:00 am 65 78 37 74 70 1 61 52 10:00 am 66 81 39 75 70 62 54 11:00 pm 66 79 44 74 70 64 56 12:00 pm 68 84 38 75 71 64 57 1:00 m 67 82 44 75 71 64. 56 2:00 pm 67 80 44 75 71 64 56 3:00 m 68 84 43 76 72 65 56 La„ = 68 dB 4:00 orn 67 78 47 75 72 64 56 5:00 m 68 82 44 76 72 64 55 6:00 pm 66 77 41 74 71 62 53 7:00 DM 66 78 1 36 74 70 1 61 48 8:00 pm 65 84 ! 36 74 69 T60 50 ( 34 ) Table 12 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L L L : L L 3/29/92 9:00 m 63 76 34 72 68 57 45 10:00 m 62 80 . 33 73 66 52 40 11:00 pm 60 79 30 71 64 46 37 3/30/92 Midnight 57 80 26 70 58 36 30 1:00 am 54 74 26 70 48 34 30 2:00 am 48 72 26 63 44 34 29 3:00 am 53 80 26 66 44 32 27 4:00 am 52 74 27 66 52 34 30 5:00 am 58 77 34 70 62 48 38 6:00 am 64 80 36 75 68 60 46 7:00 am 68 86 48 76 72 64 58 8:00 am 68 82 46 77 72 66 60 9:00 am 68 84 44 77 72 64 57 10:00 am 67 81 42 76 72 64 56 11:00 am 68 82 46 76 72 65 56 12:00 m 68 81 46 77 72 66 57 1:00 Drn 68 84 50 76 72 66 57 2:00 pm 68 84 46 77 72 6660 3:00 pm 1 69 80 1 49 1 76 72 :66±58 L� 68 dB 4:00 pm 70 82 46 76 73 68 60 5:00 pm 70 84 50 76 74 68 60 6:00 pm 68 78 44 76 72 66 56 7:00 pm 66 84 40 75 70 62 52 8:00 pm 64 82 32 74 68 58 46 9:00 vM 64 81 . 34 74 69 58 46 10:00 pm 63 78 34 73 68 56 43 11:00 prn 58 77 34 72 62 46 38 3/31/92 Midnight 56 7632 71 56 41 36 1:00 am 54 79 31 68 52 38 34 ( 35 ) r i Table 12 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning L L L L L 3/31/92 2:00 am 50 76 30 65 44 35 32 3:00 am 50 77 31 63 40 35 32 4:00 am 52 74 33 66 50 39 36 5:00 am 60 82 35 72 62 48 38 6:00 am 65 88 44 76 68 60 51 7:00 am, 68 82 46 77 72 64 58 i 8:00 am 68 84 52 76 72 66 60 Ld, = 68 dB ( 36 ) TABLE 13 Location K Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements Backyard of Residence at 1000 Hawthorne Ln.; Top of the Ridge Overlooking SR-4 and BART Hour Date Beginning Lcq Ln= Li,, I-01 LIO L50 L90 3/27/9 5:00 DM 54 81 _ 50 62 55 54 52 6:00 Drn 54 64 50 61 56 54 52 7:00 pm 53 65 1 49 60 55 52 51 1 8:00 pm 53 66 48 62 54 52 50 9:00 DnI 52 70 48 59 53 51 50 10:00 32M 52 65 48 57 53 51 50 11:00 pm 51 63 46 58 52 50 48 3/28/92 Midnight 50 68 44 56 51 48 46 1.-00 am 47 63 40 54 48 46 44 2:00 am 47 56 38 52 49 46 44 3:00 am 44 54 35 50 47 44 40 4:00 am 45 54 36 50 48 44 40 5:00 am 46 60 38 54 49 46 42 6:00 am 51 65 44 56 52 50 48 7:00 am 54 68 48 63 55 52 50 8:00 am 54 . 63 50 59 56 54 52 9:00 am 54 65 51 59 56 54 52 10:00 am 54 65 49 60 56 54 52 11:00 am 54 67 48 62 56 54 52 12:00 pm 54 63 51 60 56 54 52 1:00 T)m 55 67 51 63 56 54 52 2:00 pm 55 66 51 60 56 1 54 53 3:00 pm 56 66 52 1 61 5± 17 56 54 4:00 pm 56 68 . 52 64 8 56 55 L& = 57 dB ( 37) Table 13 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lu, LMAX Lm;. LQ, L,O L50 L90 3/28/92 5:00 m 56 68 52 62 57 55 54 6:00 ,pm- 56 70 52 62 57 56 54 7:00 pm 54 66 50 60 56 54 52 8:00 Rm 53 64 50 60 54 53 52 9:00 pm 53 68 49 60 54 52 51 10:00 pm 52 62 49 58 54 52 51 11:00 m 52 64 48 57 53 52 50 3/29/92 Midnight 52 63 47 58 54 51 49 1:00 am 52 68 44 60 55 51 48 2:00 am 48 54 ' 42 53 50 48 45 3:00 am 46 56 36 1 52 49 46 42 4:00 am 44 51 36 . 50 47 44 40 5:00 am 48 60 39 56 50 47 44 6:00 am 50 57 46 54 52 50 48 7:00 am 52 72E* 46 59 52 50 48 8:00 am 50 5945 56 52 49 47 9:00 am 54 65 48 60 54 52 50 10:00 am 52 66 48 60 54 52 50 11:00 am 54 65 49 60 56 53 51 12:00 ym 56 74 50 66 57 54 52 1:00 pm 56 74 52 .66 57 55 54 2:00 pm 561 70 51 63 57 54 54 3:00 m 55 68 51 1 63 1 56 1 54 53 4:00 pm 1 55 J 68 52 62 56 1 54 A 54 L�, = 58 dB 5:00 pm 55 65 52 61 56 54 53 6:00 pm 55 68 52 62 56 54 53 7:00 ym 54 66 50 62 55 54 52 8:00 pm 53 66 49 61 54 52 51 9:00 pm 54 66 48 60 54 53 51 ( 38) Table 13 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lt, L,,,,x Lm;n Lo, L,o I-so L90 3/29/92 10:00 pm 51 62 46 58 52 50 48 11:00 m 52 68 46 62 54 50 48 3/30/92 Midnijzht 50 64 44 60 52 50 47 1:00 am 49 70 36 60 49 45 42 2:00 am 44 53 33 48 46 42 39 3:00 am 44 52 36 49 , 46 42 40 4:00 am 47 64 38 56 49 46 42 5:00 am 51 62 45 57 52 50 47 6:00 am 54 63 1 50 60 56 54 52 7:00 am 57 70 51 65 59 56 53 i8:00 am 59 75 55 68 60 58 56 9:00 am 58 68 54 62 59 58 57 10:00 am 58 73 1 54 62 58 57 56 11:00 am 57 72 54 64 58 56 56 12:00 m 58 71 54 66 58 57 56 1:00 m 58 68 54 62 59 57 56 2:00 Dm 58 70 54 66 59 58 56 3:00 m 58 68 55 62 59 58 57 4:00 m 58 73 56 66 59 58 57 Ld,, = 58 dB 5:00 m 58 66 56 64 59 58 56 6:00 pm 58 68 55 66 59 58 56 7:00 m 58 71 52 68 58 56 54 8:00 m 54 64 51 60 56 54 52 9:00 pm 54 68 50 62 56 54 52 10:00 pm 55 68 48 62 56 54 IE52 11:00 m 52 68 46 60 54 52 50 3/31/92 Midniizht 50 64 40 58 52 50 47 1:00 am 1 49 66 36 58 50 48 44 2:00 am 46 58 34 53 49 46 42 ( 39 ) Table 13 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Lq L. Lmj. Loi Lio Lso Loo 3!31!92 3:00 am 47 60 36 54 50 46 42 4:00 am 50 64 42 56 52 50 46 5:00 am 56 70 48 61 58 56 51 6:00 am 57 70 54 62 58 56 56 7:00 am 56 66 52 64 58 56 54 8:00 am 56 72 50 64 56 54 52 9:00 am 59 80 50 74 56 53 1 52 10:00 am 54 70 48 62 56 52 50 L& = 60 dB ( 40) TABLE 14 Location L Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements 70 Ft. From the Centerline of Pleasant Hill Road Hour Date Beginning Lq L.. L.j. LO, LIO L50 1.90 3/31/92 9:00 am 68 76 48 74 71 67 58 10:00 am 68 88 44 75 70 66 57 11:00 am 68 84 46 76 70 66 57 12:00 pm 68 80 1 45 74 70 66 58 1:00 pm 68 82 45 74 70 66 58 2:00 pm 68 82 47 74 70 66 58 3:00 pm 68 83 46 76 1 72 68 62 4:00 pm 70 87 1 44 76 72 70 62 5:00 pm 70 79 44 74 72 70 64 6:00 pm 70 82 46 75 72 69 62 7:00 pm 68 79 46 74 71 66 56 8:00 pm 65 79 43 72 69 63 50 9:00 pm 64 74 40 72 1 68 63 f 50 10:00 pm 64 82 36 73 68 60 46. 11:00 pm 60 80 34 70 66 50 38 4/1/92 Midnight 57 74 32 70 62 40 34 1:00 am54 70 30 67 57 36 32 2:00 am 54 78 29 68 51 34 1 30 3:00 am 53 74 30 66 1 53_ 36 32 4:004m 56 73 33 66 61 44 36 5:00 am 63 78 37 72 68 60 44 6:00 am 68 78 47 74 71 67 60 7:00 am 67 1 82 50 76 70 65 ..60 8:00 am 68 1 83 46 76 70 67 60 L- Ldn = 70 dB ( 41) Table 14 (cont'd) Hour Date Beginning Le Lmax Lmin Lo, Lio L50 L90 4!1!92 9:00 am 68 82 44- 75 70 66 58 10:00 am 67 81 46 74 70 66 57 11:00 am . 68 81 46 76 70 66 57 12:00 pm 68 83 45 74 70 66 58 1:00 pm 68 80 .42 ` 76 71 66 58 2:00 pm 68 83 44 76 70 66 58 3:00 pm 68 80 44 .76 72 68 60 4:00 pm 70 81 46 76 72 . 70 63 5:00 pm 70 79 46 74 72 70 62 6:00 pm 69 84 46 74 72 69 60 7:00 pm 67 80 44 73 70 66 1 56 8:00 pm . 66 77 42 72 70 64 52 9:00 pm 65 75 42 72 69 64 50 10:00 pm 63 76 38 71 68, 60 46 11:00 pm 60 74 34 70 66 50 38 412192 Midnight 58 73 32 69 63 42 35 1:00 am 55 77 29 67 59 36 32 2:00 am 55 78 28 68 57 35 30 3:00 am 50 75 28 1 66 50 34 30 4:00 am 56 70 30 67 61 40 34 5:00 am 63 76 34 72 68 59 1 42 6:00 am 68 78 44 74 71 66 59 7:00 am 67 78 49 74 70 65 60 8:00 am 67 80 1. 48 74 70 1 66 60 Ld, = 70 dB ( 42 ) a TABLE 15 Summary of Results From the 15-Minute Noise Measurements Distance to Centerline Time Estimated ' Location Roadway (ft.) Date Starting L., L.. L& 1 Glenside Dr. 45 3/27/92 8:20 am 63 70 65 i2 St. Mary's Rd. 100 3/27/92 8:51 am 58 72 59 3 St. Mary's Rd. 50 3/27/92 9:20 am 63 74 65 4 Moraga Rd. 50 3/27/92 9:47 am 67 80 69 5 Moraga Rd. 50 3/27/92 10:22 am 65 77 67 ' 6 Moraga Rd. 50 3/27/92 10:44 am 66 84 68 7 Moraga Rd. 70 3/27/92 11:10 am 67 77 69 ' 8 Moraga Blvd. 50 3/27/92 12:10 pm 54 66 56 9 Sierra Rd. 50 3/27/92 12:45 pm 52 62 55 10 Deer Hill Rd. 45 3/27/92 1:18 pm 72 80 75 11 (see comments) — 3/31/92 10:10 am 40 49 40-45 12 Reliez Valley Rd. 45 4/2/92 9:15 am 57 68 62 13 Mt. Diablo Blvd. 63 4/2/92 9:40 am 64 76 69 ' 14 El Nido Ranch Rd. 50 4/2/92 10:10 am 60 71 63 15 Upper Happy Valley Rd. 30 4/2/92 10:35 am 60 74 60 Comments: Location 1: Near intersection of Glenside Dr. with Glenside Circle; typical residential setback; Glenside Dr. traffic is the dominant noise source (239 cars and 1 Medium Truck [MT]); also two jets at 57 and 58 dBA. Location 2: South of the intersection of St. Mary's Rd. and Burton Vista Ct.; setback of adjacent residence to St. Mary's Rd.; mostly noise from traffic on St. Mary's Rd. (101 cars, 1 MT, 2 Heavy Trucks [HT], and 1 bus); two jets at 54 and 59 dBA, and one helicopter at 54 dBA. ( 43 ) i Table 15 (cont'd) Location 3: Setback of school grounds and residences adjacent to St. Mary's Rd.; east of Avalon Ave.; traffic on St. Mary's Rd. is the dominant noise source (132 cars, 3 MT and 4 HT); also three jets at 53, 62 and 64 dBA. Location 4: West side of intersection of Moraga Rd. and Madrone Dr.; exclusively noise from traffic on Moraga Rd. (243 cars, 1 MT and 2 HT). Location 5: At the intersection of Moraga Rd. and Old Jonas HILI Rd.; typical setback of residences fronting Moraga Rd.; Moraga Rd. traffic is the major noise source (249 cars, 3 motorcycles, 5 MT and 5 HT); one single-engine plane at 55 dBA. Location 6: At the intersection of Moraga Rd. and Rowe Place; setback of residences adjacent to Moraga Rd.; Moraga Rd. traffic is the major noise source (303 cars, 4 MT, 4 HT and 1 bus); also one jet at 58 dBA. Location 7: East side of intersection of Moraga Rd. and Brook St.; setback of apartments and classrooms of the Lafayette School to Moraga Rd.; exclusively noise from traffic on Moraga Rd. (445 cars, 5 MT, 6 HT and I bus). Location 8: Intersection of Moraga Blvd. and 4th St.; typical residential setback; local street noise (28 cars and 2 motorcycles on Moraga Blvd.) and noise of distant traffic on SR-24 (43-46 dBA). Location 9: North side of intersection of Sierra Rd. and Sessions Rd.; on the slopes of the ridge on the north side of SR-24; some local street noise (12 cars on Sierra Rd.); mostly steady noise at 49-54 dBA emanating from traffic on SR-24. Location 10: North side of intersection of Deer Hill Rd. and Brown Ave.; 100 ft. from the elevated structure of SR-24; mostly steady SR-24 traffic noise (69-74 dBA); BART train noise at 80 dBA during passbys; noise exposure of several existing residences. Location, 11: On the south side of the ridge south of SR-24; off Hawthorne Ln.; SR-24 traffic not audible; background noises consist of distant voices of children on the school grounds (30-40 dBA), some construction noise (39-43 dBA), two jets at high altitudes (45 and 47 dBA), and a siren (49 dBA). Location 12: Near the intersection of Reliez Valley Rd. and Rowland Dr.; Noise from local traffic on Reliez Valley Rd. (38 cars); two jets flying at high altitudes generated maximum noise levels of 50 and 53 dBA; noise levels recorded are representative of the exposure of residences adjacent to Reliez Valley Rd. ( 44 ) Table 15 (cont'd) Location 13: South side of Mt. Diablo Blvd.; near intersection with Brown Ave., mostly traffic noise from Diablo Blvd. (261 cars, 2 MT, 2 HT and 4 motorcyles); on jet at 64 dBA; noise exposure is typical of buildings adjacent to Mt. Diablo Blvd. ' Location 14: North side of SR-24; intersection of El Nido Ranch Rd. and Sunnyhill Rd.; SR-24 traffic is the major noise source; noise from traffic on El Nido Ranch Rd. much less significant (14 cars, 1 HT); one single engine plane at 63 ' dBA; setback of homes ajdacent to Frwy.; intervening ridge top provides substantial shielding of Frwy. noise. tLocation 15: Southeast corner of Upper Happy Valley Rd., and Los Arabis Dr.; mostly traffic noise from Upper Happy Valley Rd. (65 cars, 1 MT and 1 bus); one single engine plane at 57 dBA; typical residential setback to Upper Happy ' Valley Rd. 1 ( 45 ) TABLE 16 Existing (1991) State Route 24 Noise Levels L,� Contour Distance (ft.) , From Roadway Centerline % % Heavy ADT SPEED Medium Trucks 80 75 70 65 60 55 Trucks 155,000 60 2 1 200 440 950 1750 3300 5200 ' (46 ) TABLE 17 Existing (1992) L, Noise Contours Along Major Roadways in Lafayette Ld, Contour Distance (ft.) from Roadway Centerline ' % % Medium Heavy ' Roadway ADT SPEED Trucks Trucks 70 65 60 55 ACALANES RD. 7,100 30 0.5 0.1 — — 70 150 DEER HILL RD. 9,500 45 1.0 0.5 30 100 210 450 FIRST ST. 21,000 30 0.5 1.0 30 90 190 1 420 GLENSIDE DR. 12,000 30 0.5 1.0 — 40 80 180 GLORIETTA BLVD. 7,100 30 0.5 0.1 — — 70 150 ' HAPPY VALLEY RD. 8,000 30 0.5 0.1 — — 80 170 MORAGA RD. - Mt. Diablo - St. Mary's — 30 1.0 0.5 110 110 240 510 Southern City Limit -- 35 1.0 0.5 30 80 170 370 ' MT. DIABLO BLVD. - Acalanes - 17,700 45 1.0 0.5 60 150 320 690 Oak Hill Rd. Oak Hill Rd. - 21,400 40 1.5 0.5 50 140 300 650 First St. OAK HILL RD. 13,500 30 1.0 0.5 — 50 130 280 PLEASANT HILL RD. - North City Limit 40,600 40 1.0 0.5 100 210 450 970 Deer Hill Rd. ' Deer Hill Rd. - 36,600 35 1.0 0.5 60 160 340 730 SR-24 South of SR-24 18,000 40 1.0 0.5 40 120 260 560 RELIEZ STATION 12,400 30 0.5 0.1 -- 40 90 200 ( 47 ) ry Table 17 (cont.) ' L& Contour ' Distance (ft.) from Roadway Centerline , Medium Heavy Roadway ADT SPEED Trucks Trucks 70 65 60 55 ' RELIEZ VALLEY RD. 5,300 35 0.5 0.1 — — 80 170 STANLEY BLVD. 7,200 35 0.5 0.1 — — 100 215 ' ST. MARY'S RD. 10,800 35 1.0 0.5 — 60 150 320 UPPER HAPPY 7,100 30 0.5 0.1 — — 70 150 , VALLEY RD. ( 48 ) ' APPENDIX E ' NOT/CE OF COMPLETION NOTICE OF COMPLETION State of California Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 85814 ' Proiect Title Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lafayette Redevelopment Project (SCH #94033001) Proiect Location - Specific See attached. Proiect Location - City Proiect Location - County ' City of Lafayette Contra Costa County Description of Nature. Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Proiect See attached. Lead Aaencv Lafayette Redevelopment Agency ' Address Where Copv of EIR is Available City Clerks Office, City Hall, 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette Lafayette Public Library, 952 Moraga Blvd., Lafayette Review Period September 14, 1994 through October 28, 1994 ' Contact Person Charles G. Kovac, AICP Urban Futures, Inc. 3111 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 230 Orange, CA 92665 (714) 283-9334 02.LF.0994-NOC PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared a Program Environmental Impact ' Report (EIR) for the proposed Lafayette Redevelopment Project (the "Plan" or "Project"). Project Objective ' The primary objective of the Project is to eliminate blight in the proposed Project Area (see Figure 1). The Agency will undertake a variety of activities designed to eliminate the blight conditions which ' include, but are not limited to, the following: the construction, reconstruction and improvement of structures, public walks, infrastructure improvements,such as drainage and circulation improvements, and development assistance programs such as land write-downs and low-interest loans for commercial ' and residential development and rehabilitation projects; this list of possible actions is for discussion purposes only. The possible actions are not proposed projects at this time, but only possible actions that may be undertaken in conjunction with the proposed Plan. The land uses permitted within the proposed Project Area will conform with the City of Lafayette General Plan and Zoning Code regulations, as amended from time to time, and all other applicable state and local building codes and guidelines, as appropriate. Within the confines of General Plan Land Use ' designations, a range of development will be permitted. Population densities will conform to goals set forth in the General Plan. Building standards will conform to the building requirements of all applicable state statutes and all applicable local county and city codes and ordinances. According to the State EIR Guidelines(Section 15180), "all public and private activities or undertakings ' pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project, which shall be deemed approved at the time of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the legislative body". It is ' recognized that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on a proposed redevelopment project is necessarily general in nature and cannot reflect detailed impacts of specific developments that will occur because the exact design, scope and location of such developments are generally not known at ' this point in time. It is for this reason that the State EIR Guidelines (Section 15180) state that "an EIR on a redevelopment plan shall be treated as a program EIR with no subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR would be required by Sections 15162 or 15163". ' Location and Boundaries The proposed Project Area in its regional context is located within Contra Costa County, approximately , 17 miles east of San Francisco, 6 miles south of Concord, and 45 miles north of San Jose. The City of Lafayette is bordered by Briones Regional Park to the north, the City of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill to the east, the City of Orinda to the west and the Town of Moraga to the south. ' The specific location and boundaries of the approximately 294 acre proposed Project Area are presented in Figure 1. ' Relationship to General Plan Build-Out It is anticipated that,for the most part,the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the ' proposed project will be beneficial in that conditions of blight in the proposed Project Area will be reduced or eliminated over the long-term. 03.LF.08/23/94-PROMESC 1 i INS FKN NO .wt ru 7 11�� /��..��,,;]'����` ♦ 1'+,iii"�� r Lai ®Nauman will *r 4�, s.�Eu�m► In 14 •► %iu� �,riMl'/ ■ f 1►lMi1�:SII•:_..■.■.■ +,�j ♦�i#"'� MAI .. 1r , ru► �►�.. • _ Elms1„ Mill !i[l. r ,�f+rMa Ilr.��. -.. ilti111tt�11x��....r. -�i�► wr! j,s1�1��1�� '• 4= reg f..tll:!.'� .�� .,� ' �FIR �� fes,*. {lam a:"'r'.waivv~ �Iffi � ~spa►..�,�► ,�r►z 1� `�: . , � Notwithstanding certain other limitations, effectiveness of the Plan shall not exceed 30'years from the date of its adoption. Plan implementation will be generally guided by market demand, property and ' business owner participation,and availability of funding sources. No specific development projects are known to the Agency at this time, hence, there is no way for the Agency to forecast or predict with great detail what degree of impact the proposed project will have upon the long-term growth of the proposed Project Area. The Agency can only project, based upon the success of most other ' redevelopment projects within the State of California, that the Project will be the catalyst for positive, long-term economic and physical growth within the proposed Project Area. It is difficult, therefore, to determine to what.degree of specificity to calculate potential growth and ' possible related negative impacts resulting from the proposed Project's long-term implementation. The Agency has determined that; because the proposed Project is a tool that can be used by the City of Murrieta to affect implementation of their General Plan, the appropriate measurement of Project impact ' is best evaluated in terms of General Plan build-out of the Project Area. As such,the Agency has based all projections within the EIR upon a General Plan build-out scenario. The exact degree of the proposed Project's influence upon ultimate General Plan build-out within the proposed, Project Area is , indeterminable at this time, but, it does allow the Agency to quantify, within parameters established by existing General Plan policies and guidelines, potential long-term Project-related impacts. At this time, only the general nature of the redevelopment activities or projects are known. These ' include the rehabilitation and improvement of existing structures and infrastructure, the construction of needed public facilities such as'community buildings, low income housing programs, infrastructure and circulation improvements,and grants,and/or loans to encourage long-term economic development. Purpose and Intended Use , The Program EIR is intended for use by the general public, officials of the City of Lafayette, the. ' Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, State level responsible agencies and other interested agencies wishing to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Project. It is designed to be a full disclosure document that will accompany the proposed Project through the.adoption process. The following agencies will be responsible for taking certain actions regarding the Plan's adoption: , 1) Lafayette Planning Commission: evaluate the Project's conformity with the City General Plan ' and adopt respective conformity resolutions; 2) The Lafayette Redevelopment Agency:, approves and recommends the Plan's adoption; 3). Lafayette City Council: approves and adopts the Redevelopment Plan prepared for the Project , by City ordinance. The Program EIR prepared for the proposed Project will not be used for any project approvals beyond ' adoption of the proposed Project itself. Beyond that approval, this document will be used as a base document for the evaluation of project-specific development proposals, whereby, in conjunction with CEQA requirements, a determination will be made regarding the need for further or additional specific ' environmental impact review and analysis. 03.1F.08123M4-PROJOESC 3 t