Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181993 - D.2 f_ .. .• ....=.. r: Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .� Costa FROM: HARVEY E. . BRAGDON' ^u�.,,} DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT f r County DATE: May 12, 1993 SUBJECT: Albers General Plan Amendment SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Consider the relevant remaining policy issues on the General Plan amendment. 2 . Approve the Albers General Plan amendment as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission and place in a consolidated amendment for 1993 . 3 . Approve Rezoning #2985, Final Development Plan File #3005-92, and Subdivision #7679 as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission with the modifications indicated by staff at the May 4, 1993 hearing. 4 . Direct staff to modify the CEQA findings to be consistent with any Board direction on this matter. 5. Adopt the CEQA findings and statements of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A) and the related Mitigation and Monitoring Program (Attachment B) . FISCAL IMPACT Covered by developers fees. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM)ENDIMON F D COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON MaY id , i1jji APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHVR x On May 4 , 1993 , theboardor Supervisors deferred to this date th-ececision on the above matters . Supervisor Torlakson moved approvalwith the modifications by Public Works memo to condition 39X and IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED THAT the above recommendations are APPROVED; and the applicant , staff and the DBMAC are REQUESTED to further consider the issue of affordable housing and pursuing the issue of connecting Marsh Creek Road into the easterly direction . INTRODUCED the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning, waived reading and set June 8 , 1993 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS for adoption of same . I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: I , III , IV,V NOES: none ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: II MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035) cc: Community Development Department ATTESTED " May 18 , 1993 Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND OUNTY INISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY f Albers General Plan Amendment May 12, 1993 Page -2- BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On May 4, 1993, the Board held a public hearing on this matter, closed the public hearing, expressed it's intent to approve the related Albers entitlements, directed staff to provide more input on a few outstanding issues, and scheduled May 10, 1993 for decision. Once the Board gives direction to staff on the remaining issues of concern, staff can assure the findings are made consistent with Board direction. REMAINING ISSUES • Jobs-Housing Balance and Affordable Housing The Draft EIR briefly analyzed this issue in the chapter on Population, Housing and Employment. For the board's convenience we are attaching a copy of this as Attachment C. Among the project's goals was to provide housing which will be more affordable than existing Discovery Bays homes which are blessed with recreational attractions and higher sales prices. Most of Discovery Bay is designated Single Family Residential Medium Density with some areas designated single Family Residential High Density around the golf course. The choice of Single Family Residential was done specifically to attempt to provide more balance to the Discovery Bay area housing supply. As the EIR described, the housing costs should be within the moderate income range. Most will be purchased by dual income families. For two income households, sales personnel salaries of $20, 000, which might be typical of the salary paid in the commercial uses, could provide job opportunities to the new residents of this project. A constraint on the County's ability to increase the housing unit count on this project at this time is in the Draft EIR which considered a 296 unit project. With the Planning Commission recommendation of 288 units, this leaves eight units which could be added to the project. Given the small lot sizes, the prospect of new second units may be remote without a major redesign. Since the driving force behind this project is Centex Homes' desire to build moderately priced single family housing and the twelve acre commercial and office area is to be phased later in the project, an opportunity may exist to devote some of that area to higher density housing. Given the constraints imposed by the EIR on redesignation to the General Plan to higher density housing category, at this time, the Board might wish to direct County staff to initiate a study of the potential of such a change as a follow-up action. Concurrently, a condition of approval could be added to the preliminary development plan requiring that no final development plan be considered complete for the office portion of the project without submittal of evidence, acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, that the General Plan issue regarding affordable housing has been resolved. • Delta Expressway Fee 9 One Board member felt that the full Board needs to further discuss the issue of increasing the State Route 4 Bypass fee. Public Works staff will be prepared to respond to Board questions at the meeting. • Roadway Connection From Discovery Bay to the West The issue has been raised about extending the road network to connect these projects to Discovery Bay. Unfortunately, the lotting pattern within Discovery Bay west of Newport Drive to these developments does not provide for a logical connection Albers General Plan Amendment May 12, 1993 Page -3- point as shown on the attached map. As described in our original staff report, Discovery Bay was planned as a self contained community and provisions for its expansion wasn't provided for. The Discovery Bay West proposal, still in embryonic form, calls for a road connection through their project to the extreme north end of Newport Drive. It is too far north to deal with the trip movements of concern to the Board. A logical point of connection might be to extend Marsh Creek Road easterly to Newport Drive. That idea was not considered as part of either the Albers or Byron 78 EIR's. Staff will report more completely on this in response to the Byron 78 discussion scheduled for May 25, 1993 . e Trail Connection The County General Plan indicates that a bicycle trail should be constructed along State Route 4. No horse or hiking trails are called for in this general location in the County General Plan. Public Works staff had recommended, as a condition of approval, for a meandering sidewalk along State Route 4 on the Albers Project and for connections to the cul-de-sacs within the project. The East County Regional Planning Commission deleted the requirement to build the sidewalk along State Route 4 due to there concerns with the safety of such a sidewalk. The logical choices for pedestrian access would be along State Route 4 as originally recommended by Public Works or across the proposed commercial lands of the Byron 78 proposal. They would ultimately connect to Newport Drive in Discovery Bay. Both connections may be desirable. Staff will report more fully on the options across Byron 78 project on May 25, 1993 . HEB:JWC:aw a:jcalbers.mem ATTACHMENT A CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THAT PROJECT These findings are made by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ( "Board" ) , California pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA") , Public Resources Code section 21000 et sec . , the CEQA Guidelines, and County regulations promulgated thereunder. These findings include this Board' s findings and determinations regarding the Albers project ( "Project" ) , including the Project ' s impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other findings, certifications and determinations required by State law and the County Code. I. INTRODUCTION A. Background. 1 . The Project is the development described in the following applications now pending before the County: (a) A General Plan amendment, County File No. 4-90-EC, requesting a change in designation of the Project site from Agricultural Core and Agricultural Land to Single-Family Residential - High Density and Commercial ( "General Plan Amendment" ) . (b) A rezoning application, County File No. 2985-RZ, to rezone 73 .48 acres of land from Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit Development (P-1) for 288 single-family residences, a 12 .3-acre retail site approximately 109, 500 square feet of retail business space and a 2.2-acre office site, a 3.2-acre lake and 1 . 7 acres of park area ( "Rezoning" ) . (c) A final development plan, County File No. 3005-92, for 288 single-family residences, a 12 .3-acre retail site with approximately 109,500 square feet of retail business space, a 3 .2-acre lake and 1 . 7 acres of park land ( "Final Development Plan") . (d) A vesting tentative map, Subdivision No. 7679, to subdivide the 73 .48-acre site into 1 288 single-family residential lots and one commercial lot, �~ along with other uses ( "Vesting Tentative Map" ) . 2. The Project is proposed by Bellecci and Associates ( "Applicant" ) for a 73 . 5-acre site on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bixler Road and Highway 4, west of Discovery Bay in eastern Contra Costa County (the "Project Site" ) . The Project Site is within the Urban Limit Line established by the County' s General Plan. 3 . The environmental impact report prepared for the Project ( "EIR") is comprised of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft XIR, the Draft EIR circulated for public review and comment, and the Final EIR Attachment ( "Final EIR" ) . The Final EIR includes the written and oral public comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, the responses of the County to the significant environmental issues raised in that public review and consultation process, the revisions to the EIR that clarify, amplify or make insignificant revisions to the Draft EIR ( "Errata") , and the additional studies conducted during the public review process ( "Studies" ) . The Studies contain technical data that clarified, amplified or made insignificant modifications to some of the information contained in the Draft EIR. 4 . The EIR is a "project EIR" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15161 and is intended to serve as the environmental documentation for the Project . The Final EIR is also intended to serve as the environmental documentation for all subsequent County and other public agency actions, approvals, permits or other entitlements granted or issued in connection with the planning, approval, construction, operation or maintenance of the development contemplated by the Project applications . The EIR, or a portion thereof, may accordingly serve as environmental documentation for, without limitation, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or any other federal, state or local agency actions or decisions related to any permit, approval or other entitlement that may be issued, or other action taken, relating to the Project. B. Certification of the EIR. 1 . This Board certifies: (a) that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and 2 IM (b) that the EIR was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by, this Board prior to taking final action on the Project; and (c) that the EIR represents the independent judgment of this Board. 2 . In so certifying, this Board recognizes that there may be minor differences in and among the different sources of information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the Final EIR and the administrative record as whole. Experts can disagree, and this Board must base its decisions and these findings on that evidence in the record that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these findings, this Board clarifies, amplifies and/or makes insignificant modifications to the EIR as set forth in these findings and determines that these findings and the attachments hereto shall control and that the EIR is certified subject to the determinations reached by this Board in these findings, which are based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole. This Board further adopts the analysis and conclusions of the EIR except as expressly modified in these findings. C. Procedural History. 1 . The applications for the Rezoning, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map were accepted as complete on January 27, 1993 . An initial study for the Project was completed on April 3, 1991, concluding that an environmental impact report is required for the Project. A Notice of Preparation was sent out on April 3, 1991 . Comments received .in response to this Notice of Preparation were utilized in preparing the Draft EIR. 2 . The Draft EIR was published and circulated for comment on August 17, 1992. The required 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR ended on October 1, 1992 . A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held by the County Zoning Administrator on September 14, 1992. During the public review period, comments were received in the form of ten letters submitted to the County and public hearing testimony by two individuals . Two additional comment letters were received after the close of the 45-day public review period. The Final EIR contains responses to all significant environmental points raised by all persons commenting on the EIR, whether orally or in writing, including those comments received after the close of the review period. 3 . On February 1, the East County Regional Planning Commission ( "Commission") held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment and 3 r adopted Resolution No. 10-93 recommending that the Board certify the EIR as complete in accordance with CEQA and approve the General Plan Amendment as recommended by staff. 4 . On February 8, 1993, the Commission held a duly noticed hearing regarding the "Rezoning, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map. At that hearing, the Applicant raised several questions regarding the proposed conditions of approval . The hearing on the matter was continued to allow staff to meet with the Applicant to discuss the proposed conditions of - approval . 5 . On March 1, 1993, the Commission held the continued public hearing regarding the Rezoning, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors certify the EIR as complete in accordance with CEQA, and approve the aforesaid applications . 6. On May 4, 1993, this Board held a duly noticed public hearing for the purpose of considering the Project and adopted a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map, subject to certain conditions of approval ( "Conditions of Approval") . D. Other Controlling Determinations. 1 . The County shall monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted by these findings in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted with these findings . 2 . The discussion that follows under the captions "Facts" for each category of these findings recite . some of the background information relating to the Project . The discussions under the captions "Findings" contain findings made by this Board based on the entire record before this Board, including, without limitation, the information that is recited in the discussion of "Facts. " 3 . This Board intends that these findings and determinations be considered as an integrated whole whether or not any subdivision of these findings fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings. Any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed made. All of the text included in this document constitutes the findings of this Board whether or not any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. 4 r 4 . Unless otherwise expressly stated in these findings, all recommended mitigation measures are determined to reduce any significant adverse environmental impact of the Project to a less than significant level . Further, unless otherwise expressly stated in these findings, all mitigation measures themselves are determined not to result in any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. 5. The Final EIR contains modifications, clarifications and amplifications of the information contained in the Draft EIR. This Board finds that these modifications, clarifications and amplifications do not constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21092. 1 but merely constitute minor technical changes and additions . II . FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT WILL BE REDUCED TO INSIGNIFICANCE BY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES A. Generally. 1. Facts and Findings. (a) The following facts and findings do not repeat the full discussions of impacts and mitigation measures contained in the relevant documents in the administrative record. Instead, the 'facts and findings rely on the information and analysis contained in the administrative record, including, without,_ limitation, the information that is recited in the discussion of "Facts . " (b) The mitigation measures referenced under "Findings" are hereby adopted by this Board. Those measures referenced as Conditions of Approval are imposed as conditions to the Rezoning, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map. Mitigation measures that are not designated as Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied by the County. B. Land Use. 1. Facts. The Project' s potential impacts on land use are discussed on pages 71 through 75 and 221 through 241 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and the other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. 5 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project 's significant land use impacts will be mitigated to a .less than significant level by the imposition of: (a) Conditions 6. I, 1.1, 19 and 32 of the Conditions of Approval; and (b) Mitigation Measures a(1) and b(1) on page 75 of the Draft EIR; and Mitigation Measures c(1) and c(2) on page 77 of the Draft EIR. C. visual Impacts. 1. Facts. The Project's visual impacts are discussed on pages 89 through 104 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that, except as set forth in Section III .B of these findings, the Project 's significant visual impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 5, 6.A, F and L, 8, 11 and 39 .A. (2) and S. D. Transportation Impacts. 1. Facts. (a) The Project ' s impacts on transportation are discussed at pages 120 through 142 of the Draft EIR, on pages 138 through 139A of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies certain impacts as potentially significant. (b) The internal circulation of the Project has been redesigned to avoid certain of the significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. C Street has been redesigned into a "loop" street, avoiding the traffic safety concerns associated with parking on C Street. S Parkway, which has been. 6 redesignated as T Parkway, no longer connects to B Street, avoiding the safety problems associated with that approach. The access into the commercial portion of the site has been redesigned, avoiding the operational concerns associated with inbound traffic and parking. (c) The EIR identified significant potential impacts relating to Project access and proposed mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to insignificance. The Conditions of Approval are the equivalent of the access - mitigation measures in the EIR, modified by staff to reflect the redesign of the Project discussed in Section (b) of this section. (d) The EIR identifies a potential significant impact relating to construction trucks hauling fill to the site. However, staff has stated that there are sufficient sources of fill proximate to the site and that State Route 4, which has been designated as a truck haul road, can accommodate the truck traffic. Accordingly, staff disagrees with the EIR with respect to the significance of this impact . 2. Findings. (a) Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that: (i) trucks hauling fill to the site will not create a significant adverse impact; (ii) the Project ' s significant impacts relating to internal circulation have been mitigated to a less than significant level by redesign of the internal roadway network; and (iii) the Project ' s significant transportation impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 5, 20 .E, 28, 33 and 39 . E. Drainage and Water Quality. 1. Facts. (a) The Project ' s impacts on drainage and water quality are discussed at pages 157 through 160 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. 7 (b) The EIR identified a potentially significant cumulative flood plain displacement impact associated with the importation of fill onto the site. However, staff has stated that the impact is unlikely to occur because the principal sources of fill material will be other locations within the flood plain, including the creation of the on-site lake. Accordingly, staff disagrees with the EIR as to the significance of this impact. (c) The EIR identified a potentially significant flooding impact. The Draft EIR recommended construction/repair of perimeter levees. In lieu of this measure, Applicant has agreed to raise the pads of Project structures to a level that avoids the flooding risk. Staff has determined that this measure would be both more effective than the measure recommended in the Draft EIR and less costly. Implementation of this measure will remove Project structures from the 100-year flood plain. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that: (a) The importation of fill onto the site will not create a significant cumulative impact on the flood plain. (b) The Draft EIR' s recommended mitigation of construction or repair of perimeter levees is rejected as infeasible because it will not reduce the increased flooding risk to insignificance and because more effective and less costly mitigation is available. (c) Except as set forth in Section III .B of these findings, the Project' s remaining significant drainage and water quality impacts will be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of. Conditions 7, 34 and 39 of the Conditions of Approval . F. Geology and Soils. 1. Facts. (a) The Project 's impacts on geology and soils are discussed at pages 169 through 171 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. 8 (b) The EIR identified a potentially significant flooding impact and recommended construction/repair of perimeter levees. In lieu of this measure, Applicant has agreed to raise the pads of Project structures to a level that avoids the flooding risk. Staff has determined that this measure would be both more costly than the measure recommended in the Draft EIR and more effective. Implementation of this measure will remove Project structures from the 100-year flood plain. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that: (a) The importation of fill onto the site will not create a significant cumulative impact on the flood plain. (b) Except as set forth in Section III .B of these findings, the Project ' s significant geology and soils impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 7, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 34 of the Conditions of Approval . G. Public Services. 1. Schools. (a) Facts. ( i) The Project ' s impacts on schools are discussed on pages 176 through 177 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. (ii) The EIR recommends the imposition of an interim school mitigation plan and the creation of a Mello-Roos District . However, state law limits school impact mitigation to the imposition of the fees authorized by statute. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that: 9 M The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are infeasible because they are inconsistent with state law. (ii) Except as set forth in Section III..B of these findings, the Project ' s significant impacts on schools will be reduced to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 15 of the Conditions of Approval . 2. Water. (a) Facts. The EIR discusses the Project's impacts on water services on page 180 of the Draft EIR, pages 181 and 181A of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 166 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant . (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant impacts on water services will be reduced to a less than significant level by Condition 16 of the Conditions of Approval . 3. Sewer Service. (a) Facts. The EIR discusses the Project 's impacts on Sewer Service on pages 183 through 184 of the Draft EIR, page 184 of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant impacts on sewer service will be reduced to a less than significant level by Condition 16 of the Conditions of Approval . 10 4. Police. Services. (a) Facts. The EIR discusses the Project ' s impacts on police services at pages 185 through 186 of the Draft EIR, page 189 of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant impacts on police services will be reduced to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 17, 30 and 41 of the Conditions of Approval . 5. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. (a) Facts. The EIR discusses the Project ' s impacts on fire .protection and emergency medical services on pages 187 through 189 of the Draft EIR, page 189 of the EIR Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant impacts on fire and emergency medical services will be reduced to a less than significant level by Conditions 8 and 40 of the Conditions of Approval . 6. Parks and Recreation. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s impacts on parks and recreation are discussed on page 190 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which 11 this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. (ii) The EIR identifies a deficiency in the amount of park area provided by the Project . The Project has been redesigned to expand the park area in compliance with County standards. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant impacts on parks and recreation have been avoided and that no further mitigation is required. T. Child Care. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on child care discussed on pages 192 through 193 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant impacts on child care will be reduced to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 26 of the Conditions of Approval . H. Vegetation and Wildlife. 1. Facts. (a) The Project 's impacts' on vegetation and wildlife are discussed at pages 199 through 200 of the Draft EIR, pages 199 through 200A of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR), in the Studies set forth in Appendix E to the Final EIR and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. (b) The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts on the San Joaquin saltbush and the San Joaquin kit fox. However, the Studies indicate that these 12 species are unlikely to be present on the site. Accordingly, the Final EIR does not identify these impacts as significant. (c) Page 200 of the Errata indicates that the site could contain suitable habitat for the curved foot hygrotus diving beetle, which could be significantly affected by removal of such habitat. However, there is no evidence in the record that this species is present on the site. 2. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that: (a) The Project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the San Joaquin saltbush, the San Joaquin kit fox or the curved foot hygrotus diving beetle and no mitigation is necessary to mitigate such impacts . (b) The Project 's significant impacts on vegetation and wildlife will be reduced to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 37 of the Conditions of Approval . I. Noise. 1. Facts. The Project ' s noise impacts are discussed at pages 211 through 215 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies those impacts of the Project that are potentially significant. 2. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant noise impacts will be negated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 6.F, 11 .C, 20, and 39 .L. J. Air Quality. 1. Facts. (a) The Project 's potential impacts on air quality are discussed on pages 3 and 265 of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) 13 and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . This discussion incorporates by reference the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron 78 project ( "Byron 78 EIR") . (b) The EIR concludes that the Project may have significant short-term impacts relating to construction-generated dust. However, this is not supported in the record. Neither the EIR for this Project nor the Byron 78 EIR indicate that air quality standards for particulate matter will be violated. Further, the vicinity of the Project Site is sparsely populated at present; accordingly, the dust generated by Project construction is unlikely to cause annoyance or adverse health impacts. 2. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that dust from Project construction will not have a significant impact on air quality. III. OTHER FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT IMPACTS A. Growth-Inducing Impacts. 1. Facts. (a) The Project ' s potential growth-inducing impacts are discussed at pages 263 through 264 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant . (b) The Project would add 288 single-family residences, a 12.3-acre retail site with approximately 109,500 square feet of retail business space, a 2.2-acre office site, a 3 .2-acre lake and a 1. 7-acre park area. Based on an average of three people per household, the Project will provide housing for approximately 864 people. (c) The retail and office space would accommodate several hundred employees. The Project is one of three major developments proposed in the vicinity. The other two Projects are the Byron 78 mixed-use proposal and the Discovery Bay West proposal . Approval of the Project will require the expansion of the Discovery Bay sewer and water system (Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19) , which would facilitate approval of the other two proposals if they have not previously been approved. 14 (d) This Project, Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West are all located within the County' s Urban Limit Line. An additional 134 acres of developable land are also available within the Urban Limit Line in the vicinity. This acreage may be included in the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment. The approval of the Project and related infrastructure extensions and improvements could ultimately facilitate development of this acreage. (e) The EIR states that approval of the Project and related service district expansions would - contribute to the trend toward urbanization of the Highway 4 corridor and East Contra Costa County and could make it more difficult for the County to deny similar future general plan. amendment proposals north of the Project within the Urban Limit Line. However, it should be noted that the County is not required to approve a development proposal merely because the site is within the Urban Limit Line. The County will exercise its discretion with respect to future development proposals based on the facts existing at the time, including the impacts of the Project. (f) The properties directly north of the Project Site, west of Bixler Road, are also within the Urban Limit Line but less likely to be developed due to existing parcelization, multiple property owners, and the existence of several rural residences on these properties . The properties west and south of the` Project cannot be developed without a revision to the Urban Limit Line, which is unlikely to occur . 2. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s growth-inducing impacts will be insignificant because the County will retain discretion over future development in the region. These impacts will be further limited by existing constraints on the development of properties to the west, north and south of the Project Site. B. Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts. 1. Generally. This Board makes the following findings regarding those certain environmental impacts of the Project discussed in the EIR as potentially unavoidable and irreversible significant, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. This Board finds that each impact not identified in this section as a significant and unavoidable impact is determined to be less than significant or capable of avoidance or 15 mitigation to a less than significant level by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures adopted herein. 2. Visual Factors. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s significant and unavoidable visual impacts are discussed on pages 105 and 264 of the Draft EIR, page 265 of the Errata, in public comments - and County responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . (ii) The Project would result in a significant, unavoidable, incremental impact on the rural and open space character of the Highway 4 corridor in East Contra Costa County. Conditions 6.F, 6.L, 11 .0 and 5 of the Conditions of Approval substantially mitigate this impact by establishing aesthetic guidelines for development of the Project along the Highway 4 corridor . Condition of Approval 6.F requires a soundwall design that will reduce the monotonous effects of a straight wall . Condition 6 .L requires a street tree planting plan for the site. Condition 11 .0 requires zoning administrator approval for noise attenuation measures developed for residences along Highway 4 . Condition 5 requires a mixture of single- and two-story residences be located in the corridor . In addition, Condition 39 .A(2) recommends that a meandering sidewalk be developed along Highway 4 . Implementation of this last condition would require the approval of CalTrans . (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that: (i) The Project ' s significant impacts on visual resources along Highway 4 will be substantially lessened by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval but will remain significant and unavoidable. (ii) The impacts of the Project on visual resources that will remain despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully described in the Statement of overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . 16 3. Drainage and Water Quality. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s impacts relating to drainage and water quality are discussed at page 264 of the Draft EIR, 264-A of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The potential for flooding of the Project Site due to subsidence of the Project vicinity over the long term is identified by the EIR as a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. (ii) Condition 7 requires that building pads be removed from the 100-year flood plain, which will reduce to a less than significant level flooding impacts associated with potential subsidence. The impacts will be further reduced by Condition 34, which requires that notice of the potential for the increased risk of flooding be given to owners of properties within the site. (b) Findings. (i) Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project 's significant impacts on drainage and water quality will be substantially reduced by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval but will remain significant and unavoidable. (ii) The impacts of the Project on drainage and water quality that will remain despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . 4. Geology and Soils. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s potential significant impacts on geology and soils are discussed at page 264 of the Draft EIR, 264-A of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . 17 The potential for flooding of the Project due to subsidence of the Project vicinity over the long term is identified as a potentially significant unavoidable impact. However, Condition 7 will reduce potential flooding impacts associated with subsidence to a level of insignificance by requiring that building pads be removed from the 100-year flood plain. Condition 35 of the Conditions of Approval will further lessen this impact by requiring the Applicant to inform future property owners of the possible need for levees around the site due to subsidence or sea level rise. (b) Findings. (i) Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant impacts on geology and soils will be substantially reduced by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval but will remain significant and unavoidable. (ii) The impact of the Project on geology and soils that will remain despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . 5. Public Services. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s potentially significant and unavoidable impact on schools is discussed on pages 176 through 177 and 265 of the Draft EIR, page 265 of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR states that current funding sources are insufficient to cover the true cost of school expansion necessitated by development. (ii) The EIR's recommended mitigation measures would require the Applicant to pay impact fees higher than those currently in effect, establish an interim school impact mitigation plan and participate in a Mello-Roos district or similar capital facilities program. However, state law prohibits school impact mitigation beyond the assessment of impact fees authorized by statute. In addition, state law prohibits denial of development projects based on inadequacy of school facilities, provided that applicable school fees are assessed and paid. 18 (iii) Condition 15 of the Conditions of Approval requires the Applicant to pay applicable impact fees or obtain "will serve" letters from the local school districts. (b) Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that : (1) The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR for school impacts are infeasible because they are inconsistent with state law. (2) The Project ' s significant impacts on school services will be substantially lessened by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval but are significant and unavoidable. (3) The impacts of this Project on the school services that will remain despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval are overridden by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of this Project as more fully described in the Statement of 'Overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . 6. Noise. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s potentially significant unavoidable noise impacts are discussed on page 265 of the Draft EIR, page 265 of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The Project will have temporary construction noise impacts on adjacent properties . In addition, there will be significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impacts on existing residences along highway and arterial road segments in the Project vicinity as a result of off-site traffic . These impacts will be significant and unavoidable with or without the Project. (ii) Condition 20 of the Conditions of Approval will substantially reduce the noise impacts of construction activities by limiting the hours of construction and requiring (1) that internal combustion engines be fitted with mufflers; (2) that noise generation equipment be located as far away from existing residences as possible; (3) that property owners within 300 feet be notified that grading is about to occur; and (4) using quiet machinery. 19 There is currently no fair share contribution program in place for mitigating traffic-related cumulative noise impacts . Accordingly, the EIR concludes that mitigation of the traffic-related cumulative impacts is infeasible. (b) Findings. Based upon the. EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that : (i) The Project ' s significant construction-related noise impacts are significant and unavoidable but will be substantially lessened by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval . No mitigation is feasible to mitigate the cumulative traffic noise impacts associated with the Project because no program is in place to assess fair share mitigation of cumulative noise impacts. These impacts are also significant and unavoidable. ('ii) The impacts of this Project on noise that will remain significant despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval :are significant and unavoidable and are overridden by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, 'as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . 7. Air Quality. (a) Facts. (i) The Project ' s potential impacts on air quality are discussed on page 265 of the Draft EIR Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the discussion in the Byron 78 environmental impact report and concludes that the region will experience significant cumulative adverse impacts on regional air quality. These impacts will exist with or without the Project . (ii) The Byron 78 environmental impact report references pre-existing exceedances of air quality standards . There is no evidence in the record that the Project would add appreciably to those exceedances . 20 (b) Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s impacts on regional air quality will be less than significant . C. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses Of The Environment And The Maintenance And Enhancement Of Long-Term Uses. 1 . Facts. (a) The Project 's relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term uses is discussed on page 265 of the Draft EIR, 265 of the Errata, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record on which this Board relies . (b) The EIR states that long-term impacts of the Project would include the replacement of agricultural land and open space with urban development. The crop-growing potential of on-site soils is limited. However, there is some potential for forage crop production. In addition, the site might be considered for use for other beneficial uses such as parkland or affordable housing. (c) The Project Site has not been designated in the County General Plan for parkland use, thus this Board finds that other suitable land for this purpose exists . In addition, the EIR' s discussion of the Project ' s population, housing, and employment impacts (Section IV. 1) states that the Project will provide housing that is affordable to moderate income households and meet a housing need identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments . (d) The Project will supply a substantial quantity of needed moderate income housing and retail and office uses that will augment the County' s revenue source, in addition to the other benefits discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s relationship between short-term uses and the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is not a significant impact because the site is best suited for the uses proposed by 21 the Project. This Board further finds that the benefits associated with the Project, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Consideration set forth in Section V of these findings, outweighs the site' s limited potential for other long-term uses . D. Cumulative Impacts. 1. Facts. (a) The cumulative impacts of the Project are discussed in Sections I, II, IV and VI of the Draft EIR, in the Errata, in the public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . These impacts are specifically addressed in the various Project impact categories analyzed in the EIR and in Sections II, III and IV of these findings . (b) The EIR states that several impacts of the Project are potentially significant when considered with other approved, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects, including, without limitation, the following: (i) conversion of land within the County' s Urban Limit Line; (ii) growth-inducing impacts on other local properties; (iii) impacts on the rural character of the area; (iv) losses of agricultural productivity; (iv) visual impacts on rural character; (v) traffic impacts on local intersections and Highway 4; (vi) impacts on Kellog Creek' s drainage system, water quality and wildlife habitat values; (vii) vehicle safety on Bixler Road; (vii) flood displacement impacts; (viii) school impacts; and (ix) increased noise levels on Highway 4 . (c) The EIR recommends mitigation measures for the Project ' s cumulative impacts in conjunction with the mitigation measures recommended for the Project ' s direct impacts . (d) The EIR does not list any cumulative impact as unavoidable except for the visual impacts on the Highway 4 corridor, impacts on Byron Middle School, off-site traffic noise impacts and deterioration in air quality. This Board has determined in Section III .B of these findings that the Project 's cumulative air quality impacts are not significant. As discussed in these findings, the Conditions of Approval imposed by this Board as mitigation measures will substantially reduce these impacts. 22 2. Findings. (a) Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s significant cumulative impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the Conditions of Approval referenced in Sections II and III of these findings', with the exception of those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in Section III .B of these findings . (b) To the extent that any cumulative impacts remain, despite such Conditions of Approval, for all categories of environmental impacts as set forth above in these findings, those cumulative impacts are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more. fully stated in the Statement of overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . IV. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The EIR evaluates and compares six alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative. This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to foster informed decision making and informed public participation and to permit a reasoned choice. This Board finds that the alternatives are adequately discussed and evaluated in the EIR. This Board adopts the findings set forth below regarding these alternatives . A. No Project Alternatives. 1. Facts. (a) The No Project Alternative is discussed at pages 245 through 247 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . This alternative would maintain the existing undeveloped characteristics of the site without any new construction. (b) The No Project Alternative has the advantage of generally less impacts on visual quality, transportation, and other environmental features than those resulting from the proposed Project or any other alternative involving development of the Project Site. 23 (c) This alternative is generally considered impracticable. As indicated on pages 66 through 69 of the Draft EIR, the Project is located in a developing area. Accordingly, some development on the Project Site is probable. The site is already designated in the General Plan for one residence per five acres. 2. Findings. (a) Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that for the reasons contained in these findings, the No Project Alternative 'is infeasible because it is contrary to the General Plan and would achieve none of the benefit's of the Project . In addition, the No Project Alternative would preclude obtainment of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V of these findings. Accordingly, this Board rejects the No Project Alternative. B. , General Plan Build-Out Alternatives. 1. Facts. (a) The EIR discusses the General Plan Build-Out Alternative on pages 247 through 250 of the 'Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 3 through 166 of the Final EIR) and -in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . (b) This alternative would reduce impacts in most categories. However, it. would not provide for needed commercial- and office services in the area, particularly medical services. Further, the alternative would create substantially fewer needed ,housing units in the Project and provide no local employment accommodations. Accordingly, this alternative is inferior to the Project in meeting the County' s fair share housing goals. The alternative would also generate no sales tax revenue for the County. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the General Plan Build-Out Alternative is infeasible because it. would provide fewer housing units, job opportunities and fiscal benefits than the Project and, therefore, would not achieve the objectives of the Project and would reduce the environmental, economic, social and other benefits derived from the Project. For the foregoing reasons, this Board rejects the General Plan Build-Out Alternative. 24 C. Mitigated Project Alternative. I. Facts. (a) The Mitigated Project Alternative is discussed on pages 250 through 252 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. (b) The Mitigated Project Alternative would reduce density along the Project ' s northern border and contain other design features to reduce the impacts associated with the Project at less than significant levels . The. alternative would require elimination of up to 50 residential units . The alternative would create a greater buffer between the high density residential development and the surrounding agricultural core and agricultural lands and reduce noise impacts to the lots presently proposed along State Highway 4 . (c) This alternative would have the advantage of generally reducing the level of significance of the Project ' s impacts. However, it would reduce the number of needed housing units provided by the Project, increasing the cost of the units. 2. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the administrative record, this Board finds that the Mitigated Project Alternative is infeasible because it would produce fewer and more expensive housing units and would reduce the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings. This Board, therefore, rejects the Mitigated Project Alternative. D. Density Transfer Alternative. 1. Facts. (a) The Density Transfer Alternative is discussed on pages 252 through 253 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments. (generally set forth at pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) "and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. (b) This alternative would incorporate a revised "cluster" design that would include a variety of 25 residential unit types and densities . Larger open space uses could be developed for recreational use, and the cluster design could increase setbacks from surrounding roadways and agricultural uses and avoid existing peripheral drainage in irrigation ditches. W This alternative would generally reduce the environmental effects anticipated to result from the proposed Project. However ,' only 206 residential units will be provided, 82 fewer needed units than with the proposed Project. Many of the units that would be constructed would be duplexes, townhomes and apartments. W The identified need and market in the rural East County area is for traditional lots that will support a detached single-family unit and yard. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that this alternative is infeasible because it would produce fewer and less marketable units than the Project and would reduce obtainment of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits to be derived from the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding , Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . Accordingly, this Board rejects the Density Transfer Alternative. E. All Residential Alternative. 1. Facts. (a) The All Residential Alternative is discussed on pages 254 through 255 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County :responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. (b) This alternative would exclude the residential and office portions of the Project and provide for developing the entire site with a residential subdivision featuring lots averaging 10',000 square feet (approximately 1/4 acre) in size. At this density the Project Site would accommodate approximately 263 single-family detached lots. (c) This alternative would generate fewer tax revenues to the County, as there would be no retail shopping or office uses. In addition, the alternative would reduce the needed quantity of housing units provided by the 26, Project and would eliminate the local employment accommodation advantages of the Project. No new jobs would be provided. (d) The alternative would reduce the environmental impacts associated with the Project in most categories . 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that this alternative is infeasible because it would eliminate many of the economic and fiscal benefits of the Project and would reduce the obtainment of the economic, social, environmental and other benefits to be derived from the Project as discussed in the Statement of overriding Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings Accordingly, this Board rejects the All Residential Alternative. F. Applicant Proposed Alternative. 1. Facts. (a) The Applicant Proposed Alternative is discussed on pages 255 through 259 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions-"6f the administrative record upon which this Board relies . (b) This alternative includes several modifications to Project design, which include reduction to 284 lots, increase in retail land area, decrease in retail structure area, increase in park area, revisions to street design and revision of open space areas at the drainage channel . (c) This alternative would reduce the Project ' s environmental impacts in most categories . However, it would slightly reduce the number of needed housing units proposed. In addition, the proposed entrance to Highway 4 would involve significant operational and safety impacts . The elimination of the connection between S Parkway and C Street would create an awkward internal circulation pattern. 2. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that this alternative is infeasible because ' it would create new transportation impacts and, accordingly, rejects this alternative. 27 V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Generally. This Board finds and determines that, to the extent that any of the above-discussed significant direct or indirect Project impacts, including cumulative Project impacts, remain significant despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval and other mitigation measures, such impacts are acceptable in light of the social, economic, environmental and other Project benefits discussed below and that these benefits outweigh and make acceptable any such environmental impacts of the Project . This Board also finds and determines that those mitigation measures and alternatives which were discussed in the EIR, public comments, County responses or other portions of the administrative record but which are not or will not be incorporated into the Project are infeasible given those Project benefits . The specific Project benefits are discussed below and are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Each of the matters set forth below is, independent of the other matters, an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project despite each and every impact that will remain significant. B. Specific Project Benefits. Specifically, this Board finds that the following social, economic, environmental and other Project considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any significant impacts of the Project that are not fully mitigated to a level of insignificance or which might be reduced through the choice of one of the alternatives to the Project: 1. Provision of Housing. The benefits associated with the Project 's provision of new housing are discussed on pages 81 through 85 and 237 through 240 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The Project will provide 288 new units of single-family housing for the area and region. The Association of Bay Area Governments ( "ABAG".) has projected. an increase of 61,010 households in the County between 1990 and 2000, 5,200 of which are projected to come to the rural East County area. The Project would accommodate approximately six percent of the 28 growth in the rural East County area and just under one-half percent of the projected County-wide growth. The selling price of Project homes is expected to . range between $180,000 and $220,000 . Homes sold for under $200,000 are considered to be affordable to moderate income households . According to Table 35 of the Draft EIR (page 239) , 23,918 of the 48,756 new households expected to arrive in Contra Costa County will have moderate and above-moderate incomes. Accordingly, the Project ' s housing units will meet an identified need in the County. 2. Provision of Jobs. The Project ' s creation of jobs is discussed on pages 84 through 85 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies . The Project will provide local and regional development-related employment opportunities. Some of these opportunities will be temporary, e.g. , construction, landscaping, home design, interior decorating, and so forth. However, the wages earned from these jobs will increase income levels, stimulating the local economy and generating sales tax revenues . After Project homes are occupied, household-related purchases for groceries, hardware, supplies and similar items will have permanent beneficial effects on the local economy. The Project is also expected to create permanent jobs in connection with the on-site retail and office uses. The EIR predicts that the Project will create 281 retail jobs and 185 office jobs . As with the temporary jobs associated with Project construction, these 466 permanent jobs will stimulate the economy and augment County revenues. 3. Jobs/Housing Balance. The Project ' s beneficial impact on the local jobs/housing balance is discussed on pages 84 through 85 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and County responses to those comments (generally set forth on pages 3 through 66 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The Project ' s creation of local jobs will improve the area's balance between jobs and housing, with corresponding environmental benefits in terms of regional traffic congestion and air pollution mitigation. 29 4. Public Revenues. ' The Project will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the Project Site and will beneficially impact property values in the vicinity, thereby creating additional property tax revenue for the County on a long-term basis. During construction of the Project, additional public revenues will result from sales taxes on building materials, payroll taxes relating to construction employment, patronization of local businesses by construction-related employees and Project resident.s : and similar transactions . The Project will also contribute fees toward local and regional solutions to public services and facilities needs . VI. FINDINGS SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT APPLICATIONS A. General Plan Consistency. This Board finds that: 1 . The General Plan Amendment is internally consistent and is consistent with the General Plan as a whole. 2. The Rezoning and Final Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan as amended by the General Plan Amendment. B. Findings Regarding the Rezoning. This Board finds that: 1 . The Applicant has indicated that it intends to commence construction within 2 1/2 years of the effective date of the final project approval . 2. The Project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will be in harmony with the character of nearby communities . 3 . The Project will be a development of a harmonious, innovative plan, which justifies exceptions from the normal application of the code, including variances and parcel configuration and design to provide a better conformity with existing terrain features and land use limitations in the area. C. Findings Supporting Approval of the Vesting Tentative Maps. This Board finds that: 30 1 . The Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan as amended by the General Plan Amendment. 2. The Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the zoning of the Project Site pursuant to the Rezoning. 3 . The Project achieves a balance between the housing needs of the region, the public service needs of County residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources . 4 . The design of this Project provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. 2026; 31 ;Albers General Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT B Mitigation Monitoring Contra Costa County1 May 16, 1993 . : RECE VED Page 1 Mpy 1 8 1993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �lyp COSTA CO. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM THE ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The following monitoring program has been formulated for implementation of environmental impact mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Albers General Plan Amendment (April 1993). This document describes the state mitigation monitoring requirement and includes a recommended implementation monitoring checklist for the Albers project. A. STATE MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENT On January 1, 1989, AB 3180 became law in California. The bill requires all public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to environmental impact reports. The complete text of the bill can be found in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. As mandated by this legislation, a mitigation monitoring program must be implemented by the Lead Agency (the County) subsequent to certification of the Final EIR for the Albers General Plan Amendment. Most of the environmental mitigation measures identified in the Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR will ultimately be adopted either as provisions in the subdivision map or as conditions of subdivision map approval. As a result, most of these measures will be subject to effective monitoring through the County's normal development review procedures (i.e., during approval procedures for the tentative map, final map(s), individual building permits, and associated plan check and field inspection procedures). B. MATRIX FORMAT The attached monitoring checklist includes spaces for: (1) a summary of each significant impact identified in the Final EIR (excerpted directly from the Summary chart on pages 10 through 37 of the EIR); (2) a paraphrasing of each condition of approval recommended by County staff to implement the associated mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR; (3) identification of the type of monitoring action required to determine whether the mitigation measure was implemented; (4) identification of the party responsible for performing and verifying the monitoring action; and (5) identification of the associated timing requirements. Several of the Conditions of Approval listed in column two require two-part monitoring (e.g., a plan check to ensure required project design changes, and site inspection to ensure proper construction of required changes). IMPS W OBS 15291 MMPRO.529 C6 U a m � V) a a C = U © g a It j 0 0 c� a v 3 0 C, z o (!� 5 en 1 0 CIO m c cd Z c t, - o tv E 0 Q OG o Q, N 0 c�7 -o '3, O oa a. CD E Z09- cB y m m (� cc 0 o ~ '.ICA � C:) L a �� .0 C%S y v n mm 3 G► Q O 0 W p � N 00 r.5. w .. o � m E 3 -°. 3 L o o to c� lo qq i� r�� caoC13 0 c UU ;ac�, cyaca _ o „ N Gp > N .0 O O M C N O !) ` T w► CO N d (tl¢J (j Q¢ E jo N CC 0V T Cl in co y N CO Cis 11 0 iit co 0 it L� th C m (1) CL. d aicu � c0 po 0) � o N � o t p 0 W > > G . . T4 oty Lt �i to CO O p •off - N o an d U io v cTa Q 4 U. V o 0) �_ Z cn y G cD V r C v c6 co N ( E L7� c`� a a�c E V � LEd 0 ° 00 a� r � 0co � y =�� d -Co 0 in to 0 � N sn E Q N .. G U 0 'in :; Cif m •,E a CO iv ';- N (D CL a F 11. L'! p C rJ cl C'i , O to G tv »- tti6 d G =4 to V O c ". E Zc T co � � N ono � to>� aE� co 3� -3- 0 Cl. tor W Q O co O U O it -0 U) v d--�3 S o mqm5 CL r Ccn5 � Qi QL TT0 O0 d Lo 0 cr V t- U to is VN- N 2R 0 0 ? G W a os ii Co 0 . G C m p V L Gt tt3NTCC 0 O O n u a A - i5 o ccc$ o °` aoq°) CIS CO co GIt , G .- oto L�'y von, G>) L N 0) o U * y a rc 6 G N d Cy J O o o y d c O L1 to y 0 (13 t4 0 _ "0 a ►q vN � c � acmtwn=o «Qm� c d o a L ca c a u,m tca 0 ftSttS r O C $ d O. m a Im G� O O 0 = 0 O =p 0 •, U r > t�C coGG Q V� Edi o Foci c d o C Off, a; � ' � v 3 N ; ►` apt m p O00^ t0.4 �_ G ►U-> >0 to r Gci c Cull W V) coLG "0 «s p: .. os= vi 0 m O 0 U_ Cl. ,.� pi•C 0 V) O G ttf > tLj o E � G COCD cc r 3 U °C o u Z Z ct. s ' 2 v, �c cnm F- Q- a, h- r � � o a 10 ID ►► rC� a $ ►► kn t7 � r r N ° `i o G� W �' r`O t a O p, ° o to m �e a� C`• G - u° 6 Z c o- N g 1 sCD $ r O w T + � �d a '� is c � � � ° � r s► o� iG Q d �, 0 G to 00 O � C6 .c ►► Ott N V y N m CP : v c nr � ° 0 o — ° G U N _ -- moo sg � �� � °ncc � r� ✓ CJ OG Os N L Gr- tp ►% CJ p N " N d rU Sy t6 3' p 0) N N G O L y G d N O at U "OOO 'pd ow DDrb NN p ° to C: p 180 0w0 � L O G ° S -0 'r ° din L c Ny N Gt" w G PSE d cb O N ♦ 1: p O N p U is.s a� cd '.1 p c T + i° r UO O N N O °p O E N 06. t0r0 7 t' O t� ° '� ✓ O. Om. �►O d i►6 0c4 L N i Cb i wtCS w .N+ V.16 Q O ♦y. L N 7� ���� QN tb N i ., 9 .► O4i` GN'"'GCCS~N O N' "✓' wCwJ„ 7�%�bN NG✓ � ui c!fri Os„NN0 4+t'!+'r♦ Nv0Ltp cfi ¢ ►y3 N' ✓ Op 0 m0Nr O Ug0bG C6 Om 0 .., 10' m 1 7 + co 0 7 d i0 � O 'it5 " V � ✓ y m G cb U it 03� O a� � + as C 0 �! fi C6 o o�U °+' 00� m c %�E CO.rGi rO O G ►N N ►� �p �olpoo�= a tt� n V a. V O W D � c o p `o � N a W U U �" CO vev a 11 0 CO O E 011 a tm d Cr c .2 , Cr ¢ a a a rn c � Hd (� c `o — � � m C c o� • c p m o ao U CO C 2. C m �- O O O LL, .°�. O� o' v � c a 011 F. Q a. CC a cc a a to O W 'O CO CL c J L Ltt cc cc = III N `° taiCm `m 9 C U C 0 4 0 O c c N c C W3 O m � u 0 m >` a Inc 0 0 °' ° � gQ CL t h O CL � L L O a 0 -C 'a - cc C C Io m .. _ 0 N H a> F- OCD r L LL L In � L d � O — L _ a� ` N a F mcc . v' :: c > 3cc 3 mV Q V O E � — 0 — 0 0 3 0 " 0 r Z >, E Lt° tn0M = am •- oma o " N ; ° cc c � m E acL U o� Om s oQ o o m c » ° amccCr � 5 o o � m c E cc v u- �3 0 = •0 cU 0 C-0 0 tv M O Y C a OU) 15 caov�cmp ° N E a0LD0 .0 M cO( Q Ei O-0 c ow c om W v) O .~ a) , a�L N a ' ' m �Q)oa3m Q O tc OO aI L O fn V O O c N •� tll W y 'Q Q j L C N m N cD q u) q U O w a IU C L y L ° 7 V C COQ ui d Mo o cc �, m a 0 0 II w E ° 2 cc M u. a cc In o E Q In QW CC v, m v1 0 M�Ca Y �N.,c m m 1!10 •� .. Wc (D3cc c CIU U = aV c0 U O E L a O'Of n cc > a`I 1;6 co cc a a`a w o L — v Iv a L1 R N Iv p la Lm 0 c >'£ _ m mcQ Va m�~c o $ cc � «- . ca (D c EN m 0 > 0 Eo a0 =E _ > Cm o E gp cc Oo^ ° 0SEo m 2 c c y > L • ca c a U) a cq O N 4) -0 a c 3 0 o 8t ti a)- (D (A � cQ _ Nc + C E V V2O 0_ ucE cu cc Osca Lav3OaIt- o ► v0 Y f► +� V L QI a cc O . U O II 41 0 >. "-' U '` ami rn3 In NS `-° � E c>c E aWO W 2 � � � r- In cO c E c E .602 aL cart LL. a) -4 r Sc° �_ LvO, omO � ccL 0 c' c10 v •p R Q (� a cc In •p o >� 11 ; II IO If co Z 0 cv cc m 3 o 3 '- cc .� L c� 9 ;c W 0 � n L �, E �, � � � c_`a 3w � , 00- m C QoE E ~ `n � ao � Emao oo°'co0vi a r� 3 s c c 3 o m Int � w 0 x a t> c7 p U ° `c C13 o c p U U it u, c 0 O a- a N c Zc n`_ co m a a d a 3 0Eco o 2i— � n' o� m O f!1 u O O V5U} U () d W O C'3 U nU CL a �' a o� F Q a mCD a � in 0) LtS + C N y Y N C� m f0z" > M 4? = ;5 C C �f N O N r {�} L L O N Q O O 1y WIn �v+ L O ° G 47 L O p �N ao i1' a7aocUQ m > 0 CD (D0 N ° °' a w d fll cC •O Orr.. U t! Cn C > t0 4! 'NU i N Q I- 0 It d cts LL O •t0 c0 CA•d Q .�„ �: - �' 8 s0 s .c C r .. ay —., c 0171 a > L cc ccts N ¢, O Cr u' '� O L O c o m co o caEti � c cvs — C: .- Nom 0 aE �oc Os-- z vs — 0 (D U) � � = � aid a°?i a7 ° �� _ �' `� _ � uf�3 }- ct N > V vi ° 3 Em om ' °p � ;oZ5 i ° o�fh 0 as += :tz 0 O> ? pc . cLS O O0. 0 O O'6 , O5 Eit O Np C .F :1y. cn 75 c� NW O a) (D wc7 �C > O N Dr O N O a> c " z!U O aY �. J do 6 � o � ` -0 RS � ca O ° cO CO 1Z � ,C O f� ;o 3 th t0 ° — E ° W CO � N .r O — � � � 'C '; 1� >` O �— r pNj ° N :C � 11 °N `A `atoi N S 4) CO c OG c°is E ice- c �. Ct v� ¢ cn ca =0-- La _ _ aso NU a Y c CL 0.500 '> c0 17i ° 1t 11 to ? CLLco c � ° C;) N o o � o c'aEU c0 c Qy S 1n CL,r CA o > E a 0 = Qt` L x Lr X c 2c.y.n. C O r O ° «Q•. O.O C p 4Ci N >, Q 0 VO. Iq a c c' 0 O ° 'L3 cz d ° a7 G $ w m p CO a1 a c " c E �` > � > ccv O _ is w O ' a� c0 & — a ° 0 In c'o c ' c c—o a� o P c� E .. c cc c� o '�c g o t Z i O G S O C C Evca (6 3: � 2S �O � Sa= �O o � N a � W U U U co Z i � m � m` d N c Z E 3 w O E d � N m U- a, O N o O In O o . A CL yL-) W o Q �) a 11 go Q L .0 L L 3 O LL� J CL Q O to "- '- L O N 0 _ m 0) c _3 (1) CD rno 3v cc � � o c o c W � a d � - ' H39 w � �oocmo� oo a N3a �N ( m � ff to 'mCyc0ac� Nm - o )c Q N cm co Q.,L.. O a) M N L � 4 a) � 0) :: d W O Oco —aQj .. O �� to a) v ~ ; L Q3 C N O. 3L ami E > o :° = 0 co3L - j N o . 'V Z i Om a) @ L to O io . CL (D OL O_ � o � � yio m m N 3 c E E c a, - c omvv o �Er ma) o cZ' o co ao o E F- m o — wc`oco c � M > > aE `��° ccaa) c a `^oc L V H aci V N vOi M co N Y C0 CU L a : = O N O ~ Qa Y ~ c LL WO.W p E O t w = ('C O= m co Q a¢ °�° w a) L ` ` O o C a) N _ 03 '� '0 C O t) :.:Ol c E 0 Q. >,° oc � co0 _wm0wN �' caaaCL >. a ��tjo o co �- co U) c a) 0 «. _ rn Q. co co O. d_ c. H wom vcaocaa) 0).N rn � g 4c4aQio � �~c)c Q Svc ME � a'N .7 i a) � a) 3E 'D M p c�v �, J occLU W �o .. � Qcoa) nQ � LZ'ina) � a) a) vim) c8 y Q � o .c � c 2 c"'o a ate) coo Q. a) ccoccQ 0 cco 0 0 > c�'o � L � L Q. °) �� my3 L L cc Q co U- d to N o .E Q cn c> N, Q U m 11 ©a as cmoa c m o c � ccco c3 � 0 U s; E8 vic 0 Cc Uctio cco 4) E 5 E a'wm � P o o, mo t m m u c� U Cc N L O to U « L N a) U IL >. v � N ; v Ln > � c ao ?8 v vi 5 Q. r- 3: a) < � $�3 1— g. CO vi c t- p OC cm c`o m � o0c U o � � _ � 2 crov E �` UE ° 0 Q. wC O O O V3 C V 8 U cu U O 1 2. 0 _ O i O C C N = N 0 m ct a O O c >, v 3 U) �� me w- meRS ca j c d°- W a c� c`o a n) o 0 a) a) c �' CL 0 c N j.8> ti E p O N C p co m O C p c Z 3 0 a) c'a O rn Q yn N CC co vmvMc— m G 5 L > �' E t �" ° `oa ( LCD ��c8vi a cLn 3 ° I� v o cin ao m $ 2 'O U c .O 0 c co W � 4. a 8 R EL o CL 1� L m � z 4w a. O d N 4 Q CL N O c ... CL N CL cc to Gi N c w '0 i= o°'C I- t = t- .cam C0 (L (n n- M � c� _, usa cna ,. _ " o N C tm c a a` o O 4 0 t.. O U. O _ O .`. jS O c W O a a O O o. m CL ' N O N a IL cts C¢ cNo ° ^-. CO A m ° N t O w3 a> 02 'o �, m N _ E ° L a� m - „ � ,. cts ° 3 3 > E = °) cc � °' o E CL o �N ° L et - N co o �- >, E C ° U ° p 0 pd', � vm >.� m8 � cn = � E > ° cam 2 a xE d E cc � � $ c " o ° E Eo � ° � om a a- m � occc co . ° a ccoE c3 � 4 „ c >wi cr O E > ° � = oca -- N £ � c ° `` t, iia .t _� (D Z c gccc' (D 'IrE C. rcM ° 0 ° °'8tODi 4 cn c 'c �+ o - >.'w M -' g � c � ° 0. E a ac c°o `�-' � 3 = ° Sia c _ � = o a �g{�N to qCy m (s E N C 3 as p� a> ` O "= c cEo a a c ZCJ `°c ° � c°'a Ep ° a c � :? � = as > �. o � � CD � :x E CL c 8 ai c> c cv o a� � _ .- C to 0 c O C O ... co N y U C y M as N ° C a - E G? a p > c 3 > E a cc a E. o !W- ccoo cC C ) y N V �� G rn p, � w c cn o p o O c�v d Ea4' cn , Ea� � c ° � cN =' o °' � •= N -5 �, o -� CM cca N � > c � p U p 0 3-c W c E ° � � a 6m 10 a : coves � -- v cc eco a m ' w3 CL � c � oCLs2 .Gy � � rn0C _ � cc ca � 4? �, ,t `a�E_v aca cCa V c°a � aiv 'NCt E a 5 � 'cn 'cn a (D F-0 _ - 005 as a o a's cc U a a a� s „ It a c`a -0 ° a Co`'c c >, c ao5� cn m o O> E n c co c° a Z .► c3s � N a da U c C- 0 o .) fl £ c > ` i8 - 0o aOaE 0 o „a CO ac c co W it E O C i 3 m Ct. O A °tJ aca n N ua Z - _ >> V mU 70t O Z Q 8 a O mG aU mIm cc W � Qa> _ a„ O. = a C7i Q it . a � _ a � � ICE a g C6 ►► u► 5 a = Cat1 E _ "- O"' U LL ""' tai. •04• �' N � es v o- o a,- cr. ' to L." oil:1tt Z es o. a � �' � � w p.. N C6 Wit O it a fx a C6 - U. a �, Ci- O y d 01 O G V O N 4L m N O oN3o T 5 0 1ao T $ .e 0 "� :: a .. G 0 G e� N O O O G NL' 4 N S r-c S -y, U 041 _ � G N Q r V 1051 0 G cr t4 ,4 7 N N G N r C O N G tC .. CD O 4) 4? 0 oa`ANvsm co, � a c3 . ca Gp � �-o °t- a p 7Z 166.5 tTd C� G A y� N ;T�"' E O $oN N O Ci C 0 o tT co �- u� a st°�° m Q1- a .COw co N 1� N y a N O gj CIS -OO 3 a G ►' N T Q E i64) u.. Q 0 G41v � u1 � � 0rn•C41 aim c v� Q m O N © n V .0 0; N i N 4 ! rr;-, �'' per ►► m �^ 14 G 3 t�- Q r a Z o2a1Y w � ��`'• E >� Npi0N3a10 —°4, to '0 �$►o- a d o c4 CO a y O � d �r > 4> N 0 ��Uar 00 C-6 4141 d N cb U fi 4y' cco �O =10 � U C -- 4) 'o m 3 a o ►r? U. a o is a1 �;,a v ,r► mac' o d a m E , co a. 0.�. w cC O d .r+ N •U �: n mN Caa 40 0 SEE �3 $ a:� $ ' F � s � ° �' � a Q _ U C t1 0� tD = Cl to M N 6y Q tZ t1 T O OO U ►� N E y N eco U c4 m Zia{ ) Cwt r � ao � o °„ a , a a 0.0�u O O d v� 3. O w G L, N Cri o y C N d) t T o O O CF) dp O1�p 7 OmrtnO`" 2 �r C c6 0 O 3 L ~Z► O O N 0 0 tL Cj m G i r o � v C6 m It 3 to U O N •°'0 0 C CD p r� WP V6 o c d a(� a r * O � Q Wo •^^ r V• D m IS w in Q" ca. C N 0 q %N Y pG U o? � .3 R � "' c� N '0- 1- R E N O- 3 r O G L G v G N p U y a 4) o 0 �Z 91R W 0-e !? C O Coi�� du o a 23; � Hca .: 00 N �a3 .-° 07 GONG c6Gv 0 —4 o ✓ Ll 0 OM 0 -a r '7 0> fl R OY o 0 R T -'�. G Q L a, t1R�+ 7 N 7r T G T N ✓ d 'yV + G 'ti O $ 'adN � U RD co °O0tbUt�7•O0 O N p - N G G N "Qoc 'OU �y vteG 0ySu co , GRp.O o p ) orror:G I0 W" N l R 0 O 0 t' N d 0 O ' to % CIO3v my m7 � E � ca d � °p a � $EO !�mNON 3 CO Apo 0 N a co v 0 g 3 0 0 ✓ G�• D o O O r R 'd d o o R is, m 0 00 O 0 io p R N m o O 0- CY *0 A c U yam, o N N G, a ; y'm M, o- ai p cXj w m ,� `o NNR a ac�U to c CD o c :,°a�a vD �to '^ O- ,L `�O` ogi `$ u t�o 0 p L N C6 «� N O N m a 0 �. 0 ViC yUm Q Wit} 7 Q ow G • (� ." N R U m o � re 7 p O C 3 .. r > 8 ~. mRoLd O c,� T U''f � v � 'OY O ✓ � � � Q r t7 , Oil r 7i4- N pi 0in , 3 is = 10- cc\\ w G 0 N o Vic ✓ �o �! '�� st vn- N •� �m O O O O ✓ C r O'Gp V N G y p N t3 O dt N G }4 SU\ r d d C N GO . _ g N E 70 'flp sa.,p N Yt Qm d w L .• p G m •ar V r G tC N 3 p vR c6 N L� d G cTd G ✓4 ? O+is N d ted L cb � �t6 � U N6 o U N t1 tL :m 7� O to O = 4 d O O= O p cb N "' Z d cG6 a' �- T N G O '' G 9 ✓ O 3tj m m rO x � ✓ V GO �N OC,- -S ++m G b7 � � G -S O N � o �° m 0-CD $ o - -0 ♦ °aG�U m3 —,A:; mO�Yr3 DO - ✓ L _. � ao3� �01 ( 40 %r0 , nG �:► pp 7 73 QG �s Ica V, mO mo3g O o ✓4V ODdOL \t O3@ 0) O r, 0C: 'C:� 2,2120 ) Y 6�-� W 0 � Cn �•4 Q t4 'O C4 �g:y �s 'U tb o) :0 S ." � 'Y«m U v 0�„[f• T G d O ` O d R � �' p`. O'�o ao �► rQ Si CA 7 �✓� '7y✓ O y p� a \\ Ti m" V gpo o ° ltsQ o d ''$ o O Cf7 � a U o ++Uo 1 O 00 = o• ~V d r i N� 0 o � x a U N C6 � m Cr a y� _ � W o u C'3 In 'Pap cc O ° .o0 Ct vS 0 -0 � ° aao)p. ` O � "N pQ 1 O i cc cts t- L m G a C0 � L � U30L. L• Na «• C om Z c ck CL 00 O ua op. u m N V N � do CL g °° LL O O N y N a LU �G p of ~ tC T3 C jc p d t4 L,p N Ll (} 7(D CO+ c"NC O cNi� o p t0 N �i a a►N ID Q � � a. to 0 � ai o = A� ° vcoO ° o, .t a+ a c o 0 o V CO a) o CT c71 `L »- ctf 3 n O Z^U U --� co , d it E CU w d - O U ►� N fQ d 'O RS O �' L UN L« 11 d rnEo ca S = °;�� c °a' oD 0 co - _ (D C co �c pyc " � 0 O 'Q QGq) 3 N LL tC � N p c cn N d ccs C � C y y y c o O c a CC:«m co 0 4 y O �(!1 � cO 4 � «_'�tCqt E 15 mo N 3 W p 0 O O L '30 ECo � c ca p � ° � E' c 3 � � � y � ocCto � In 4�v N L L c «- O « m;:0 V °' cd cr cn c � 9 r- w A� ,r- X 3 0 c a- m 3 C c a m = - = r. � o c co m o E a � E � S9 o tW.. NNo 71NLd O r- 0)+-' °n- 'SNO O N C1 ` 0 N O~a T3 CA cu — - L � C6 ONN + N Q Z y ' = UL Q 3 oWp n » oo CC o8ax P � d E N Nv O 3 Y m ai u� o S a o Sm cg o cca tis c a> CLO tT 0a03u _ c x N d AQ > C u 00EQ «s Y Cts Q. t7 4 v O ps N r .. C E Q CL ,a .0 N c@ C O .y 4 C;: O O '3 'p c G00 z c 0 COE c4«3 E c+ c � mal A�- v L v 0.> ,Y ✓r E 7 6 v 11 V Q a. C1 O o E c a a Q ECn � E ' Z <y c >>w LL 3 OA t yA p c O tt'Co » o0 - c ; c O 3 o� CO to1 D0olN OOw pv. omaW o Ca - C s s Z Ci oZs v°, E' isV W O o vs _ p p � a = 3 3 ccl s 0 CL CL00 o W d d CL ( c 3 + a 0 0 c o o o w � � o cc °' Mz � o � o � oc0 c'n E x O £ LL � (D d LL � LL L LL S CL 11 a r cm a on. c a c a o a o� M a 2 d .. m � a� L a� � m � Z C t0 a cn 0. cn C L cn d cn CL to c Q � ca � m cc m cc m Ir m � rn v 9 O E d 1- t 0) o F- c. m' Ht m H t o SHO[ CO a- (na � cnaw cnaU) o IM y O C v �o • c O 0 g am° C c a U. 0 C O 0Q C N 0 1 V qqa� a HQ d O O N wo u �+ U u c O O N w N e 2 ►_ p C a J c o x o y cc o o LL � o C c rL- w O C Z Q NO2 ` C c 3 N C 01-0 U C C w V a) O C d 3Q V aa � c oo " �. > a, a) 0 cnOo C C) a �6 > a- M c cc E v aci m o m om _ tr c 3 E c c Q Cl) _. m �, 0 CO a, E E a � � in — -a >, m > a xp LL = zv �� ca� cccim cE � 0Mom `c >•w0 y a 9� OoY cm° 3ccc a? � m (D c3 � � o Lica 11 a �v v � -Occc cNcavE aL a) c >,o '" = as _`o Om O zoU a) ouaEioo :3 �� « occsW a) ( 30 0 EC)L f= c � c a, a> >> . (D a, o rnM 3c 0 � am«m p °' o m m a � � cs c 12 c Q rno ca ~ c a� zoom OZ aY E c ai °' 3 £ = E ai 0 oc = M U) co c m c U. W, M O d p_ > U M Y cc J a m U c a8icoc .Ec3 � 3 ) oo $ � YU) Cate O sot ccn cncMic�cmc � .. cc cc o � oc0 � 00z a oEv ° CL c- IW- O ts c >'a O m N as c c c � Ir a aH ° a Q a ts E 3 N 0 c � C� � w N 0 ` 4 -= - � C c�U 0 W c� E 2 > a, Eo n, Nc oa, -- FoN0N ,. xccn m v_i •-$ c .v c2 � cn0V5 mom, c�accc � c «° mcc ao m' ' a�i3 cLnc>c UEcm - 8a� � alo � � cc c C;) 0) � -_- � rn 11 Eu Owt= c b ca 3 o v) � . a v'co . cn 3 'in 'cn v . m „ w� a WMca �^ ZO t OE,,o`` rte+ ,V 0 av C N a0 1= >o C a a is 0 ': rnCc �a Y 3 - U ao'b m o m~_- c v $ aci CCU 0 a O E U V; EMr o > E ° co 0 r% Q O a V a > O E 0)a e;: U � voirn ccs E �j= oo d E3` � oo � o — to o � s `o m m M U o1180 O � pox0. E aM � w m _ rnf- Wc .r �a c 0 m W d _ o rn o>� OOio a � O mC cU m 10 Oca> > 'c _ ¢« O. x a Cl) 8 :S 0 3 a u O U 3 o p °' N % dui a � o � o `� c s3 r L c �' comic NpU. ym s o Cc t" �t to o E st '- :. m m 0- (� N r m m ... N �..� z C 3 to N to c o w �• �- W O °• N lit Z5n O Cr o a,% O C C) Q C L N W G C ►. y N C G r qi O N O N O Cat �y :�. U. w a6 co ' E c°a 3 0D r c a p p O O Q Zdo rho c6N ca G yG O Utor OC) > o � cN O 4p o co N� Xat C O a a) sZ N to 'fl 4) m �s_s � _ �y o o w- 3 m'o m LL co v 4 tti O Z $ tUa C C co �o't3 O o a Y Q - O C3 o O d C w td O G N JOD u❑s .p Q 9 t�4 ~ a gyp'N U 'd N O d p $t? U ttl C tl! tL 0 � � co � o OD in� o 0 °' •^ �� mums G o o E y, tot c s ami u�i p v' O tv a? �c U t� rn C $ 'v ai c o o m c o Z N °' ,.. p20j� N7+ LU a .0 3c°, °y ',' `ov, m m dEVc. or m .. OS_ p O ty tv £ is Ns CO OU X? U) m U. Q ' O O 0 — ° ° O O o?© `o m a°i '' � to o � p " c" JES E ° co o D '' L m t E m�5° 0 c � E (D eco oaccts°9 Ea c2"nc'n � s'c'nt°'> E 0NtoZ O td ?� O ? 'N C fl r ti. d co N « C O No 2. 4) O N �j C cr ul CO O v C1 a `" ¢ tars G O N ,6 ��, O °0 «` w- od. 3 N C m = 0 3 is J > N a ca co oD OD o E _ co to T L o at z � V � tit Ll. O N O > > a it uo gi 4 U ° ►-�c O co a o a U o N 9- co CO G o c? " co Tm coin o o Cnr U QCr Ll o 0 03 �di U �c�iE 0 C U T U NC3 U o tt�O co0 ,0 4^ NO a O G It N ,.+ it tt p L 4 4 G N n-91. CD Ui U`1p� m 47 +� LL u O 00 C Ck, t Q CC CD to 7. LU 0 4 ta 01 5 so*. U. 0 0 • '0 0 U- le- �2 0 0 00 0 U- C3 Nr tL .4 P- (,)- % 5. o 0cr.. (D cl. -A .0. o. ul o 0. acs G 0 -A 0w0 N 0 0 cr. 0 01 CD. 0 .0-1 10, 0 (D 0 a) 0 CF) r- -'s-0 o -;z C* 0 0 0.� -6 CD 72 ccs OR 0 — OD 'm 0 ..W., —0 0 a t W* to U, ow- 41 NON -;, 0 0 r- in is E) 0 r- -cps wL3 r .5 z:: e cat 0 —0 jo0 cp Cc* S .4 DE a —0 0 0— 0) .01 O Oos 5 O 0a70i 00 0 0 0- co 0 -0) o so s o ,ca so C� C� s -- 0' r- 0 o O) o ✓ CD 0 01 r r- C* 0 A � 3� w 0 s - Zl- C- in 0 to .;:� it % _0 '07 -,-,o 0 ," - 0 4) 0) y > �o v- —co :3 co 0) 0 1, C� 'o co G % -0 Gd to a 0ca N0dl 0 —0 ; r to or t� 00 '-5 i cr cO ca 3� ra O's 4) w U) - 01 0 p a Cl. 0 t 0 lo U. CN O � � a LO 2 o CL c in a � W Q— U d Q ca C _ o O O O y • a cA ° a _ pf O y IM y ZE = g0 � c 2 2 2 a. m o m a a a a s a �? `o tl1 m � C c CO 0T .`o 0Om a` o 'c `m O '�° c LL o 2 ° cp O O U)(n •• V L) aa ° H Q a a _ d �;; a ° 0 _ E aLt _ Y co U)c co E id LL°° U..m O4 O p-U `"> rEOO 3 C O O .a o 0 O ` —p d o 0 - 3 U (D a cm 7B co 0 y CL E p •y c c = •> L O «. CL g y m rn a� y a as O $ c c It 201, V c Q � � � = N O �w a LL to O O O O Cl)0 (nU) O d w N N a - L .O- '� y N c0 V L L C c U m L �� 0 7 V O M N yL N 0Y `� o ai = `o ° Evv 1= > -= � mEmc _ 3xa� �a c � a - am�m p yo y � 3oi a� mcoa� o `� Ccccnn c °' � �'� ov3i U L y y o? > O. O cn O .a y aai LL $C) .. Z «- O 9 o L v umi $-moo o � m io cu 5 aoca c U O 16 �'� cNi - r- =) `-. i v p cn v ccE G nN 00 a �' Omcm c/) ooEL mem Cc EE8 `a W L m m m o m ~ v� o o o rn� ; 0. u n 3 _ c J O N m 0 0 O 0 0 >. V 3 w -6 O t5 E U N V c c � ° m cW y 2 p 3_0 cocn m a� ° a dEo c, `ow U Ucn wwm o- 0 o Ewca U ° a cmoa 7 y a Y .rw rEE avO 3 ' a mO C p 0 O E 0 S2a 8 O $ LEcn c 003 M N p >aw O y 0 3 = a It e`o m v a: % 0 E c c « a o—c8 a � N m O — > >, c m y V a O O wv� x m D y C O o O ai a a C U- 5cnvHIm o U C iC 0 u (D 0gp Lu Vo3 = a3 m m m m v a m cO vv o ° 1;<- .. .>_ Q m c n o � c y cc c ° ° c U 2 cv v 0 y �s m L E 8- 00 «- o ep a� a� a 75 Eco > W0 � ( 4 0 >, F' (D o V,° a o a a S: co E o E m CL (n aim a o : i5 10 CD o a3i °(�' -0 c = m a u c�c D N m O O c CNC p U ` t� C 0 cm E M� 14 W c oEcu v c � cd � c cac� a�a am o c rn a °- aG W v S 4) m " m E Q U) c� x o M O o � Zm 'y O y a p,°� m m ' 3 n ; uau a W (L ti o 3 y v . (n CL 75 4a)—2)r m w m 5- co ► -)c o cv t O ar c u a d G �— ui coca ° r- a Q. 0) _ ac« O« = a r- 3 U •- m a G. > ._ 0 O. c ".n O p� ti •c o 3 � � S � � ow V CL (L C LQ W U n. a c oyp 3 Z °� (A a 0 gam► :. cc o cc o Oo c N O aUi � � � m � ,. .� a� CL cc a Cf o O O O a 2 Z .__ 3 a Oona Ocnacn0. to c O E 4 N tial U_ � L N C cc o EL dodo fna. w (} C ,r O (q O m c e ov .tom 'O" oOct D m m c cft— O v U. o _oc w 0 C N ` W Q In (A `0 u H QCL C- CL W o' lie) m vi cn o o ar g Cm 0. J m o c m v � o m U0 � 0 m 0 -0p � > c +� � L y m m � � (D c C W 3 ` � m cd m m IC S m t � L uj 0 N G ` d c m 3 � .. LL 'j >. N U .L. C dai N IL (nMV mcvm (DCr- o az3cccc � vch c om Q d i cts C Q rn > J a x C LLa) ,-- � N EoEadorn > ca � ` a > 3ca — c •N co o � mU p t 3 n �v Z � rnL � c`c0 ccc > °' E � m � � a 0 y �.. Cu O ca = ¢ cca (n c c cCt% o ccc m _ c occVU H 0 -0 owinU v O aN m m y N N'� c o � : ° ami¢ 2 mccmmcnom co m .. > :3 (DCD ccc F- u�m3 E a ms -0 o • ocn O t c m m cmc 3 m o .� � � � Q N a3i m � $ LL go.;;, .- > r mL c ao� `c U 'a cc Cc o cc '> .. y o N Cl) 0. 0. > c ca c E p m E `a &0 o > M X cc m U) co �M c E E�W W owEom mmmco � oo � m cno 14a a� �� a E ' r `c cvcn — s oo cvOC z m a � m 0002 a) cu 0CU 00 � � � 0 c$�� W c m 2 v a� c m ` vim v y3 v c = m c � m� o w e c—ca c v ai cru c'? Q 3 cUv u) H d Q 3 U m N W a u a o�ca �i 3y �1. cc CU «2 Ea V �L C - SOB _ Y .2 cu N E: ammo CL „ -c co c a m � c a0zo cu o> E ° v _ m x a ° aV 3 > m � c 2a>,a v m c C_ Q m co c S (D a; mitcg o v as 0 E m� cc mt — ca W_ c c � •. C c0 c z a > u. fl N O cg� � H z cz u ; umny La Z - -D 3 a r m G m o c O >)51riU0 $ c6 _ ocn0„ x a � 'm LO 0 c 0 3: uj CL a_ (L CL CL CA ca Cm Z a rc c 0 16 E 0 E cc 6 Z 0 cc 2 t IV 4) U. CL 0 0- �- - V 0 E (L 0 CL cr z 0 Q 02 0 CL 0 V) c 0 E rr CL cc CL cc m CL m 4) LL LL L r- m cc CL CL CL CL C(L i; 2 P CL (1) a. 'a C 0 A 000 c = a mm 0 Cc Li. 0 0 LO Q C) (L If CL CL 0 IL 0 W 0 - 0 IL lit 0 OW 0 cu 0 a. t U. 0 (D c c- z uj Cc > 0 inIn Cc 0 Cc 0 (D E 0 .2 a t CD m cu , 0 0 m E CL 0O c C: 'a -in 0 V r- - 0 (D 0 0 W C > Q E -2 E 0 . m 2 *0 M E cc =r- "0 -'C=n '6Q) - 0 c LL cu E 4) = — 3: ---: cis 0- r- W E E a 0 & x cu 5 E v CD 0 M = 4) M E 0 (D 05 z LM 0 - 0 tv .2 r- TZ cc z 0 2!1 (D 33 c 0 m ::- � If r CD E = - r *9 0 E m CL m m w ch iE .208 cc 0 w 4) a >, M .2 � E to (D E ca a) > 0) ca 0 - C6 cr -0 If 03: -4) 2 (> M Is C.) CD E 0 CL m c M- 15 CL cp m E 3: CU m 9 a) 0 21780 M cr w C: 0 E 0 m E LL Z: P. cc a 2 (1) 8 cc a c r- � C = 0 m '0 0 vi cm 0 CL CL > C: 4) 0 _0 0) >* w 8 .8 E mc E sr) % au) -0 E w C— =w -0 ZO 4> c E—8 t .0 0 13 0 w 0 0 0 — — > cc Q$ cc E cc 25 M — WE (D - 411- CL CU - 0 16 0 0 0.f.- It Q (D 0 r- crj 0 to 4) .0 z 41C Z5 , m ts .0 In CY)m I-- to LU 2 .8 Ow 5 to co 0 wo 2 0 0 E M - N W -9 - ..- "0 > (A -aci0 > E .00 0 '6 0 0 2 0 to 0. (D a) CL 0 m c = 0 r- a CL (A -e C ITS CL EQ 0 0 0 2 2 0 cm . 0 w cc CX 9 r- to 0 0 0a: E a cot= CL c m LLCZL a I.-cl :I. 0 M cc CL z 0 106 0 0 w _jEO 0 0 111 #CO cc "0 M (XI m .2 3: 0 0 CU m c cr n- &1 14),8 0 0 0) W It > -0 'D 0 to L- am !0 .0 -6 CL ix- C 0 -Z CL E w a) c 0 Zu .= 0 .2 F'i E 22 (D Z 0 S E 8 .4 :) 0) 4) C — 0 0 c 0 to m = (D *6 (D 0 - E) CO C 0(D &- - 0 c E 0 - 0 > e 0 Et 0 a (D CL M it 8 a - M . 2 *9 M(M 0 (D 0 W — CL E 2 M E L MI.- w 8- E oc: if CL LL. coi 0 a7 ca ts '0 ts a c O) ID .2 (6 a) a§ 0 Do Z 0) 0 c If Hill w -2 c 0 W CL U 'm %- (A 0 CL Cox:E m E2 0 Ou CLa i c c; a 0 Cc as =m ra N wo E- 00 c 0 W r •� a m o °U iN r it N d K ` n- 0� G dCf. 00 d ?� it G CO o S yc O 0 10 N N tb O r d t0 r^ G t0 tC N C rS 6 ✓ r y T 0> O N N ?i O t0 N �� d G cTb G �✓ '� O � p 'o' 1 -Aoo o oS°,y fl oVZ 1U a - — to 0� � ( y � � T \°s, ca 0Dcroco � � 7S oG G 3 y p N o 3 �. 4 CD ,� o Q .`- 0) p. .. O N c� a$t- m Q d G � 0 D -r L t0� o �' T✓ Ui0-.% GC7dWO° tO° 0L 0GtO r o t0 3 O o lS: t5- G3 t0Q' o ;t "�,5�, oma to to � � o � ero �x0033 ° 0 mNU° n03co O y p �r 3" p V ty � o o c co �°'Z ° c iovN °T' 5as- oa'oYcoE -0, OR it 0 G� q 7 ° v 3� a Cd Ci 0 to 01%V O i0 Ca Q7 ✓ G ° a � at m vO � \VmU7p� a i Z . W p a. o cn .. rTG W d rn a Ja i ai U U O CC � c a O E _ _ ac a OEC' a CL vNs a is c ca rn `a T a` o Gm mm O c °' `_ OmS � m a n � �"Q CL ~ a c If a if : Oi 4; tp d Q c Q �pp O O :� N N N V O N LL 0 �, FL t17 !J) V x = `r 0 ra O cats pcc Nc O C C .3: cc :y N CL C y O > CC cc CL i N p ti O QM N > c E ;_ tts c > q r E E Co a ° —W d g N E 'r7 _ Cl._ N c c .. .O $ 0 C m m N L is .YC Q Q r.. C > p Q N N O cV0 O O CO to w O Q �- E R! O x E LL 4,N I— C cm__ co = O CISO > Cl M O 0 — O O C 3 0 N M = i O C .0 E ccS u Q >`cc c 2N �,() t� Cl v ClN Q? T) U N 5 u .-+ MCL CL N Cly U d C O N qC> N a m d m F_ 2 0 U C N z3 >, CC C r3 E QUj ° a E U V O tri > `� v o c a a N aizs cv -0 .o cca c Cr O c c cx• C .8 0 v .Q � x U = o > ESN. = U. *; N 3 m E 6 Om .N N O c Ec ` E F- moo_ N � a�icb ` U) � cctCL M �v `cc � aFrim Q O WJ o•� vs �N E>_ N st O OqO CN — Q S N v >, cc dOv °f.$.F cU 3Y N mc D o o n tc >N C ojQ CmQ v _ caOCL 0 _ CC G�] CL CL >, cE 0 2tC mU CO N cC ROS cOC mCc 2 >�9 '� .`. CL RS N ami c� = !n a `a 0 m U > CL >. ZS U!i a G N to c`0 a aT C O fi a «•��. fl ..+ AQ Cr d_ E p 7V d m c = y t6 V if a V C it Ute! w = 000 t�.3 � a G o �m � w coca Q tq �c v w C 2 E E Q o «. 8 ,- r o rg E CL o 16 0 a Ccc N N c6 j U 4 C O O0 -6 d u ` C +- p O x E m ` d W sr G c ca E CAC s. m =� c°.cV LL. CC ,ts (� U C 0 N ca C i;0-; F .. N i= 2 x � ' O ocvt Z N O».. a C N 10m o it # n a0 of LL! � CL yr C.- to ai vs c o` �N. ,�-;a =p= Im G QU Rs � ° � UZj0 Oa� v= a cm U N c 6 2 A c O COj ca cC cc r i ul C6 ts in 7 4 v N It C a,• d o � N � °� GC C9dm N ° A too s.c)M c � IA 1 a °t Q d o N N a u t� (� «- NE 0 V OLQ G' J 'vO � r to v> V �• i4 � � `�'s a �N o o N o �N o) o) o• tT t4 G �~ p> •TC• o"rai � � � E coo o N � ,Uti. ✓ ~ Q tU W O t6 O Oy N N N N 00IVNit cU a ¢ d eNb 0 r O• N Qrm o cD 0 O ci ao �� �' d c� `no ��E, � " Ooo0) ctya-°'� O N o'' 6 °= � N CGG G p O 3 vs y 9G 5 a vsc Q► ,- Q U .N d V N r 'O a 0> N YO O• a) o a is c '7 0 o d o a) sd G to a 7 ra, � o aa rn 0 003; W .a0 $ to Y aYccd 0 to ta Z — � y o 0o c4N C: a. � °- .0D .- N 0) (n ao is -o G o O N on 0 G > 'O cry 0) fl N G O - cd O G t- n 0 � N �co � � � gU � � :' E � om 0) to'' N cam') r to O U r d ?^ 0 � 7,G C6 0 OSE 0) O O uOgG '' O.0 ✓ d u a 3 ; � cvE G 0) Rs % J�-, Q r 7 't7 td '(� O U g o 00 to ?j ,. w o N � E'° m 4 C; d d) 4; Q am d G `O C " t m O) in d y O. �� a v�dS m o ow N CO p C Oma�Us o. V Q Y O O• W °� _ � '� 000 O0 !, CO G v N to G N . 4 to O Z c Q � a � c � cQt o R CD N 1" NOQr- W 0 m M Wir W C yh U O cc n c S � v :¢ W m d is a � � � x as c a O E Z C O L v c OEd a. �' o s 0- w m c 0. 0 0 o aU is d d n ` G C hU- a. a W e •— O (1) a it I? CL It a x m c L Jd cc°a' ca ao`ca m� e 'a caca� ccim o a c0qo � � cy n aa C> c`can.p"Q Q c iOE E vGNN► ,- c�avg Zi Fu) � 3: i ° � - a O > a a = 0 0 — a a c Q 5, co O G = N'E It O N > 'LL OO '0 - U) C a ELO is y w E 3 .I;OI C E D 0 Q GN CL RN GE CU v x O Z cm NO Oit - cr NO m Qc o Co.Lw 0 ) 0 } a0a a ( 0EcyD a) Ua CO a -0U) N O � D ?EO O C - EE8EQ >Q O b O C 0Va) Nout vco 0 O 8 cD E 5 -0 m : vi O •?� CL G t2 0 +O- c W m Cct5 O O C� a m m W Nc� cu Zvi 0 (D °' oc`s. 0crcli « ;�_ u = 15 E w a a� a� — � o as epi o Q v � � v ¢ � u �� oQ � an F- 2a. Eca a m►-0 ,. w di t V U) .r.i U —2 Co. CIS O - COS N O O w > 0 a a atit om o o U o. � a ca m cEa c o. o E to cC C3 (D 0o a o IDoa'. o � c�a O toco 0 Q C C C Vd pQ c� t� OQ.,., .c c cu Z = m a on � <C � a) E IMP I w .g ?- as t ;a i s—> O O 0 p 0 W c cas It N vpavGmIM� p m z Ul 0 0 �n x IL aOW EOrr N0NQE 0 ' V G U a = N E m u o00 a m CL- CD Q' O �L i �j i O `ice'•iN o. it 's to U y N a o. to L7t U O � Q tt c O o, aoi , V o C Q N 4u O p d N p td N = > U V 4^ O d `r G v �- t6 O y N O m o °► tr0 N C O N O G td 7 N G i3 p 0 CO a 11 o r Ott i3�.-� 4 N N d N N .p N O Ic�i °.�- •t% 4 oto E Nca a� ai IW �» GRAS d n N y D G 'O N r- N oj i tY N~ � �p L D C�C e m ap. O'er dO hZ►(� G�rnO�°oE E,� `aiOGO d yO ",�:3 coNam'3caN�,G=,'oEo�N� o pNa.o>.O-p 0V cO _ rc�Er oGc V N p _ 3 t; N N N , 0) »r- 0 m V vU. -20- LEd O to wO ;o Cy 43) —to It op . Bjo� oc v c _ _ m =Ocoss o b Co « ? ca gaorl — .0 ..c to CO (1) cato pd NE oNE o to :tz uitO cc�r to.:3 C4 CO iC6. mOco 34 O oNO to rC, N L co p c4 ai D 'O N p G to L' d 'ab d d 9 O �✓ F t o aci d V O p O O: a� Z p o>yU E CL V Y m w So O i a v Q u aU?i O� 9 t>•�4' C N m co "3 7N � opVO Vo_ m y a 1NO 06. O0.0 ry t m � vU = a O., d � a ~ o d M W W 0 m 5 c S D D Z �o ►► �n o v v v IZ i 3 E C. us Sl O m0. N I o�o g.;, tr m ts. L G .�'^. ►% O ct Q� a- 3 g o c vt o a� O 7. C Q tL- V N G N p +n ' E► w Q O O w o ' a N G CJ � C.? � � C N to C'• O� Ww G U N m �► 'j` "� to6 N Q O � � "•• � tL " i C.G to O as d c m C o id t� p �i N Q t 7 ct �Q. �-v o" "" o o .0 o °' ° co 0 to test 0 c -0 c N to a m o a 7 O �" w 'L o s d •G r- 0 Ocy y 9 d G N O 'E N t/) O to r O m O >O o 0 ►+ o .C it ..� O N G d T " 0 d N tat-0 t`U t7 " o et co to C).00 u- acaGO EsN N ac • •� oOw V . '.p O Qtd co Tcaa��ag1O1�EE:mdy�tC�o c oo) 0 cc 4) N O O O 0t cd d 0co to 'a) co -0 eEO cto to gam ; � C-4Gmo �sA OG�c z0O!N n , 0 ow ✓ �0 N Y N o G E a ss -�Qt-s O O —C. C0. to N 9 � d Is— C-3;0 O N O � orO � a d sO OE O 4 'd -- O to It 7N � NQit CO Nw . i r- 0) O- cc O N > W v OHa0- w 0 0 a T . N O d ✓ d Q ✓ 50-G N to p tit O S1 3 L ✓ tNd cod O O 6'd: •0 - co O N N G tors d o co 0Es ° c: aN G �r'; 0 N G d O L1 a oua c c o. ..•- I a C' N C4 O C O Q O G `Lit G C7 E v.66 G c o. a,�� •� v o " °vo Nca 0 m aha Q. ✓ r V Qj N .rcy � E p .Q C +► N S d. v� y � mQpA _ toC. O V r c7. � a d o is 2 c tb c v v ILUA c� it N s 2 r II CL w LL d 9 Q o LL d. p . CL 100 10.0 c Em t:A w 0 m G ` 0 2 .O o p a.c a ` O C O 1. 0 0 � 0W 4 U v cr ca o o� a 3 3v F- O Uyo °' NV � t„ a 0omc (D C Off. t~6 r r- 0 co 00 oco00 N > c> > o c cv . is G E o a> c a as oa 0 ca o � ;� E (n 0 m w Ccr) 9 o cc Cco N N tin O � w B. «�. d 3: 3: is 2 E c y rnv a> > me a 1-- - rn 4 N. � +� u occ�aoc - � � caco � a ::ci a= c .. cit LL N CD G � '0 o E to c � CIS ca N p o m G1 O r 'DODO o f r. Q L (� ccoo Z v'i G o v $ ' N d G O E as C O ;D o; m 3: Q as o '> ( � mN .4aEm om � ° E a a280 c EC o � '>_ �' E no o v -o m u � H »- mW � ` c� _ `� o « r to _g = R o 0.CC GZ E o .: Z` C - -- °c yon o � w2 -.z, E cv u " OB (D aces Q'a oTyU� ca E ° ' ° r- E 3 E E � 0 £Eur V Zl o c'a °' ra o - ca — , car is w m o 0 U3 N w. d N� G , "� Q, ^ C C:"-o 0 0 0 U - .�. N ca O la LU t N aj C> ca � c ca L i'Zr 0 V � mE � Eov, CIS (D Sad -oC� > ' o �'� d .- ca C a J >. ca vac > q2! coo � oa� o u � � GC EZ "-' tvNt7ooa t7 ca CL G CCa C-4 at = caCL $ rJ yit a .(0 � � � N � CD (Dof ¢ ¢ ca I— o a �cc o p m U °� aV m �� > o cti is Q d�C(} to N a mrC 2c = D.S= us U .O c m tI + o o0Ea a � 00. � c : AO- G -Q_ . W r 361 cp 15 E E v -fu E O. >O >, E OP I > 00 cacu a) c in 0 a m it co 0 C3_ G y c_ d mom P °' M O�o0. a W cc E Q � � N q T v a V U c o o cc o U o V cc 19 W C7oda II Z O E a 3 H m C7 oc a Z � 3 OE4) U U- a a ¢ a a C y o tm c v c `o 0. 0 CO co a aL`o o o M C c o o c cn a` cm F- Q O O O O N a w > Cm C y O d J C N CO N U- (D m O 0 C C W3 O «. O 0DL_ o Oco .. d o C C y C C y V m 0 o 0 cC ;= E N U) C C O E a) d Eca mNom m � In (D c >CL LL m Q ca mo aE c m CM Z vi � -� y $ Cgo y V- cc t c 0 � m m LL rn� cooc -- vas c � oo E � iz aa It � - Z `a o E m O o) o ca o M CO CL c co a) y o c c U 0 c8 acc > cc� y Ea� ca (D ° mUv Ey Naa' co � a—i � ° 0. Cc O c c .>_ o = c a) Tt E a 2300 c)= O ca U O D M U. oV . Z O C ;= O 0 •- N N O 7 5 a pC ea C O d`� O 7 C L p _ O C ccz y > �' m acn E = o = L N ai v coE >. 0) O a) � O CT c� N 3 U � C "_ G m E U M y co Q .:U) fC II d aLO O a) N c i) m c0 C Q)E ccL O a) O C N I- J N aEi E o ami � a °' o o� cj a) �=Uo W cc c o o mc) m 'o �' � aE) o a) E c c z a° m m3 ca L E N E N Qv O Co Q t 0) � d rn CO C " Cy d C;) D < acu H o cn a aLLI = N C mlla0 CL m�p°'a' Y y C O L W E m Q=p O C O V o 0. cA a) t c � m0 W L V E 0 .0 a C >mm V5 — a a m ) d ° U " 11 G W s c Y a m c y 0 L O C a O 0 m8 a) c U 0 - z �: o >E ° ts — _ - 0 0 < F US co o _O C o ni c CA W e V` 00 a O +- E v -0E 0 An 0 IS 75 O a) V O O y 0 V oa G m U L 3 L L C vi v �j rn� E v CMP O o a) L O IL 0 m � *0 cv O c' �v �i a) M c E 206"a CU 0 CL'o 11 3:0 °r N W rn� v o z c E �tCL m p H (D j v 0 0¢�0 x aL M 2 CL Q MCD U cOC .o a tY v cLL 0 N a b. 0 it 0 o W c, . Q U U g m a � w U N x d ? c N © g CLH m tai N c Z c QE_ 4) a c o ao ca oc G w a c O U it O 0 o U IU- O Q It . c c V © g s LLy ~ Q rns o "' a N a w3 " to c c C r N C t 43) 2 � vim. V . O ) 0 ca 0 v C G N n a o 0 qy Q ca o = c, CD ca u, m � CIS 0 y NcC E W C G Q Q to C $ Tn ccr. � 0 ,. 4T o. 4v Z o m ° U '� to CL 3 •- v 0 oa. a L — Nit[ s •Qta � � Oc „ G7 et caa � E4vE � 4vL =• c � `�'- N ~com am LL cw Inr. 00a ccs p °' � cn ca 0 .. � Q � a`> ccaN > sNN Q � � � � E ¢ ds �N a� co C: o a) °' as °S 0 >. °Lccc crrapo v c a c E r 'r �"' 4D r.,. W to .L E co to '�.1z tm to rf,!) COto .--� 4y N T ,w,."17i C Z al G Na 0 O N c 0(0 E Eos+ = Q mEUa Q Op c C to ns , o D. ►1 G c' s N > E � r U C t3 " U E is c o � r� _c d Is w a) �, = 3 � o � b o L ,.;L� 4n v rn o =,a;.;o W d � coi m �' o b aEi c' �' w Q ,y Ci*5; ,- a ? m 3 !- CM 3 a 4v E ca c d = ZS cn CL >T o 0 o CL a o- — 3 d ct3 "". ` acs cao � y cacaEao °' cn EE „ oNE� � N c > y o> 0 FE =0 =- N Q ` 4n G� U w.[>P. CL m c 3 ttj a5 N m 0 00p W a ai 0 3 c .0 c`—. a it age 'o 0 a a r.. C O d min p a o p o > c�a C fa « O> E I ax 0 N a u °o3 ca � c3i W c IL yO. O d C> r w w 4S Cr �+ �0 cE m � r g o N 0 z G. E .0`0 ` p = � 8 �aaa o ca U o a 3: W ca V CL In 0 °' E ai c a c G3 y ca ." 4UN OO CL t ii ii N D °' 20= �rn LL cm E 1 E c m F- C 0 W C? M'vN r�io cr 0 ) U Y G � N O U O p N � N o f3 � O T 0 ,Z ✓ C�m N G p Cl m r G p ut C p a p�CC N c0 u. W 3 N O a O O r *- O 0? O tit C Y m �• V x G �- i0 N O O r- �`Q � � �' .- is•�.3 Ot O O �. �- O7� OSO— ) : -N 3 N ' p t rUn N Y G m ,,► D V .=, N Clto c4 '> C a ca a G C4 as o ca 3 = t3t o ti 7 U O L p > .0 O d co N p a u3 oN O i � N � O Oto fl-N vd O _ Ln � i6 � r O Ut O.t �y,$ a�O G N a Q 3 d N 0 O T`o> 7 •� 3"� .p .,. a> CO Q O -0 .0- 0).0� . O O a> Um $rs= O0 QO0too 0o0ooU 0 3 p o 7 — sO O ap O> N 0 0 ut Gia N m �tm 3 r r^^ °' N A 7 d 00 -Z--- ° m 75 8 O U v to d v L r G 0 -0 V m " m tt 04 � Z Z a 0 N ° � m � ,i o• g i 0 N mjr 0 Q N�+ 0 S 0G 0 a Q N tp �• 0• r u i 40 cr. N � �� o c �,N N LL1 °: °� Z N om°tNl 'C• �' �G G o Z '. �t"a,.G�6 N 83 ib �r � o N_ cp D G to'� G fl E '' r o\G d c6 N N t0 0 "0 E G 0� d, d v It—so a � ooIr, 0 G'� Tis G 1 G ✓ d O u G (� cn N - N N G d ,. y ✓ O en 7 6t3 Z v, 3 w °' r-- o C. � °' G G � 'v ° to O r + .O ✓. N O G N t' O 4 O co L�t6-0 N r- p ✓.� T� tt vN Q� $� ou- t o .o U G +��— 0 � `� � •� � o E�° � �d � D43) 0 0mb t0 Q ° ca � E $ cgs rEd GO' � Caq$E N 0 Ct� U o E o °' G o.GQ✓ U T o d 00 „ N o a� U o 2 of ;is 0- =i t4 tY N o t�°O as a► c6 v r0- O RS RS C v o Z O• m'5 0 0 'o O ILL ° o W 2 Cl) CN O 0 c Q Q a` IL) 2 •L `° 0 O- U U c `o o G D m o`. Y2 it In Cd CL Z «�• z o a cm E N 3 Ix as N2 i N d � u a v H a a ¢ r ` O E LL co m o i= m n`L. d CL a c° •c c c o � oa` o c CO o `o O a LL � � o 2 a OopC `° U a` Cm a a W g F- Q O a_ a N a w0 IL om w m LLL a) C 0 y l- .L-. w U c Q cntLL, � cU c m e w o cC Ta W3 E E .- ai L oa) CD � � c U. as O � M0 :E0 m � � c � cc8 = c CL O 0 > 0 o `: o a L p a O c 0 CL a �. E 0cu - mS N - a�-- (D (D m >o v` Q Q- " y 15 = 'a L '- L a x o LL o ff c� � N L o v o m O L C .L. rn� C tC m — 0) 0 c « N ° ;U Z c m � m >, EE L U) 0M 0 O Ui � 3 0 = 3 oQ Z` oc E a co N c � Ev� 1= a) E .- 0 L � rn o c � c � a cc - am N p 0 0 Q a' c °' � C m In �'a 0 a ccc � 3 D � � O N mo = ac 0mm N0 ;� L m v .. O a>it '= m a? �' N ° E c o �_ � E =�i a�� m 0 CD a> m '> > m � a :.:�cE p U o u � —a°, CIS cuU oY m co o y m C, E—at o W m � 5 `n > rnm o rn� °-' c = is o � (A m a►= m Q o o -Ea � a o ai y v) m — •� 3 M E 'm' cw~� c y cti c0 L a a � +. 0 N O�c W •2 cD .0 om— o as m — c 'c E ° --� ° o a c m � o m 0 vi me o >. a� o a mmm3 CL•- c c � 'a a a m o ME a cam o a cUi a) 0. > `� a � 'o v " o w t= d N v S co ccs � d ca w o E Q cn c cv 0 m 110-0 p a c2 qia mHGI >, t 8 o E 'o (DO co ' 0c mom V U N m 2 >'a a v In ,. � a CL vi -a 'co v >` 1. E c � ° ° ' pcp O _N cc G N a ° CTo EU In i to CL0 Q vap0 o ILS 3 0 ami E �.a 2 > `o Q.�a U r r C- In 4 4) E c.2201 Its0 - �- UE c Q aac v, cri o 320 w o ` ooa' c cu a acia' E 3 aD ca N Ei a 2 m amVo p V N c'o ' � 0 - N _E aF- W 0 a m e '� U � •0 dr -a c V tt cu o — � o m co a= c m LLJ Z m c x o n to � o >'� It 3 u au= CO = L � L > cu U mU �C_ m -a Lu = ~ .02 v O � a -� � omGou W V N L a) Z J co m d7 - sf c ? to cc 2 •N r r a N o. m r 11 G O g a ) ^ m O L 'y � N O. `• N � G W V V t9 0 r r. O 4 to.'— p c Z G ¢ m g : �cq N t) x cd O cn m oa cc 0 rG01-0 US W tGty O O d O, LtSS td N C O T U. >i G N '� 4 YQO t°t, > O O Q O N a rtj c6 � O 11 G t6 C d o 6N7 O d p ii o r� U Qin a� 3a' G o G GCA i3 °' Y N �oom p .' 0 e >✓ GQ- ° � a,� c oNti 00 cc U(c - dN].�GOY O L ! ' O GS cOCn cCO „ Ao4 1G�sv�. rN '.. O Z`LGy -- .N codG O OT1C L .0 O 0 C m OUt tN O 7 AGCS O-'_ O G NG E -- o ' 3 � G 0y =co E im 0 G Q d N -0 C S GQ S v S , � N 0y1m Z CO Ok-- caaS do co % ° a.—OO G Uto rpZp NV�o'No$�CG]�E�NN�E•N°' O� o yo�N�N�o��O� yGo� OCO CCO U) 01 v .0o .0 VL O 4N m GN WUc $ CQ o a `z m0o -B V N Z G y d .. C U G N CSS v cc cA•- a a w � Ea E � n, o r W = ° Ntd 4 G a V `� mr~.3rQ t6 td K 4 O. Cl. O v O y t0 L� Q -O. Coir Qt�r N N (D O- E N r r Z d CZ c %o`.aa0, G 0 C G TO .. O U 'O C C O 1'' N C OtV O Gan N U Q d U N Cs co o ,” fan y v a a c ` G0 -2a. cr. O. t6 20 O U v- rnU 0cz 0 a; tJ to tlN.Q t-�4 O G CL r 1L to d vG p coW 4 Csf ° o C o CL U U 0 W U a m O a a a 30 Z on g a _ o 4;, c a ECO OEd � arm a c cs = co p �a 0 a ao 3 U. 11 ra o Q a W = of u o �•. m vs a C_ cn — m a t° U. � a� n`, c � 3 g N a s c y 0- v � c w>, > 0 o cc 4aQQ ag � pc cca) — 8 32 ccoUyaam ° is as p _ co� c ECu waoom Cu a 0 a cl% LL o .. og �' ct> E �. �a �n `cmac3 — oCO - a F° O cmc L c Uy L 0 .4 N ai= c — re ' E c - p E as o v� o cc �-' p�' — = co iu c c a cst m a� _ v t� a_ U c 5C U voi cts «. w c m N m a O T Cto ; u ~ LO caaam ° N � OnE Evs Mc � c � '� o (Dar ° a oUc G av 3a, a, r 3 cc, ay �0 cc o Lao c f-- t� ° �,3 Z � � y -- c° � QCC � o = ayo v a LL �vrr� a o o a .9 of o F— a> g enc m e ;, am� m a� c — ». cn9ca m m >. > 0 = i a ,� °' ct3 a = = E `p �' c"n v cc a m i `� c i3 C N cv c c LQ. `� >.'� ° m E E cc L cc cls E _(D Q) .. m �•" c °' rn o E y v�oi Cu 45 Ez ti' aaa o 8 c ao at= �� a J x z — c o o m a o a) c v ._ o o �' N a, o 'cc Cu a, y m ¢ occc� a= mncaCuL � icccv �' �' acE ¢ : qcc o �;::t~i,� W m 73--•-p V m d3 00r== V it , .c 06E U -20.8 a am ° 11 -mom c� m a, mF"'=c ao §w c if cl 0 0 _ C; . `cti), c o I. o = Cf v a V U O �+ C U C D N d` W U UU p c in V d C O r Z - II O Cr N _ c 11 d tM i cc 2 Z C 7 c 0 .9d CL a d c � � cc a o o c w _ N ° C v ov c.. 0 .�°. 7 C m c EE C m-. o ° ocp O (n (n es a o �'" a . W ° f- Q O (n (A (n (A cA t7W o r II a ° g _ a 0 0 QQ Va`) o � . c° cp3yM- � � wE006 4) 2- cc 0 �cc 0 p0 a," E " Licc O .. 2 cO 0mcNti cao GE p a IL c o M co o c O in'a c ° a 1 _ = to 6-0 .0 NU O N O ° C.)7E o 42) - 0 co a) ao) cs O ra'c Q- m � " � o) aaic"mo Y 3Eom � � y +• cC C 0 ai O ° V o a ch Z acm cyo M N ao fl-y CL 0 — E 3 ami cmc N �� Cu CL, o ' m e $ mom - c �� o a n c = Eva G � � yt 'E - c � acoc NomW CL ' « .- Yavoo Z �- d = ►- •a o 'a o O C ai "" C a 3 a1 C () L N C M OU) c U. Na a Q � .� c cm_i c c o � aaj C t c a a°C • m V co m cca aai c a is = coo cNo Q a ` O m y 3 ai Eco E 0 N ,. re p m O cn '� $ C to 2 c c E ea E U `a W ii co EN > aidma > � m � N , ma CL O C•D. E O U C a) co ._ : m c y � Q v c t ai H e coi H c`o ami O c�VY J co co Q cn �. Q co ._ 3 c _ _� ._� W ° -�E0 pC D ui a m d d 3 II 00=E� 11 �t a c�oa N _ a CL 5 V «g aO m ° >,a m a a>> o ccl n II U a m B,c CL 0 o F- u 11 coop 0a:I.CL anQC •- U E °' � � Q _ ;3 a p �ia 0a U o 11 00 0 a vo ca— d EL Oc C �U � H u n > uN W ~>� SM 0 �cC�O x a c o � z a � c u m It .t. N CP r ` G m OE0) 3 mm c `o o u- aE 3 gc 11 WQ .Qjr "' °O- its p pC N m m W3 o p a M� N it a c' a 4 a �tr u„ It O CL u�. N 5 a cc Q s ;Ccs o. a lm- 0 = 1t O 08. m� m3 W u o Q � t3 m14mo O om a in ad = Sam 0 o > z -, It 41 C i0 it cam°. a o d v p,U c m c� C O 3 E c ::0 h- m a U £ all- Z S .-0 � 11 m 11 It M. 3' MO r m m 01 im W _ rt„ „ x U. t= Z W Q } Albers General Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT C Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 79 i B. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT This section describes current trends in population, housing, and employment growth in the pro,ect vicinity, the potential impacts of the project on those trends, and any mitigation m,,.asures warranted to address significant adverse effects. 1. EXISTING SETTING a. Population and Housing Trends As shown in Table 3, population and housing totals in the project's rural east Contra Costa County subregion, which includes east county rural communities outside the Antioch and Brentwood spheres--i.e., Byron, Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Oakley, Knightsen, etc.--have grov:n by 75 percent between 1980 and 1990.' During the same time period, the Brr i;twood planning area population increased 37 percent, Antioch 37 percent, and the county as .a whole, 20 percent. The disproportionately high growth rate for the rural east county area reflects the local urbanization trends which have been described in the Land Use section of this EIR (Section IV.A). Projected 1990 to 2000 population increases for the east county subregion, Brentwood area, and Antioch are 47, 144, and 49 percent, respectively. In contrast, Contra Costa County as a whole is projected to experience a more modest 16 percent population growth increment between 1990 and 2000. Traditionally the least densely developed area of the county, this rural east county subregion has seen the development of higher density subdivisions with larger single-family residences in recent years. These suburban developments include larger household sizes than the existing average county household size. b. Proiected Housing Needs r Under Section 65581.4 of the California Government Code, cities and counties are required to make a sustained, serious effort to provide for their appropriate share of State housing goals and regional housing needs at all levels, as determined by the local council of 'Population figures for the rural east Contra Costa County area include most of Oakley and Sand Hili (outside the Antioch and Brentwood spheres), Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, and other small rural communities in the area (including Byron). 5141DEIRIIV-8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR . Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 80 governments. In pursuit of this mandate, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, which is the council of governments for the nine-county Bay region) periodically makes housing needs determinations for each city and county by four income levels: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. ABAG's housing needs determinations for, Contra Costa County's unincorporated areas represent the "fair share" responsibility of the county. The most recent ABAG Housing Needs Determinations, which was published in January 1989, indicated that the projected housing need for the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County from 1988 to 1995 is 6,447 units, a total -vhich ABAG determined could be accommodated without changes to existing zonir,l ordinances or policies.' Based on an average housing unit production rate in the cou.rty's unincorporated areas of 1,527 units per year between 980 and 1989, an estimated 11,070 units could be produced in the 1988- 1995 time period, a total which would substantially exceed the ABAG housing needs projection of 6,447 units? According to the county's 1990 General Plan Housing Element, "it appears that the county will have no difficulty i:. meeting its overall housing needs" (the 6,447 added units) between 1988 and 1995 s State law also requires ABAG to determine housing needs by income level, so that each jurisdiction can provide for its "fair share" of housing for each income group. ABAG uses the income categories of very low for household ii.comes of up to 50 percent of the median income for the region, low for 51 to 80 percent c=' the median income, moderate for 81 to 120 percent of median income, and above moderate for household incomes greater than the regional median income. The ABAG-determined Contra Costa County unincorporated area projected housing needs data for the 1988-1995 period, as of January 1, 1988, indicated that 1,289 units affordable to very low income households, 903 affordable to low income households, 1,289 affordable to moderate income households, and 2,966 affordable to above moderate income households, would be needed over this period in order to achieve .a healthy housing market.` c. Employment Trends As shown in Table 4, employment totals in the rural east county subregion have grown by 38 percent between 1980 and 1990, slightly less than Contra Costa County's total job growth of 45 percent during the same time period. The slightly lower local job growth rate, in comparison to the dramatically higher local housing growth rate over the same period (75 percent local housing growth vs. 20 percent countywide growth) reflects the fact that new 'Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, Draft, October 1990, page 6-21. 2Contra Costa County General Plan (Draft), Housing Element, page 6-23. 3Contra Costa County General Plan (Draft), Housing Element, page 6-109. `General Plan, page 6-109. 5140EIRlIV--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 61 d housing construction in the area has been outpacing job production at a disproportionate rate. Local service sector jobs, which include medical, professional, business, and repair services, grew by only eight percent, a rate far below the countywide growth. Retail jobs in the area grew by 64 percent over the same time period, almost twice the rate of the county as a whole. Table 5 indicates that the rural east county area is expected to experience a 73 percent Increase in job:; through 2005, far outpacing the anticipated countywide increase of 24 percent. Increases in services and retail sector jobs in the east county area are projected to be among the highest in the county, at 137 percent and 96 percent, respectively. The projections reflect an anticipated substantial improvement in the local balance between residential and job growth. The proposed Byron 78 project, a mixed-use development, is estimated to produce 2,302 jobs in the area, including 445 retail sector jobs and 321 service sector jobs. These additions would amount to 99 percent of projected retail Job growth and 78 percent of projected service job growth in the east county. Since the Byron 78 project involves a general plan am:;ndment not anticipated in the ABAG job projections, its actual effect would be to increase „cal job growth beyond the increase projected by ABAG. 2. PROJECT IMPACTS a. Population and Housing Impacts The project sponsor proposes to construct 296 single-family homes containing three to four bedrooms and two to two and one-half bathrooms (see Table 2 for the anticipated project housing type breakdown). Project housing selling prices are expected to range between $180,000 and $220,000. The project would add 296 units to the area's housing stock. Table 3 indicates an ABAG- projected 1990-to-2000 increase of 5,200 households for the rural east county area, and 61,010 for Contra Costa County as a whole. The 296-unit project would account for approximately six percent of the ABAG-projected rural east county household increase between 1990 and 2000, and almost one-half percent of the ABAG-projected county-wide housing unit growth for the decade. 5141DEIRIIV--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 82 i Table 3 LOCAL POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS--RECENT AND PROJECTED Projected Projected Change % Change Projected Change % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980-1990 2000 1990-2000 1990-2000 Brentwood Population 6,785 9,300 2,515 +37% ".2,700 13,400 +144% Households 2,233 3,220 987 +44% 8,570 5,350 +1 W/o Antioch Population 44,195 60,400 16,205 +37% 89,800 29,400 +49% Households 15,543 22,030 6,487 +420/6 34,520 12,490 +57% Rural East County Population 14,056 24,600 10,544 +75% 3000 11,700 +47% Households 5,078 9,230 4,152 +82% 14,430 5,200 +56% Contra Costa County Population 656,380 790,000 133,620 +20% 913,000 123,000 +157% Households 241,534 303,690 62,156 +26% 364,700 61,010 +20% SOURCE: ABAG Projections '90 5141DEIRIIV--B.514 Albers General Plan Amendment - Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.6. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 83 r Table 4 RECENT EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Service Sector Jobs Retail Sector Jobs Total Jobs Change Change Change 1980 1990 1 8� 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 19901980-1990 Rural East County 277 300 23 (+8%) 286 470 184 (+64%) 1,772 2,450 678 (+38%) Total County 59,844 86,420 26,576 (+44%) 44,297 60,160 15,863 (+36%) 201,237 292,700 91,463 (+45%) SOURCE: ABAG rojectlons '90 Table 5 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Service Sector Jobs Retail Sector Jobs Total Jobs Projected Projected Projected Change Change Change 1990 2000 1990-2000 1990 2000 . 1990-2000 1990 2000 1990-2000 Rural East County 300 710 410 (+137%) 470 920 450 (+96%) 2,450 4,250 1,800 (+73°k) Total County 86,420 110,56.13 24,140 (+28%) 60,160 76,720 16,560 (+28%) 292,700 361,8670 69,170 (+24%) d URCE: ABAG Projections '90 5141DEIRII V--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 84 Based on an assumption of 3.0 persons per household, the project homes could be expected to increase the rural east county area population by 888 people.' This increase would account for approximately 14 percent of the area's ABAG-projected 1990-to-2000 population increase of 6,200. b. Project Impacts on Projected Housing Needs If the project is able to sell its homes in the $180,000 to $220,000 price range as suggested by the applicant, some of the project homes would be affordaVe to households in the moderate income category. It is estimated that a household incorr-3 of $59,000 per year or more (in 1992 dollars) would be necessary to afford a $180,000 home. An Income of $70,000 would be necessary to afford a $220,000 home? An incomn of $59,000 per year is considered to be at the middle of a moderate income range, and an income of $70,000 is considered to exceed the high end of the moderate income range by approximately eight percent, based on an estimated 1995 median income ange for the Bay Area of approximately $43,000 to $65,000 in 1992 dollars-3 If half of the project homes were sold to households in the moderate income category--i.e., were sold for $200,000 or less--the project would provide for 11 percent of the ABAG- projected 1988-1995 need in the unincorporated area of the county for hornes affordable to moderate income households. } c. Project Impacts on Employment The project proposes to construct 112,420 square feet of commercial space and approximately 52,000 square feet of medical office space. Assuming one employee per 400 square feet of retail space, the project would create 281 retail jobs. Similarly, assuming, one employee per 250 square feet of office space, the project would create 185 jobs, for a total of approximately 466 jobs created by the project 4 The 281 retail jobs would account for 63 percent of ABAG-projected ruraleast county retail job growth, and 45 percent of ABAG-projected rural east county service job growth. Since 'The countywide persons per household figure is 2.71. A larger figure of 3.0 persons per household was used for this project because the project would contain large single-family homes which typically contain more persons per household than the county average. 2See Housing Affordability Worksheet in Appendix C of this EIR. 'Moderate income is defined by HUD as 81 to 120 percent of the regional median income. The projected 1995 median income for the region is $48,900 in 1988 dollars, according to ABAG Projections "90, page 69, which amounts to approximately $54,000 in 1992 dollars. 48ased on projections from Byron 78 General Plan Amendment DEIR, September 1991, p. 17. 5144DEIRIIY--B.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 85 the project, like Byron 78, involves a general plan amendment not anticipated in the ABAG job projections, its actual effect would be to increase local job growth beyond the increases projected by ABAG. Through the creation of more local jobs, the commercial and office components of the project would assist in improving the local balance between job and housing growth. As a result, the inclusion of the commercial and office components in the project may lessen the number of job, shopping, and other vehicle trips in and out of the project vicinity with corresponding environmental benefits in terms of regional traffic congestion and air pollution mitigation. 3. MITIGATION MEASURES a. Population and Housing Impacts The proposed project's impacts relating V. population and housing growth would not in and of themselves be significantly adverse. Mitigation needs associated with the impacts of the project population and housing increasc on such environmental factors as land use, transportation, municipal services, vegetation and wildlife, noise, air quality, etc., are described in corresponding chapters of this EIR. b. Proiect Impacts on Projected Hous! !g Needs The proposed project impacts relating to ABAG-determined county housing needs would be beneficial, provided that the applicant-anticipated project home selling price range of $180,000 to $220,000 (in 1992 dollars) was actually realized. c. Employment Impacts No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are required. 51400RUV--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft ZIR Contra Costa County IV.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 86 " l 5141DEIRIIV--8.514