Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07251995 - D7 r Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S�A`COUN'CY GP' DATE: July 11 , 1995 SUBJECT: Hearing on the Hofmann Discovery Bay West Project, Rezoning 2963-RZ, to Rezone Approximately 96. 55 acres of Land to the Planned Unit District for 324 Residential Units, a 10 acre School Site, a 6 . 5 Acre Park Site, a Fire Station, Open Space Areas, Trails (recreational vehicle and park & ride lots) and Other Landscaped Areas. SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Accept as adequate and in compliance with CEQA the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum. 2 . Approve Rezoning #2963-RZ along with the preliminary develop- ment plan, subject to conditions as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission and as amended (Attachment A) . '3 . Adopt the Final EIR and Addendum and CEQA Findings (Attachment B) and approve the related Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . 4 . Adopt the East County Regional Planning Commission' s Findings as set forth in Resolution #14-1995 as basis for the Board' s determination for this action. 5 . Adopt the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning. 6 . Direct staff to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning & Research for the above actions. FISCAL IMPACT Covered by developer fees. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON July 25, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Art Beresford 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED July 25, 1995 cc: Judy Coons, Auditor-Controller PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS David Joslin, CDD ACOU ADMINISTRATOR See page 3 for additional ccs. E BY `� , DEPUTY ` 1 2 . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION On May 23 , 1995 the Board closed the hearing on 2963-RZ (Discovery Bay West) and directed staff to prepare final documentation for the rezoning project. The developer and the interested school districts were to provide documentation that suitable school mitigation agreements had been reached. The Board is to then approve the project with revised conditions (Attachment A) and adopt the final CEQA Findings and the EIR Addendum (Attachment B) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . Since May 23 , 1995 the Board has scheduled this item weekly. the item was scheduled for June 6 , 13 , 20 and 27 , 1995 . To date the developer and the Knightsen School District and the Liberty Union High School District have not reached agreement on a school mitigation measures. At the June 27 , 1995 Board hearing on 2963-RZ, the applicant requested that the Board consider a reduced P-1 proposal that would consist of proposed Village I only. Village I is located south of Point of Timber Road and east of Bixler Road. The Village , as proposed , contains 324 single family lots, a 10 acre school s'ite, a 6 . 5 acre park-fire station site, 13 . 4 acres of open space (wetlands) , a park and ride lot, and a recreation vehicle parking area . The area of Village I is approximately 96 . 55 acres of land. Consideration of the rest of the project, north of Point of Timber Road, would be deferred . The applicant would have to file a new P- 1 rezoning request along with a new Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map at such time as they are ready to proceed to subject property. If 2963-RZ is approved for 324 single family residential units, together with associated public, seimi-public and open spaces uses (Village I) , then .the following conditions as previously outlined on Attachment A would have to be deleted or modified: Condition #1 - delete points D and E. Condition #3 -• modify from 2 , 000 units to 324 units . Condition #4 - delete paragraphs B, C, and D-2 . Condition #5 - delete second sentence. Condition #6 - delete paragraphs B, C, D, and modify E deleting the dedication of development rights on the 200 acre of the Fallman Ranch. After Condition #11 renumber conditions after #11 down one number as there was no Condition #12 . This was an oversight. Condition #17 (renumbered to 18) - delet condition. Old Condition #20 - change reference to Condition #19 to the correct number #17 . Old Condition #38 (renumbered to #36) - delete reference to credit for private recreation. Old Condition #39 - delete. Old Condition #40 - delete. Old Condition #45 - delete. 3 . 1 Old Condition #46 (renumbered to #41) - delete paragraphs 41 .B. (last paragraph) ; 41 . C. 1) (delete all) ; 41 . C. 3) c, ; 41.C. 3) e. ;41 . C. 4) . a . 1 (delete all) ; 41 . C. 4) a . 3 and 4 (delete all) 41. C. 5) b. 2 and 3 (delete all) ; 41 . C. 5) c. (delete all) ; 41 .C. 6) .b. (delete all) ; 41 . C. 8) c. (delete all) ; 41 . C. 9) a. (delete second and third paragraphs) ; 41 . C. 16) a. (delete sentence referring to area south of Fallman Boulevard and north of Point of Timber Road) ; 41.D. 1) (delete all) ; 41 . D. 2) (delete all) ; 41 .D. 3) .b. to f. (delete) (keep 41 .D. 3 . a. ) ; 41 .D. 4) (delete all) ; 41 .D. 5) (delete all) ; 46.D. 6) (all) ; 41 . D. 7) (all) ; 46-D. 8) (all) ; 46 .D. 9) (all) ; 41 .E. 3) (delete all) ; 41 . E. 4) (delete references to Villages II , III and IV) ; 41 . E. 5) (delete reference to the water course along northerly and easterly property lines) . There were two corrections given for Condition #41 by the Public Works Department. They added the following sentence to Condition 46.A. 1) b. : "The curb shall be inspected and repaired annually. " There is a correction for Condition #41 . E. 8) d . : "Applicant" should be "Application" . These corrections and deferrals are included in Attachment A. AB/aa BDIII/2963-RZ.AB cc: Hofmann Company County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Public Works Department Discovery Bay MAC Byron MAC Knightsen Town Council East Bay Municipal Utility District Health Services Dept. , Hazardous Materials Division East County Regional Planning Commission East Contra Costa Irrigation District Byron-Bethany Irrigation District East Bay Regional Park District ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.7 JULY 25, 1995 On July 18, 1995, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the decision on certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of findings and the mitigation monitoring program; adoption of Ordinance No. 95-28 giving effect to rezoning 2963-RZ; and approval of preliminary Development Plan with conditions for approximately 2,000 residential units,marina, lakes,park areas, a school area, a fire station, open space areas, a commercial recreational area and other landscaped areas for the discovery Bay West Project, Hofmann Construction company (applicant) and Hofmann construction company and Edna Fallman (owners), Discovery Bay area and to consider accepting the agreement between the certain school districts in East county and the Hofmann construction company to satisfy school facility mitigation and determine County participation. Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, advised the Board that all issues had been agreed to by the parties on a resolution of developer/school facility mitigation in East County. Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, commented on a July 11, 1995 memoranda and a request from Hofmann that the Board approve Phase I of the project and the provisions of modified conditions of approval, findings and the mitigation and monitoring and reporting to reflect only the approval of Village 1. Mr. Barry advised that with the resolution of the school issue that the Board accept as adequate and in compliance with CEQA the previously certified final environmental impact report, approve rezoning 2963-RZ, along with the preliminary development plan for Phase I subject to conditions as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission and as amended to reflect Phase I only in the July 11, 1995, Board order, adopt the final EIR and Addendum and the CEQA findings which was included as Attachment B and approve the related Mitigation, Monitoring Program, adopt the East County Regional Planning Commission's findings set forth in their resolution 14-1995 as the basis for the Board's determination in this action, adopt the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning and direct staff to post a notice of determination with the County Clerk and the office of Planning and Research in Sacramento for those above actions. Supervisor Torlakson moved approval of the recommendations and commended all parties involved in the matter for their efforts in making this happen and he requested that staff double check the funding for the Community Center. Mr. Barry requested that as part of the motion, the hearing on the rest of the Phases be continued to January 16, 1996. Supervisor Torlakson concurred with the addition to the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Rezoning 2963-RZ for Phase I along with preliminary development plan subject to conditions is APPROVED; Ordinance No. 95-28, giving effect to the rezoning, is ADOPTED; staff is DIRECTED to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research for the Hofman discovery Bay West Project, Phase 1, Discovery Bay; and the remainder of the project is CONTINUED to January 16, 1996. • Addendum scovery Bay West # ,D, SE. C_ .. .a� ContrE Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,40 Count. cOrr'�-cOUTi� ` - FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: JULY 25, 1995 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DEVELOPER/SCHOOL FACILITY MITIGATION IN FAR EAST COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS• ACCEPT the attached agreement as fulfillment of the conditions to mitigate school facilities in East County. FISCAL IMPACT: Additional staff work and initial administration should be recoverable within the fee structure for applications. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: While the public hearing is closed, the matter has been continued in order for the five school districts in East County, the Hofmann Company, and the BIA to come up with an agreement on the manner and amount of funding to mitigate school impacts from new development. The attached document is the agreement between the School Districts and the Hofmann Company which fulfills the conditions for Hofmann Company, and will serve as a model for future development within the school districts of Liberty, Byron, Knightsen Oakley, and Brentwood. While this solves the matter between developers and the school districts, the County's role in administration and enforcement will still receive some refinement and staff will return at a subsequent date with County procedures to implement this agreement. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: 40,-� _ 9 ,COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SIIOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VA:dg BY ,DEPUTY schools.bo Contact: Val Alexeeff(646-1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments School Districts(via GMEDA) Hofmann Company(via GMEDA) BIA(via GMEDA) Jul. 20. 1995 1 :4 4 PY 1, ND. 11215 P. 2113 Recording Requested by and when recorded mail to: Liberty Union High School District 20 Oak Street Brentwood, California 94513 Attention: W Dan Smith Exempt: Government Code § 6103 9p-ace abovet fas line for Recoid der's use only EAST CQNTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES . FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT THIS EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of July 1995, and is entered into between East Contra Costa School Facilities Financing Authority, a joint powers agency established and existing under the laws of the State of California("Authority"), Liberty Union High School District ("Liberty"), Brentwood Union School District("Brentwood"), Byron Union School District ("Byron!'), Knightsen Elementary School District ("Knightsen"), and Oakley Union Elementary School District("Oakley'% public school districts within the State of California(hereinafter collectively "Participating School Districts");participating governmental agencies (""Agencies") as listed on Exhibit"A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, which may be amended to include additional Agencies; participating developer(s)("Participating Developer" or "Participating Developers") as listed on Exhibit"B", attwhed hereto and incorporated herein, which may be amended to include additional developers, to provide a method for financing the cost of new School Facilities (as hereinafter defined} needed as a result of new development approved within the boundaries of Participating School Districts. This Agreement shall apply to the real prop" of the Participating Developers at such times and to the extent that the Participating Developer agrees to the terms of this Agreement by way of execution of an Acknowledgment of Obligations as set forth herein on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority has been established for the purpose of finawing needed school facilities on a regional basis for the Participating School Districts in East Contra Costa County; and WTIEREAS, the Authority and Participating School Districts propose to form one or more ommunity facilities districts ("CFD") for financing School Facilities; and VVM14 Gy of *&I I- J»1. 20. 1995 1 ;45PM BA '� • No. 0215 P. 3/13 WHEREAS, the Participating Developers own certain real property ("Participating Property") which is proposed for approval by governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Participating Property; and WHEREAS, development of the Participating Property may requixe the provision of additional School Facilities for the Participating School Districts necessary to serve the student population expected to be generated as a result of such development of the Participating Property; and WHEREAS, Participating School Districts, Authority, Agencies and Participa&g Developers wish to create a method (other than school impact fees authorized under Government Code Section 53050) to finance the cost of School Facilities for the Participating School Districts necessary to serve the student population to be generated by the development of the Participating Property, which will satisfy their obligation to fund School Facilities as required by the implementation of the General Plans of governmental agencies and conditions of approval of proposed development of the Participating Property; and WHEREAS, Authority and Participating School Districts have established a smnmary of the rate and method of apportionment ("RMA") for the special taxes ("Special Taxes") to be levied by the proposed CFD(s) in order to insure timely payment of the cost of the School Facilities at time of issuance of building permits as provided in Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the tecttt.s and conditions herein set forth, Participating School Districts and Participating Developers hereby agree as follows: 1- Recitals. The foregoing recitals are herein incorporated. 2. Defudtions. Capitalized terms as used in this Agreement shalt Dave the meanings set forth herein or as set forth in the RMA (Exhibits "D" and "E"): "City" means any incorporated City which elects to become one of the Agencies. "County" means the County of Contra Costa, California. "Credit Funds" means the following, to be allocated to the Participating Property: _ (i) State Funds_ Any and all funds, and in kind contributions, received from the State by Participating School Districts for the construction of the School Facilities subsequent to the date of this Agreement for students from future development of the Participating Property. State Funis does not include, but not by way of limitation, (ands received for technology, modernization or reconstruction of existing school facilities, or School IJAKW&a ABM2M5.M 2 rrmvres CRY-f Rr-w d4FA1 -1*-dupcm-Dm& ar Ju 1, 20, 1990 1 ;ON DAI6 ! � Wo. 0211h P. 4/1.3 Facilities for existing development, so loi g as such fzmdixtg does not increase the capacity of Participating School Districts to accommodate additional new students. State Funds also do not include monies received by Participating School Districts pursuant to Sections 53090 and 65995 of the Government Code presently in the mount, as to residential development, of$1.72 per square foot of assessable area. (ii) Local Fundsi The proceeds of any certificates of participation or lease revenue bonds to be paid from genetal fiord revenues for permanent financing of permatlent facilities or general obligation onds authorized and issued subsequent to the slate of this Agreement for permanent financing o pernment School Facilities for Participating School Districts. This includes all funds excl as subparagraphs (i), (ii) and(iii) of paragraph(d) of Section 3.3 of this Agreement- This excludes any revenues from or relating to the Mitigation Payments, Special Tastes or fi ting proceeds relating to Special Taxes of the CFD. Local Funds does not include, butitot by way of limitation, fiords received for technology, modernization or recoastructi(jn. of existing school facilities, at School Facilities for existing development s❑ long as such faring does not increase the capacity of Participating School Districts to accommodate addition's xtew students. (iii) Subsequent Government Mandates. If, notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, Participating School Districts, or any other subdivision of the State of CaUbmia are rJmndated or permitted by existing law or future Iegislation to impose and collect any fee or charge, however denominated, for the financing of School Facilities for development of the Participating Property, the amount of any such fee or charge so colleoted. i (iv) Facilities Credits. Amounts set forth in any facilities construction agreement for School Facilities constructed by Participating Developers conveyed to Participating School Districts in accorda nc i with Section 4.3 of this Agreement, i (v) Calculate n ole Credit Funds. The calculation of Credit Funds shall not include the first $12.$ million of fund, by the State for the School Facilities of Liberty. "Formation Proceedings o the Cl D" shall be d=ed to have occurred upon the occurrence of the formation of the CF in accordance with Exhibits "D" and/or "E", as applicable, the expiration of the statute of limitations provided in Section 53359 of the Mello Roos Act (hereinafter "Act"), and the entry I'of a final tion-appealable judgment in a validating action in the Superior Court of County validating the formation, levy of Special Taxes and the authorization of a bond issue for the CFD. This shall include the authorization by the qualified electors for the levy and collection by the OFD of the Special Taxes and the authorization by the qualified electors of the issuance of bonds ("Bond Issue"). Bonds shall not be sold prior to, or in amounts greater than, needed by Participating School Districts. "General Obligation Bonds' means any local ballot proposition presented to and approved by the electorate of Participating School Districts after the date of this Agreement authorizing Participating School Districts to!issue general obligation bonds. B,1F:Wl4fn'ABhanQ975.09 3 07114/45 City of 92twadlNClBfA-Dardnpea-A�fl'&, i` I Jdf. "0. 1995 1 :46PM B • No. 0016 P. 5/13 "Index" means the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index. In the event the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index ceases to be published, the index used by the State Allocation Board in place of the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index shall be applied or any comparable index as reasonably determined by Participating School Districts. In the event the Index is not sufficient to cover increases in casts related to the School Facilities, such as increases in land costs or other unanticipated expenses,the applicable Participating School District shall present such documentation to the Oversight Committee, as defined is Section 7.6 herein, who shall review such documentation and, if appropriate, increase the Index for that year in an amount not to exceed 4% per annum. "Mitigation Payment" means a payment to be made as provided under Section 6 of this Agreement to Participating School Districts prior to the issuance of each residential building permit in the amounts set forth in Table 1 of E)d bits "D" and"E" for the benefit of Participating School Districts, The Mitigation Payment shall be increased pursuant to the Index commencing July 1, 1996, and each July 1st thereafter. In the event the Formation Proceedings of the CFD are not completed, for whatever reason, prior to the issuance of any residential building permit for structures on the Participating Property, the Mitigation Payment to Participating School Districts shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit in these initial amounts as adjusted annually as herein provided. If owners of Participating Property consist of 6,000 dwelling units prior to August 31, 1995, the Mitigation Payment shall be the Original Mitigation Agreement amount as set forth on Table 1 of the RMA. If owners of Participating Property consist of between 5,999 dwelling units and 3,000 dwelling units prior to August 31, 1995, the Sliding Scale Amount as set forth on Table I of the RMA shall be the Mitigation Payment. If owners of Participating Property consist of less than 3,000 dwelling units on August 31, 1995, the Mitigation Payment applicable to such dwelling units shall,be the Ordinary Dwelling Unit Amount set forth on Table I of the RMA. "School Facilities" means the acquisition, construction and/or financing of land and capital school facilities consisting of interim and permanent School Facilities for grades K through 12, fbr Pa icipating School Districts, including central support, administration, special education facilities, and special education busses, as is consistent with the Master Plans to be approved by the governing boards of the Participating School Districts, together with furniture, equipment and technology, to serve needs created by residential development of the Participating Property. "State" means the State of California. 3. Mitigation of School Facilities Impacts. 3.1 Formation proceedings of the CFD. Subsequent to August 31, 1995, Authority, and/or applicable participating School Districts, shall initiate and diligently pursue to completion the Formation Proceedings of CFD No. 95-1, or a comparable individual community facilities district or districts, to include the Participating Property. The Formation Proceedings of the CFD shall be accomplished on the basis of the provisions set forth in Exhibits "D" and/or "E", as applicable Participating Developers agree to participate in such SAFCW�(YllAS1�309T5.D1 4 Ulf l'9Vy5 Cay De BcenesmodlNClDiA•Devdnpen•DnR B-1 I" Ju 1, 29. 1:995 1 �47PM BAI 0 No. 0215 P. U13 Formation Proceedings of the CFD as it relates to their property and execute all documents reasonably requested by Authority or Participating School Districts and required for the Formation Proceedings of the CFD in order to accomplish the Formation Proceedings on or before December 31, 1995 or as soon as practicable thereafter. Participating School Districts which pay the costs of formation of the CFD shall be reimbursed for such costs out of the proceeds of a Bond Issue. Participating Developers which annex into the CFD, shall pay the costs for annexation. 3.2 CFD 9peration and Mitigation Authority. Provided Authority or applicable Participating School Districts are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, the CFD shall be authorized to finance the School Facilities required by development of the Participating Property as set forth in this Agreement. The CFD shall levy or collect only the Special'faxes as set forth in Exhibits "D" and/or "E", as applicable to this Agreement, as increased pursuant to the Index. 3.3 Prohibition of Additional Miti agation. Provided a Participating Developer is in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Participating Developer and their respective successors and assigns, shall be deemed to have fulfilled and mitigated their entire obligation to finance School Facilities to serve the student population to be generated by the residential development of the Participating Property upon the occurrence of the Formation Proceedings of the CFD or the payment of the Ivl~itigation Payment described in Section 6 of this Agreement. The Authority and Participating School Districts agree that upon payment of the applicable Special Taxes set forth in Exhibits "D" and/or "E" to record a notice absolving such property from any future Special Taxes of the CFD. Such notice shall be recorded with the County Recorder of County upon receipt of payment by Participating Developer of any actual reasonable costs of recording such notice. At such time as a taxable property has paid Maximum Annual Special Taxes for the period specified in the RMA, such a notice also shall be recorded upon receipt of payment by Participating Developer for any actual reasonable costs of recording such notice. This Agreement, as to the School Facilities needs of the residential development of the Participating Property, shall be deemed to satisfy any and all present and future requirements and conditions of the entitlements for the residential development of the Participating Property. Participating School Districts, including their successors and assigns, hereby covenant that they will not under any circumstances at any time: (a) exercise any power or authority (including, but not limited to, Section 53080 of the California Government Code or any other provision of applicable law) to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement against any development of the Participating Property (including any Senior Citizen Housing as defined in Section 65999.1 of-the Goverment Code and any commercial or industrial property development) undertaken within the boundaries of the Participating Property for the purpose of funding or financing any School Facilities. If a Senior Citizen Housing dwelling limit is converted to use other than as specified in Section 65999.1 of the Government Code, it shall be subject to the Special Taxes for the remaining portion of a period of thirty (30) years from the date of the issuance of the building permits for such dwelling unit or units. 3AKW&O1AWa rM75.06 5 OT/t5v95 Ciry aF BamaeoodfNC/BLA•acrdopus-E=a%-ll• Jia 1. 20. 1990 1 ;47PM B • No, F1 P. 7/13 (b) require the City or County or any other governmental entity to exercise, or cooperate with the City oz County or any other govamnental entity in the exercise of, the power under Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.7 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 65970) or any other provision of applicable law, to require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or both, for School Facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development of the Participating Property (including any Senior Citizen Housing and any commercial or industrial development). (c) oppose or legally challenge any residential development including rezoning of the Participating Property on the basis of inadequate School Facilities or seely other forms of mitigation for any residential development of the Participating Property (including Senior Citizen housing) with respect to the adequacy of School Facilities, including,but not limited to,the establishment of developer fees, the payment of any money by Developer (regardless of how denominated or labelled), or the dedication of land permitted by present or future State law, rulings, regulations or court decisions if the proceeds of such fees, assessments or requirements will be used to finance or fund the School Facilities. (d) issue bonds, except a Bond Issue, or incur any other form of indebtedness, payable from taxes or assessments of any kind applicable to the Participating Property (other than Participating School Districts' portion of the existing ad valorem property taxes including any ad valorem taxes for general obligation bonds of the Participating School Districts) levied on any property within the boundaries of the CFD, the proceeds of which are to be used in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, for funding or financing the School Facilities. 71w limitations contained in this clause (d) sW not be applicable to any (i) General Obligation Bonds, (ii) bonds of a community facilities district formed under the Act or other local financing, which may be approved by tate registered voters within the boundaries of a Participating School District, or (iii) assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, or other assessment proceedings available to Participating School Districts, providing for an assessnnent district encompassing the Participating School District. 3.4 Other Properties. In order to equalize treatment of landowners seeking to develop within School Districts' boundaries, Participating School Districts agree to use their best efforts to enter into agreements comparable to this Agreement with Participating Developers in order to obtain financial commitments for School Facilities from therm at least equal to the commitments for the amount of the Witigation Payments and/or Special Taxes set forth in Exhibits "D" and "E" to this Agreement. However, if notwithstanding the use of such- best efforts, Participating School Districts are unable to enter into any such other agreements with other Participating Developers, such inability shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, it is agreed that no other agreement shall be more favorable to any other Participating Developers. In the event Participating School Districts enter into any other agreement after the date of this Agreement relating to materially less burdensome Mitigation Payment or ane-Tune Special Taxes per a�xwAGrnsn.rao��s.as 6 0'109/93 Gt,of BeotvrmNNC18IA�lm.ebpm-bn@'B-I1" J 20. 1998 1 :48FM PAK* � Pdo. 0215 F. 8/13 dwelling unit for the classes of property set forth in Exhibits "D" and "E" to this Agreement, or other material provisions, Participating School Districts shall give notice to Participating Developers of such other agreement by providing Participating Developers with a copy of such other agreement in the manner provided in Section 7.7 herein concurrently when Participating School Districts record such other agreement with the office of the County Recorder of the County. if any other agreemextt contains provisions which are materially less burdensome than those contained in this Agreement, Participating School Districts shall promptly amend, upon request of Participating Developers, this Agreement to incorporate, on a prospective basis, such more favorable provisions. The effective date of any such amendment to this Agreement shall be the effective date of the other agreement containing such more favorable provisions. 3.5 Covenant to Construct School Facilities and Serge Students. At the time sufficient funds are received pursuant to this Agreement, and other agreements or from other sources, Participating School Districts covenant for the benefit of Participating Developers that they will use their best efforts to acquire or constxuot School Facilities sufficient to serve the students generated from development within the Participating Property. 3.6 Disclosure of Snecial Takes. Participating Developers hereby covenant to Participating School Districts that Participating Developers shall provide, or by contract with any developer or merchant builder of any part of the Participating Property require to be provided, the "Notice of Special Tax" required by Section 53341.5 of the Act or any similar successor statute. Developer expressly aclmowled.ges that Participating School Districts, Authority and the CFD shall have no duty or obligation and shall incur no liability, jointly or severally, with respect to the foregoing covenant of Participating Developer. 4. Credit Funds. 4.1 State Aid Application. Participating School Districts, to the extent that it is realistic and feasible, shall apply for and utilize their best efforts to obtain approval of any State funding for School Facilities for the area within the CFD or a comparable community facilities district that may become available to Participating School Districts. Subject to the ongoing obligations of Participating School Districts to reasonably seek to obtain State Funis, Participating Developers acknowledge that the risk of denial of any such application by the State shall be. bonne by Participating Developers and by other payers of the Special Taxes within the CFD and shall not be a basis to lodge a protest of any Special Taxes payable or to file a claim for the recovery of any Special Taxes paid. The reasonable fees and charges of any consultant retained by Participating School Districts and expenses to pursue such. State funding for the School Facilities may be included in the Administrative Expenses for which the Special Taxes of the CFD way be expended. 4.2 Application of Credit Funds. Developer and Participating School Districts agree that, to the extent legally permissible, the Participating Property's share of any credit Funds received by a Participatbig School District shall be applied as provided im Section 53313.9 of the Government Code, respectively, to fund future School Facilities or to pay or reduce future Special Taxes levied on the Participating Property and remaining unpaid as H.qy W&C,G AShn1110915.09 7 CU119/95 City D(' V w � reasonably determined by Participating..School Districts. The parties agree that such reasonable allocation shall be made by Participating School District following a deterniination at a public meeting, notice of which pursuant to Section 6062 of the Government Code has been given, to owners and residents of the participating Property who shall have an opportunity to appear and be heard as to such detm nnination or determinations. Any Credit FuDds received by a Participating School District for a particular School Facility after first satisfying any unfunded construction requi2ements for that School Facility shall be applied proportionately, based upon the amount of funds contributed by the Participating Property to the total cost of the School Facility. The Credit Funds shall be applied, as reasonably determined by such Participating School District on a prospective and proportionate basis to reduce the prospective One-Time Special Taxes and Maximum Annual Special Taxes unless the affected Participating School District governing board(s) or the Authority makes a finding that another use is more prudent under all of the then existing circumstances. 4.3 School Facilities Provided by Developer. Participating Developers may request atone, or in conjunction with one or more other Participating Developers, that it or they may acquire land and/or construct School Facilities as an alternative means, in whole or in part, for mitigation of its impacts on the School Facilities of Participating School Districts. Any such proposal shall conform to all applicable legal requirements for constructing School Facilities and the Educational Policies of the Participating School Districts, as reasonably determined by Participating School Districts. Participating School Districts shall reasonably accept or not accept such proposal. .Any wAxptance shall be conditioned on the execution of a facilities construction agreement which in detail covers what is to be built by whom, identifies the assured sources of funding, performance, labor, and material bonds in the amount of 110% of an agreed project cost and the amount of the Facilities Credit. The amount of the Facilities Credit shall be based on a reasonable determination by the Participating School Districts as to what its cost of acquiring or comtructing such School Facilities would have been which shall be the amount of the resulting Facilities Credit to Participating Developers. The Facilities Credit shall not be treated as a more favorable agreement as set forth in paragraph 3.4 herein. S. Binding on. Community Facilities District. Upon completion of the Formation Proceedings of the CFD, the governing board(s) of applicable Participating School Districts shall cause to be executed such documents as may reasonably be required to confirm that the CFU is bound by this Agreement, and copies of such documents shall be provided to owner(s) of the Participating property. b. Payment of Miti anon. If the CFD is not formed prior to the time residential building permits are requested by applicable Participating Developers or if the Formation Proceedings of the CFD are initiated prior to the time when residential building permits are requested by applicable Participating Developers and Participating Developers either (i) protest the Formation Proceedings of the CFD, (ii) fail to vote at an election thereon, or (iii) vote "no" at an election tbemon, Participating Developers shall pay to Participating School Districts the applicable Mitigation Payment per dwelling unit in the amounts as set forth in this A nrinr to issuance of each building, permit for the Participating Property. Upon Jul. 20. 1995 1 .50PM RAO � No. 0215 P. 9/1 .1 payment of the Mitigation Payment, the Special Taxes shall not be levied on the applicable property. 7. General Provisions, 7.1 Successors. All of the covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements contained in this Agreement by or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any of the parties hereto, shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors of the respective parties. This Agreement shall be a covenant and condition on the Participating Property. 7.2 Assignment. No Separate Transfers. No sale, transfer or assignment of any development right or interest under this Agreement shalt be made unless made togedw with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Participating Property. 7.3 Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement shall be amended only by a written instrurneat executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assignees. All waivers of this Agreement must be in wilting and signed by the appropriate authorities of the parties hereto. 7.4 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining poattions hereof shall not, in any way, be affected or impaired thereby. 7.5 Inte ation. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. _ 7.6 District/Developer Oversight Committee. A District/Developer Oversight Committee ("D/PDOC") shall be formed. The D/PDOC shall consist of a representafive of the Participating School Districts, a representative of the Authority, a representative of the Participating Developers and a iepresentative of the Northern California Building Industry Association ("NUBIA"). If necessary, the four representatives shall jointly appoint a fifth representative, preferably from County, City or Agencies. The D/PDOC shall exist until the School Facilities are substantially completed. Its purpose shall be, prior to December 1, on an annual basis, to review the reasonable costs of the proposed School Facilities, the funding sources, as well as the need for completion and commencement of School Facilities oonstruction in the next fiscal year. The D/PDOC shall meet for the first time only prior to January 31, 1996 and thereafter, prior to December 1. The Participating School Districts in cooperation and good faith, after consultation with DIPDOC, shall annually increase or decrease and if reasonably determined appropaiate, thereafter increase or decrease the projected costs of the School Facilities in accordance wvith reasonably equivalent School Facilities throughout Northern California, in accordance with applicable law, and the then applicable reasonable Education Policies of the applicable participating School Districts but not to amounts greater than the Equivalent Amounts set forth and adjusted as provided in Exhibits 9 MAIM City at Bnmowuo OXVBIA-De dope%-Lh A RE.)tw Jill, 20. 1995 1 ,510H PA 16 No, 0215 P. I0/1 a "D" and "E". The objective shall be to assure the lowest reasonable cost for the School Facilities and costs to Participating Developers and taxpayers, while maintaining the Participating School Districts' objectives of availability of adequate School Facilities concurrent with development of the Participating Property, considering students generated by other development as well, consistent with applicable State area standards and cost ltruits. Participating School Districts will consider and, if appropriate, implement reasonable use of cost saving alternatives with regard to method of design, construction techniques, construction materials and construction management so as to assure the lowest, reasonable, feasible cost while still meeting the applicable legal requirements, reasonable.Educational Policies of the Participating School Districts and not substantially increasing future operation and maintenance costs of the Participating School Districts. In the event that such detenn nations affect the cost of School Facilities, then the Mitigation Payments or Special Taxes of the CFD as herein specified, shall be adjusted proportionately with such determination. 7-7 Notices, Demands and. Commtuilcation. Formal notices, demands and communications among Participating School Districts, Authority, Participating Developers and Agencies hereunder shall be sufficiently given if(i) personally dehvet'ed, (ii) mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (iii) delivered by Federal Express or other reliable private express delivery service to the principal offices of Participating School Districts, Authority, Participating Developers, or Agencies as set forth below. Such written notices, demands and communications may he sent in the same man= to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. Such notices demands or communications shall be deemed received upoxl delivery if personally served, or upon the expiration of three (3) business days if given by other approved means as specified above. If to Participating School Districts: To the Applicable Participating School District as set forth below: Liberty Union High School District 20 Oak Street .Brentwood, California 94513 Breaatwood Union School District 250 First Street Brentwood, California 94513 Byron Union Elementary School District 14401 Byron Highway Byron, California 94514 Knights=Elementary School District Delta Road, Post Office Box 265 Knightsen, California 94548 © swsrnn,,anots,ue 10 m+iuos cy or arncwoocUffC,Iniw.on.dope,-nmA•e-t i Jul. 20. 1995 1 :51PId B NoP. 11/1? Oakley Union Elementary School District 91 Mercedes Lane, Post Office Box 7 Oakley, California 94561 If to Authority: East Contra Costa School Facilities Funding Authority c!o Knightsen Elementary School District Post Office Box 265 Knightsen, California 94548 If to Participating Developers: As set forth on Exhibit "B" If to Agencies. As set forth on Exhibit "A" 7.8 Arbitration. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof shall be settled by binding arbitration in County in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 7.9 Intergretati.on. The terms of this Agreement, including all ,Exhibits hereto, shall not be construed for or against any patty by reason of the authorship of this Agreement, but shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used. The Section headings are for purposes of convenience only, and shall not be construed to limit or extend the meaning of this Agreement. 7.10 Recordation„ Subordination and Participating School Districts Certification. (a) Recordation. This Agreement or a notice describing the existence of this Agreement and the Participating Property shall be recorded by Participating Developers or by Participating School Districts. The parties hereby agree to execute such documents as may be needed to gime such notice_ (b) Subordination. Any existing monetary encumbrances of record shall be subordinated to this Agreement concurrent with its execution by the parties or completion of the formation of the CFD,-which ever shall first occur, prior to Participating School Districts certifying to County the availability of School Facilities for the Participating Property. (c) Participating School Districts Certification. Promptly upon receipt of confirmation of such recordation of the specified subordination, applicable Participating School Districts shall provide to Participating Developers written certification, in a form reasonably acceptable to Participating Developers as well as County, that all requirements of Participating School Districts with respect to mitigation of all school impacts from the development of the Participating Property will be satisfied upon performance of the terms of ¢�,swacrnaii.rzot�.us 11 07119M Ciry of SrouraodrNGH(A.D-daps-Oak'8.11' Ju 1. 20. 1999 1 :51PM No. 0215 P. 12/13 this Agreement, Provided Participating Developers are in compliance with this Agreement, and even though,Formation Proceedings of the CFD are not completed, Participating School Districts shall promptly provide to County the certification required pursuant to Section 53080(b) of Covertrment Code, or simiLar successor laver, with respect to the iss=ce of any building permit required for residential development of the Participating Property. 7.11 Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. 7.12 Iylutual Cooperation. Each party to this Agreement agrees to cooperate with the others, to act in good faith, to sign any other and further documents, and perform such other acts, as may be reasonably necessary or proper in order to accomplish the intent of this Agreement. The parties shall refrain from doing anything which would render their performance under this Agreement impossible or impractical. 7.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person or entity shall have any right of action'based on any provision of this Agreement, 111 !11 1!1 Ili 1!1 111 1!I 111 11l Ill 1!1 !1I 11I 111 !l1 1I! IlI 111 1l1 eautwana,noai3 ae 12 mnems 4iy•e %.ti^ 'J . 20. 1595 1 :52P14 PAK� � P1a. 021F 7.14 ' - An Eybbl u eudod!oft are WwrpcxaW iamaa tis e mou by=firm= IN WIT Ess wMEQF,the be%W but c=utcd Om Apuwmz4 on&a der and ym Sm abovt wnt.tm UDERIT UNION IS1XiIG"t .r H}� �C3■cat maNTwov UMC44 SCHOOL DISTRICT Ex: , i BYRT UNION SC1lOOL DIMM 7 S . R'NIGIi1'SEN El�i�ll`AIt� SMOOL I3� OAMY UNION ELEDdtMARY SCHOOL DMTRI+CT By= Saperdat EAST CONTRA COSTA SCHOOL.FACLXM FW0MO AUTROMY By: � o£the Board of Dircc%t Ts saxwaxoi 13 nth cies rn,mw..e +�w.�-v,x'�r • • A.7 Contra Costa County 77 Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 29 P11 3: 45 jr, � •K OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MEMORANDUM r'EVEU11 i':HJT DEPT TO Art B*19 ing FROM : LewiLaura Brown DATE : June RE GeneGPA #4-93-EC - Northwest Discovery Bay C Dennis Barry, Elinor Blake, Randy Sawyer, Dr. Walker The information supplied below is in response to a request regarding recommendations for conditions of approval for the above referenced planned development. Back rg o, ound An acutely hazardous material (AHM) is any chemical designated as an extremely hazardous substance by the Environmental Protection Agency. AHMs are listed in Appendix A of Part 355 ,of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The AHM used at the EBMUD Bixler facility is chlorine. EBMUD has prepared and submitted to the health services department, a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) and Off-Site Consequence Analysis (OSCA). The goals of the RMPP are to prevent acutely hazardous materials accidents that could endanger public health and safety, and to communicate risk that may be present at an AHM handling facility to the community. These goals are to be achieved through reducing probabilities of incidents, as well as by reducing the impact of an incident, should one occur. The OSCA portion of the RMPP uses the potential incidents identified during the facility review to determine what impact postulated releases may have on the surrounding areas (communities and neighbors). Using computer programs called air dispersion models, the areas potentially affected by a release can be predicted. The air dispersion models take into account the type of chemical released, the temperature and pressure of the chemical, and weather conditions including wind speed. Air dispersion results described in the OSCA were generated using pessimistic (low mixing and low wind speeds) meteorological conditions and the predominant wind direction as parameters. Low wind speeds will cause less mixing of chemical clouds and thus a higher chemical concentration which can be dangerous to human health. Additionally, the plume sizes described in the OSCA represent two different chemical concentration levels. The levels utilized are Emergency Response Planning Guidelines 2 and 3 (ERPG-2 and ERPG-3). The ERPG values provide estimates of concentration ranges where one might reasonably anticipate observing adverse health effects as a consequence of exposure to a specific substance. ERPG-2 and ERPG-3 are defined below: ERPG-2 is the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects, or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take protective action. ERPG-3 is the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects. Public Health and Safety: A "Protective Action Zone" identifies areas where serious personal injury could occur if a person were exposed to an AHM for more than 1 hour. These zones may represent areas where persons exposed may experience adverse health impacts if steps to minimize exposure are not taken. People in the protective action zone may be exposed to ERPG-3 chemical concentrations during a chemical release. For people within the protective action zone, evacuation may be considered as an alternative to remaining indoors (evacuation would only be considered if the release is expected to continue for an extended duration or prior to an anticipated release following an incident). The "Notification Zone" identifies areas where an individual would not experience serious or long-term health effects, but he or she may experience eye irritation or other symptoms. People within the notification zone during an incident would be advised to seek shelter indoors with fresh air sources shut down. People in the notification zone may be exposed to ERPG-2 chemical concentrations during a chemical release. Note: The Notification Zone (ERPG-2 levels) will be larger than the Protective Action Zone (ERPG-3 levels). The Protective Action Zone is mapped in the Off-Site Consequence Analysis (OSCA). For chlorine the ERPG-3 is 20 parts per million (ppm) and the ERPG-2 is 3 ppm. Modeling Information Contra Costa County Health Services requires facilities to present a worst credible release scenario for each AHM handled. A worst credible release scenario is an accident for which a realistic cause was identified and it is the event with the highest consequence identified. The plumes presented in the EBMUD Bixler OSCA are for the worst credible release of chlorine. Below is a summary of plume lengths and widths for the worst credible release scenario for chlorine at EBMUD Bixler, modeled utilizing pessimistic meteorological conditions. It should be recognized that the plume origination point is not the facility fence line, but rather it is the area within the facility where the acutely hazardous materials are handled. Chemical ERPG-3 ERPG-2 L X W (meters) L X W (meters) Chlorine 2730 X 397 8280 X 760 Summary The protective action isopleth zones (at a concentration of 20 ppm of chlorine) postulated in the East Bay Municipal Utility District Bixler facility Risk Management and Prevention Program, encompass Village IV, Village III and the northern most portion of Village II for the planned development. Also, a vast portion of the recreational areas within the development and adjacent to the development are within the protective action zone. In addition, the entire development is within the notification isopleth zone (at a concentration of 3 ppm of chlorine). Taking these factors into consideration, our office recommends that the conditions of approval from our March 29, 1995 correspondence be included for all four villages of the development. HOFMANN COMPANY (Applicant) HOFMANN COMPANY AND EDNA FALLMAN (Owners) #2963-RZ A request to rezone land from General Agriculture (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) in the Byron-Discovery Bay area. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY July 11 , 1995 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON _ Count DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. y 40 DATE: July 11, 1995 �ouri`i� SUBJECT: Hearing on the Hofmann Discovery Bay West Project, Rezoning 2963-RZ, to Rezone Approximately 96.55 acres of Land to the Planned Unit District for 324 Residential Units, a 10 acre School Site, a 6.5 Acre Park Site, a Fire Station, Open Space Areas, Trails (recreational vehicle and park & ride lots) and .Other Landscaped Areas. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept as adequate and in compliance with CEQA the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum. 2. Approve Rezoning #2963-RZ along with the preliminary develop- ment plan, subject to conditions as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission and as amended (Attachment A) . 3. Adopt the Final EIR and Addendum and CEQA Findings (Attachment B) and approve the related Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . 4. Adopt the East County Regional Planning Commission's Findings as set forth in Resolution #14-1995 as basis for the Board's determination for this action. 5. Adopt the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning. 6. Direct staff to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning & Research for the above actions. FISCAL IMPACT Covered by developer fees. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Art Beresford 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Judy Coons, Auditor-Controller PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS David Joslin, CDD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR See page 3 for additional ccs. BY , DEPUTY 2. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION On May 23, 1995 the Board closed the hearing on 2963-RZ (Discovery Bay West) and directed staff to prepare final documentation for the rezoning project. The developer and the interested school districts were to provide documentation that suitable school mitigation agreements had been reached. The Board is to then approve the project with revised conditions (Attachment A) and adopt the final CEQA Findings and the EIR Addendum (Attachment B) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . Since May 23, 1995 the Board has scheduled this item weekly. the item was scheduled for June 6, 13, 20 and 27, 1995. To date the developer and the Knightsen School District and the Liberty Union High School District have not reached agreement on a school mitigation measures. At the June 27, 1995 Board hearing on 2963-RZ, the applicant requested that the Board consider a reduced P-1 proposal that would consist of proposed Village I only. Village I is located south of Point of Timber Road and east of Bixler Road. The Village, as proposed, contains 324 single family lots, a 10 acre school site, a 6.5 acre park-fire station site, 13.4 acres of open space (wetlands) , a park and ride lot, and a recreation vehicle parking area. The area of Village I is approximately 96.55 acres of land. Consideration of the rest of the project, north of Point of Timber Road, would be deferred. The applicant would have to file a new P- 1 rezoning request along with a new Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map at such time as they are ready to proceed to subject property. If 2963-RZ is approved for 324 single family residential units, together with associated public, seimi-public and open spaces uses (Village I) , then the following conditions as previously outlined on Attachment A would have to be deleted or modified: Condition #1 - delete points D and E. Condition #3 - modify from 2,000 units to 324 units. Condition #4 - delete paragraphs B, C, and D-2. Condition #5 - delete second sentence. Condition #6 - delete paragraphs B, C, D, and modify E deleting the dedication of development rights on the 200 acre of the Fallman Ranch. After Condition #il renumber conditions after #11 down one number as there was no Condition #12. This was an oversight. Condition #17 (renumbered to 18) - delet condition. Old Condition #20 - change reference to Condition #19 to the correct number #17. Old Condition #38 (renumbered to #36) - delete' reference to credit for private recreation. Old Condition #39 - delete. Old Condition #40 - delete. Old Condition #45 - delete. 3. old Condition #46 (renumbered to #41) - delete paragraphs 41.B. (last paragraph) ; 41.C.1) (delete all) ; 41.C.3)c, ; 41.C.3)e. ;41.C.4) .a.1 (delete all) ; 41.C.4)a.3 and 4 (delete all) 41.C.5)b.2 and 3 (delete all) ; 41.C.5)c. (delete all) ; 41.C.6) .b. (delete all) ; 41.C.8)c. (delete all) ; 41.C.9)a. (delete second and third paragraphs) ; 41.C.16)a. (delete sentence referring to area south of Fallman Boulevard and north of Point of Timber Road) ; 41.D.1) (delete all) ; 41.D.2) (delete all) ; 41.D.3) .b. to f. (delete) (keep 41.D.3.a.) ; 41.D.4) (delete all) ; 41.D.5) (delete all) ; 46.D.6) (all) ; 41.D.7) (all) ; 46-D.8) (all) ; 46.D.9) (all) ; 41.E.3) (delete all) ; 41.E.4) (delete references to Villages II, III and IV) ; 41.E.5) (delete reference to the water course along northerly and easterly property lines) . There were two corrections given for Condition #41 by the Public Works Department. They added the following sentence to Condition 46.A.1)b. : "The curb shall be inspected and repaired annually." There is a correction for Condition #41.E.8)d. : "Applicant" should be "Application". These corrections and deferrals are included in Attachment A. AB/aa BDIII/2963-RZ.AB cc: Hofmann Company County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Public Works Department Discovery Bay MAC Byron MAC Knightsen Town Council East Bay Municipal Utility District Health Services Dept. , Hazardous Materials Division East County Regional Planning Commission East Contra Costa Irrigation District Byron-Bethany Irrigation District East Bay Regional Park District RESOLUTION NO. 14- 1995 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE BY THE HOFMANN COMPANY (APPLICANT) AND THE HOFMANN COMPANY AND EDNA FALLMAN (OWNERS) , (2963-RZ) , IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE BYRON-DISCOVERY BAY AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by The Hofmann Company (Applicant) and The Hofmann Company and Edna Fallman (Owners) (2963-RZ) to rezone land in the Byron-Discovery Bay area from General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) was received on July 18, 1991; and WHEREAS, in connection with applicant's requests, an Initial Study of Environmental Significance was prepared by the Community Development Department which determined that the requested entitlements would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and County CEQA guidelines, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was prepared, posted and circulated; and {. WHEREAS, on October 23, 1989, the Hoffman Company requested a general plan amendment for its property consisting of approximately 1, 000 acres in the northeast quadrant of the State Route 4/Bixler Road intersection; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 1989 the Board of Supervisors authorized a study to consider amending the County General plan for a 1, 089 acre area that included the Hofmann Company property, along with adjacent Agricultural Lands within the area extends along the northeast quadrant of the State Route 4/Bixler Road intersection. It extends along the east side of Bixler Road from 2, 600 feet to 16, 000 feet north of the State Route 4/Bixler Road intersection; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 1993 the staff issued an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, including a general plan land use map, indicating an intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the general plan amendment, along with the underlying Hofmann Company project; and Page Two RESOLUTION NO. 14-1995 WHEREAS, on August 8, 1994, staff prepared and issued a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR, confirmed that copies of the Draft EIR were available for review; requested written comments to October 14, 1994; and WHEREAS, on September 12 and October 3 , 1994, the East County Regional Planning Commission noticed and conducted a public hearings on the Draft EIR and extended the period for written comments to October 14, 1994; and WHEREAS, in October 27, 1994 staff made available copies of the Final EIR for responsible agencies and public review; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1994 the East County Regional Planning Commission noticed and conducted a public meeting on the Final EIR and on December 5, 1994 the Commission found the EIR as complete and accurate under the California Environmental Quality Act, and recommended certification of the EIR to the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1994 and December 5, 1994, the East County Regional Planning Commission duly noticed and held public hearings on the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1994 the East County Regional Planning Commission recommended that letters submitted after the close of the written comment period on the Draft EIR, along with two sets on comments of Commissioner Hern and staff response be forwarded with the Final EIR to the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, certified the Environmental Impact Report for the project; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, approved the General Plan Amendment (4-93-EC) for the area; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the East County, Regional Planning Commission on Monday, December 5, 1994; whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1994, the East County Regional Planning Commission continued the hearing on the Hofmann Company's P-1 rezoning request (2963-RZ) to February 6, 1995; and Page Three RESOLUTION NO. 14-1995 WHEREAS, subsequent hearings were held by the East County Regional Planning Commission concerning 2963-RZ on February 6, 1995, March 6, 1995 and April 3, 1995; whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Monday, April 3, 1995, the East County Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that East County Regional Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that the rezoning request of the Hofmann Company (Applicant) and the Hofmann Company and Edna Fallman (Owners) (2963-RZ) be approved for change from General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) , and that .this zoning change be made as indicated on the findings map entitled: Pages M-28, N-28 and M-28m of the County's Precise Zoning Map. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the County General Plan. 2. The project will provide needed entry level housing for the area. 3 . The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half years from the effective date of the zoning change and/or plan approval. 4. The Development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 5. The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the zoning code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Planning Laws of the State of California. Page Four RESOLUTION NO. 14-1995 The instructions by the East County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, April 3, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Hern, Sobalvarro, Andrieu, Planchon, Wetzel, Hanson NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: ' Commissioners - Wagner ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None JANESS HANSON Chair of the East County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Secretary of the East Coun y Regional Planning Commission, Cou y of Contra Costa, State of California AB/df 2963-RZ.res Findings Map A•2 - li POINT OF TIMBER RD P I l/ A9 4 P-1 O Q :.-- - IM - A•40 A-3 y CrP. 0'. -� A-2 I ! �- _o%' f _ =- -MARSH CREEK RD131 r Rezone From A-3 To ?-I By Area 1, ,Chairman of the East County Regional Planning Commission,Contra Costa County,State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of l?A6E N-V6 OF: 11AE 141t ZOMkM& PAC) indicating thereon the decision�Qf the East County Regional Planning Commission in the matter of 4j5jH A I j DNS'r 2A b3 -Qz ATTEST: Secretary of the East County Re ional Planning Commission,State of Cali rnia D.7 ATTACHMENT "A" P-1 FINDINGS FOR 2963-RZ (DISCOVERY BAY WEST DEVELOPMENT) -AS RECOMMENDED BY THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 3 1995 Findings A. With the imposition of the Conditions of Approval this proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan and the General Plan Amendment recently approved for the site and surrounding area. B. With proper conditioning the Hofmann property development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community. C.- In accordance with required findings of the P-1 district, the County finds that the �- development is of a -harmonious, innovative plan and justifies exceptions from the- normal application of the code, including variances and parcel configuration and design - to provide a lbetter conformity with existing terrain features and land use limitations - - in the area. D. The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within two and one-half years of the effective date of the final project approval. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 2963-RZ (DISCOVERY BAY WEST DEVELOPMENT) - AS RECOMMENDED BY THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 3 1995 1 . The development shall be based upon the following submitted exhibits except as modified by the conditions below. These Conditions of Approval incorporate and are in addition to all approved mitigation measures. A. Revised Preliminary Development Plan, Discovery Bay West dated received January 11 , 1995. B. Preliminary Streetscape - Bixler Road dated received January 1 1 , 1995. C. Preliminary cross-section - Bixler Road dated received January 1 1 , 1995. D. T..r ictal play activity and seeeer field area Dissever y Bay West dated r 1 jams Fy 1 1 , 1996. D. Geotechnical Investigation Report by Kleinfelder Associates dated February 1 , 1990. E. Mitigation Monitoring Program as approved December 20, 1994 or as modified by further Board action. 2. Approved final development plans, in conformance with ordinance requirements, shall - be required prior to any site development on this project area. 3. The maximum number of primary residences allowed for this project is 2,009. 2 <i 4. The following major changes will be required in future final development plans/subdivisions for the site: A. Village I: 1 ) Redesign the area at the southeast corner of Bixler Road and Point of Timber Road to provide a more open design avoiding the use of a solid, continuous wall to separate the site from Point of Timber Road. There shall not be an exclusive project identification sign at this corner. 2) A day care center shall be developed in conjunction with the school in Village I subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. Alter- native locations can be considered. 3) Designate a community center site unless agreement has been reached with the Discovery Bay community to provide one at a different site. 3 B. Village II: )Det'ails ef the FeeFeat"en n+er Rd seniGF eitizens housing shall he submitted prier te develepmeRt ef Village 11 OF any pertieR of Village 11. Th senew eiti-,eRS heusing area Fnay have .three+ a s to Dein+ of TmmbeF Read-. 2 'rl atable emeFgeney t- ead_to the Danage.s property at z the northern end of + G + + i-Ti el Q h-b e r h e ed�e H$ref of Sc; 7ccrto 7ze n+Rg in the area ean satisfy +h'S FeqHiFement. 3) Design hey nen near the par!( lake area-te_take advantage of lake arc D id a final d elepmen+ plan fer the prepesed marines, ineluding +, i—eational fa mI'ties..n,+der a redes+gR by bringing the parking let te east of marina and plaeong the Fnarina further west inte + if table d .h' + to �-lam-C� Hf�F��—rr-crcce�Tcrrn��6�g{� 9f ��a�ec�cv I-- and appreval ef the Zoning AdFfliniStFa aeeeptable +e the Can+ Day Regional Dort Ilio+rie+ eF ether suitable n. blie 3) GensideF a suitable Par!( and Fide let in the vieinity of the main eAtFanee te Villages 111 and IV if Reeded wheR area is developed. 4) Design houses Rear the park_laLo areas_and the Fn Fina to take adyan tage of the lake and marina views, respeetiv*_. D. Entire Site: 1 ) At least three different types of Plot Plans for Village I and at least feLIF different types ef piet plans, such as a cottage design with a garage at back of lot, victorian style homes, houses with the living area-porch brought forward with a 5 to 15 foot setback shall be submitted.fer eaeh Cluster homes, patio homes and zero lot line homes shall also be considered. Modifications to the tentative map or development plan which do not adversely impact densities of village sub-areas can be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 4 3) A community center shall be provided as part of the Discovery Bay West project. The location and size of the community center shall be determined prior to the filing of the Final Map for this development or any phase of this development. The Hofmann Company shall dedicate the site and pay 50% of the building construction cost, including landscaping and parking lot costs. The community center shall be constructed within 12 months of the issuance of the first building permit or provided Discovery Bay community secures its 50% share of the building construction costs. If the Discovery Bay community has not secured their 50% share of the building construction costs prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the community center shall be constructed within one year of the community securing said funds. A site shall be designated in Village I. If a site is agreed upon in another area of Discovery Bay then the site may be developed subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. Project Phasing and Staff Costs: 5. The general phasing program for the development shall be acceptable to the Zoning Administrator and shall be submitted prior to any site development. A detailed phasing plan for each village shall be submitted prior to any development in a village subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all reasonable staff time involved in administering the Mitigation Program after any leftever application fees have been exhausted. This may include payment of funds required for peer review of required reports review, field visits, and response comments or reports as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 6-. The following actions shall take place before various phases ef the project a-re is developed or completely developed. A. The park area in Village I shall be landscaped and provided with suitable amenities. The cost of construction of the park can be applied toward required park dedication fees. The developer shall submit an acceptable phasing program for the park development. The park improvements shall be complete with the completion of the school, the 300th unit in Village I.-er pries-te B. The reereatmen eenteF may be phased subjeet te review and approval of the Zoning Administratw. The first phase of the eenteF shall be eenstrU6ted pFiGF to the issuanee of the 400th building permit in Village 11. G. The adjaeeTt par'( t;a i I area areand-the-lake-i n )o1i 1 I a g es 11, 111 and IV shall be 5 D PF*er to reeerding the Final Map for any phase an Village III allew feF a h' et to final Zening A,-I.Y,inist-t-, . and a al .,Ieng the aligin.ImeFtri-of-ihe-ESCenRtra Gesto ISIg,atien Dist-riet Canal to the Delta (I3redger GUt IRElian Slough) B. D edree a t$ development . ghts to the 0 Zc�Fa IMRim-DcRehrccs+re-f Villages IT the Final Map for any phase of Villages III eF W. Dedicate development rights to the 13.4 acres of wetlands at the southeast corner of the site to Contra Costa County prior to recording the Final Map for any portion of Village I. Street Addressing 7. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map for any portion of this development, plans shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and for street name approval (public and private). Alternate street names should be submitted in the event of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names and the assignment of street addresses. Consideration of historical local areas and pioneers in East Contra Costa County shall be used for as many street names as possible. Police Services Funding 8. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by future subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. (MM 8.7 and MM 9.3) Such provision shall j .1.0de an addif onal mltiaE level of police tax tllstnc;t fund ng of $z5 0:C3 per riorl opnen'space parcel n thepro�ect area; Qver,and above the standard. �nitraf Eeuel of $20 per parcel normally applied to; the vesting tentafive rnap approval for rsdent�al subdlvlslcins The added level of fundlig Is intended to ;be used for augmented marine; patr6J services espe :)ally the enforcement of:boat speed limits lh the;event<that the State determines to s'ubvent the costs of marine pafirol pr;or to _. the fJiing of a final:map this condition shaI. be null and vo,d. EMF Notification 9. Where a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following notice or other appropriate notice as approved by the Zoning Administrator: 6 "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made." When a Final Subdivision Public Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above-note in the report. Farm Operation Notice 10. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural area (MM 4.5 and MM 7.2): "This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land near an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life near the open space areas of Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase." Archaeological Concerns 1 1 . Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary and subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. (MM 1 1 .1 ) A. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 30 yards of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal hurnan remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. (MM 1 1 .1 ) 7 B. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. (MM 1 1 .1) C. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. (1 1 .1 ) Grading and Dust Control 12. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements (MM 4.1 and 6.2.1 .1 ): A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be generally limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days and times may be modified by prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject village notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. 8 D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances may require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, all-weather access shall be provided to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. TDM Plan 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future development of the site, the applicant shall submit a detailed TDM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless otherwise required by a TDM Ordinance). The TDM plan shall include measures to encourage commuting such as park and ride lots, and fiber optic wiring of residences. The approved TDM Plan shall be operative prior to final inspection of the first residence by the Building Inspection Department. The telecommuting facility is encouraged and may be designed as part of the recreation center or other appropriate location subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. (MM 6.2.2 and MM 6.2.4) Child Care 14. Provision of a Child Care Facility or program is required for this development as required by the County's Child Care Ordinance. The program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of the first Final - Map. A suitable child care center should be developed in Village I in conjunction with the school site subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and an agreement by the school district. The child care center location can be modified subject to Zoning Administrator approval. The child care center shall be in operation prior to occupancy of residences (other than senior housing) in Village II or when the school is operational. (MM 8.2) Indemnification 15. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 9 Project Construction 16. The project applicant will be required to comply with all necessary permits, including but not limited to, the NPDES permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity as well as applying for inclusion in the General Stormwater Permit issued by the State of California. The project applicant must also comply with all requirements of construction permits for Contra Costa County. The applicant must obtain C.W.A. Section 404 and Section 10 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers for construction in wetlands and navigable waterways for the marina as required by law. (MM 1 .1 .8) Ground Water Hydrology 17. The developer shall participate in the establishment, prior to development of the site, of a long term water quality management program, comparable to a program recommended by Luhdorff & Scalmanini of the degradation of ground water quality. The appropriate monitoring program will be one that identifies changes in quantity and quality of water and provides for responses to these changes in a timely fashion. This can best be accomplished by establishing a multi-aquifer monitoring network in cooperation with local agencies such as the BBID, Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Sanitation District #19) and ECCID. Means acceptable to Sanitation District #19 to finance the long term monitoring program shall be developed prior to site development. The long-term monitoring program shall include measures outlined in the Adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program acceptable to Sanitation District #19. (MM 1 .2.1 .) 1.8. As recommended in Condition #17, above in the mitigation of the degradation of groundwater quality and in the Luhdorff & Scalmanini reports, the developer shall participate in the establishment, prior to development of the site, of a long-term monitoring plan for the aquifer (regular monitoring of water supply wells currently in Discovery Bay, water supply wells outside of the developments, and monitoring wells capable of monitoring multiple aquifers) would identify changes in the quantity of water. Aquifer capacity and renewable resources should be documented and properly managed to prevent overdraft. If recoverable storage capacity of the aquifer is insufficient, an additional water supply source shall be investigated and developed. A Means acceptable to Sanitation District #19 to finance the long term monitoring program shall be developed prior to site development. The long term monitoring plan shall include measures outlined in the mitigation monitoring program acceptable to Sanitation District #19. (MM 1 .2.2) 10 Vegetation and Wetlands 19. The following measures are required for impacts to vegetation and wetlands. (MM 2.1 .1) A. Jurisdictional wetlands lost as a result of direct impacts of the project shall be compensated by the restoration or creation of wetlands at a minimum ratio of 1 :1 . Loss of significant natural wetland communities should be compensated for at a higher ratio to be determined by parties involved and the Corps of Engineers as part of the Section 404 permit process. B. Compensation should be of the same habitat type as affected wetlands (i.e., in-kind replacement) whenever feasible, or with the approval of Corps of Engineers, shall be of habitats of higher botanical and wildlife value. Mitigation areas should be on-site, if practicable, or located off-site within reasonable proximity to the project site. County policy requires that the mitigation site be located within Contra Costa County. C. Mitigation wetlands should be located in a large contiguous parcel with transitional zone and adjacent upland habitat to maximize the likelihood of success in creating habitat capable of maintaining viable populations of native plant and animal species. A buffer zone (preferably 50 ft. or greater in width) should be established and maintained around the edges of all wetland and terrestrial habitat used as mitigation for project impacts. 20. The following requirements are required for the mitigation of the damage to special status plant species. (MM 2.1 .2) - A. The first choice in mitigation would be to alter the project plan to avoid direct impacts on both individuals and habitats of these species. If such action is to be taken, steps must also be taken to ensure that indirect impacts associated with the project throughout its life do not significantly impact these special- status plants and their habitat. Alternatively, subject to measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program the project applicant shall establish replacement special status plant communi- ties located either on-site or off-site within reasonable proximity of the project. Advice on the mitigation project shall be sought from the California Department of Fish & Game. A means to fund over-site, long term shall be developed for this condition prior to development of a site containing or causing such an impact. 11 Mosquito Abatement 21 . Work with the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Abatement District staff to develop a mosquito source reduction and management plan. The developer shall cooperate with District staff in the development of a mosquito monitoring and source manage- ment plan. Applicant shall fund the development of the plan. Impacts to Special Animals 22. Impacts to Delta Smelt. (MM 2.2.5) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to Delta Smelt shall be taken. 23. Impacts to Southwestern Pond Turtle. (MM 2.2.6) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to Southwestern Pond Turtle shall be taken. 24. Impacts to Swainson's Hawk. (MM 2.2.8) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to the Swainson's Hawk shall be taken. 25. Impacts to Burrowing Owls. (MM 2.2.9) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to the Burrowing Owls shall be taken. 26. Impacts to San Joaquin Kit Fox. (MM 2.2.10) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to the San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be taken. Noise Impacts 27. Noise impacts to wildlife. (MM 4.2) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to wildlife shall be taken. 12 28. Noise conflicts between proposed uses. (MM 4.8) New residences must be constructed so that interior DNL is 45 dBA or less and so that indoor noise levels due to single noise events shall not exceed a maximum of 50 dBA in the bedroom and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. Geology, Soils and Seismic Hazards 29. The excavation of soil around the marina and lakes must be rigorously observed by trained professionals to identify any loose, clean sand and silt and peat in cut slopes; these should be excavated and replaced with compacted fill that includes a buttress that has been properly keyed into native soils and sediments and that has been properly constructed with engineered fill. A soils/geotechnical professional site acceptable to the Zoning Administrator shall be employed to monitor this measure as needed. (MM 3.1 ) A. The proposed mitigation for preventing groundwater flow from the brackish aquifer into surface water is to actively monitor excavation of the lakes. When flow from sands is identified, the sand should be excavated and replaced with buttress fills, keyed into less permeable clay-rich formations below the sand and constructed of compacted clay-rich soils to discourage active flow from the aquifer. (MM 1 .2.4) B. The proposed mitigation for the flow of loose soil into the lakes is the same as for mixing of groundwater and surface water. Excavation should be actively monitored, and sands from which groundwater flows, which may erode the loose (heaving) sands, should be excavated and replaced with buttress fills, keyed into less permeable clay-rich layers below and constructed of less permeable material to discourage flow. (MM 1 .2.5) C. At least 45 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading permit, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. D. The report required above shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefac- tion and seismic settlement. E. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller and' Or the County. 13 F. At least 45 days prior to issuance of permits to grade and create the lakes on the site, a suitable geotechnical report shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator detailing means to stabilize the lake bank in case of earthquake and reduced possible liquefaction dangers in this area. Impacts on Agricultural Lands 30. Suitable fencing shall be developed around projects perimeters to separate residential uses from surrounding agricultural lands and activities. (MM 7.3) Equitable sharing of the cost of the initial (and any subsequent) fence constructed to deter trespassing; etc., is to be arranged between the primary developer and any other developer who is active in the project area and benefits from the fencing if possible to do so. Impacts on School Districts 31 . The Discovery Bay West project shall assure the provision of adequate school facilities and levels of service from school districts serving the project, by way of the Beard of ......................... exe.cutedi School Mitigation Agreement, which School Mitigation Agreement shall contain provisions and provide for payment to affected school districts in amounts aeeeptable t„sHeh sehee' distriets deter€rtrned n the agrr~ement f3etwden the developer and school ;d' t:8, in order to . ..... mitigate the impacts of their project on school facilities. approval of any development. (MM 8.1 .1 , 8.1 .2, 8.1 .3) Increased Demand for Water and Sewer Systems 32. The site for Discovery Bay West shall be annexed into Contra Costa Sanitation District #19 prior to recording the final map on any portion of the development. (MM 8.3) A. Completion of a water supply study and a water system master plan acceptable to CCCSD 19 for the area within the Urban Limit Line is required as a condition of project approval. The study must define a funding mechanism that ensures new development pays for improvements to serve it exclusively. B. In the study of water supply, include consideration of how to reclaim water and reuse it. Reclaiming water and using reclairned water are encouraged by the County General Plan. 33. Annexation of the proposed project area into Sanitation District 19, predicated on agreement by the district and The Hofmann Company on condition for annexation and fulfillment of such conditions within an agreed-on schedule. Conditions would include determination of technical standards and design of the expansion of the existing sanitary sewer system. (MM 8.4) 14 Police Protection 34. Measures to reduce or prevent crime incidents should be coordinated and include both physical design measures (including lighting for streets, parking areas, and entries; clear address signs; door and window security design and locks), social measures (including neighborhood crime watches, anti-violence support groups, and education programs), and legal measures (control in selected areas for selected types of water activities, e.g., swimming, jet skis, etc.). Plans to accomplish the above shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department for comment prior to development of the site. (MM 8.7) Fire Protection 35. Before recording any Final Map negotiate to design, construct, and equip a fire station for service to the project area as required by the East Diablo Fire Protection District or its representatives. The construction of the fire station can either fully or partially satisfy fire fees. Later nearby developments may be required to reimburse the developer on a pro-rata basis. The primary developer must also design streets and other features in the project area to accommodate fire and other emergency vehicles. (MM 8.8) Park and Recreation Facilities/Recreation Uses 36. General Plan standards for neighborhood park acreage and facilities are to be met by the proposed project through arrangements acceptable to the Community Development Department by The Hofmann Company, such as the provision of "common area" - acreage for recreational use. Suitable improvement of the public park may be used to partially meet park requirements.as ean up te 5014 area if IaFge enough and high quality enough private outdOOF FeereatieRal areas a+e PFeVided within the gated 6eFFIFnUR4-Y-. shall be pursued. if an agreement eannet be made, The Hofmann GempaRy Fnay n to make etheic arrangemeRts with the Irrigation Distriet, sHeh as the addition ef-a suitable seeHr itcy-f enee. Removal Pf Any Rnnted House 40. The heusehold of eaeh existing Fesidenee, Fenting er living in the Fesidenees at the ti of development, if net eleeting-t-e-purchase-a-u o°a heA effer-ed fer sale, shaIrl �e 15 Right of Farming Ordinance 37. If the County's right to farming ordinance has been adopted prior to the issuance of building permits on this site, the developer shall inform future owners of that ordinance informing them of the right to farm within the Contra Costa County area. Removal of Existing Water Wells/Hazardous Chemicals on Site 38. Any hazardous chemical stored on the site shall be properly removed and disposed of under County Health Services Department regulations. Any existing water wells on the site shall be properly capped under County Health Services Department regulations. A Level I hazardous waste assessment shall be conducted on the site prior to filing of any Final Map that verifies that the site does not contain any hazardous waste. Irrigation Districts 39. Prior to recording the final map for phases on this site, confirmation shall be received from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District and East Contra Costa Irrigation District that any facilities they have on the site have been properly moved or removed as the case may be, or as an alternative a letter from the District may be submitted indicating that they have no facilities on the site that will be disturbed as a result of this development. East Bay Municipal Utility District Chlorine Facility 40. At present the East Bay Municipal Utility District stores gaseous chlorine one-half mile north of the north end of the Discovery Bay West site. There may be plans to remove the gaseous chlorine from the facility in the future. However, this has not been decided yet. If, when development starts on this site, the gaseous chlorine facility is _ . ............................................................. still in place then the developer shall accomplish the following pnor:to the issuance of the karst F!nal Builid�ng P;ermit #or this project. A. Give all residents, homeowners, and renters full disclosure regarding the presence of chlorine at the EBMUD Bixler site. B. The development shall support a proportionate share of the cost of the Community Alert Network System (CAN), the emergency notification system being installed throughout the County (which will include the installation of a siren system). The system is designed to warn the residents of the develop- ment if a large scale accidental release of hazardous materials occurs. C. The development should Shall.f,.ensure that the homes are as air tight as feasible ........... by providing superior window seals, door seals, positive closure for fireplace dampers, etc. A periodic replacement program should be established as seals have a finite life. (To reduce indoor air pollution, the homes should be thoroughly ventilated prior to occupancy.) 16 D. All homeowners should s*'al'I. be provided with sufficient information regarding shelter-in-place and the actions that should be taken in the event of an accidental chemical release. These E '$&U. iianal materials: shat#;be written in plan angu......0. wi[f b tle.rebopet! er1 const�ltafion with fihe Hzardqu 11/later€ats DivrSrpn of the Gbunty Health Services Qeaprtrnerit, sub},eet to tYie review and approval of the Zoning Atlm nr5tra br`. If the facility is removed or the process is changed then this requirement can be deleted subject to Zoning Administrator approval after review by the Hazardous Matreials Division of the County Health Department. If, upon further review by the Hazardous Materials Division of the County Health Department, it is determined by the Health Department that the chlorine facility could not have a significant effect on Village I, then the above condition can be modified subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. 46. A hemeewneFS asseeial-en will be reqHired On Villages 11, 1'' and IV fef the maintenan ef the ffivate reads, lakes, reeFeatien areas, Fnaf W na, trails and etheF landseaped aFeas-. Road and Drainage 41 . The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department. A. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: - The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code which include, but are not limited to the following requirements: 1) In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in these conditions of approval. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan dated March, 1995, submitted to Public Works. An exception to allow a 0.75% minimurn grade is allowed subject to Public Works approval providing: a. The soil engineer recommends reduced grades and signs the improvement plans; and 17 b. The applicant warrants the curb flow from ponding for five years following completion. The*Curb shall b:e inspected,and r..par�ed _. annually:> 2) Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. This project necessarily involves some diversions of watershed. However, since these diversions generally discharge to tidal bodies of water with adequate cross section and capacity, these diversions may be considered appropriate, subject to review and approval of Public Works. 3) Conveying storm waters in an adequate storm drain system to a: duly organized Homeowner Association; Municipal Improvement District; or Reclamation District drainage facility serving the area, is acceptable, provided the applicant obtains a letter from that entity accepting the drainage. Provide appropriate drainage releases where public waters enter private facilities. 4) Diversions resulting in discharge of storm waters into the Contra Costa Canal or any other water conveyance or impounding facility for domestic water consumption is prohibited by the Ordinance Code. It is acknow- ledged that Agricultural lands presently drain to the ECCID facility. Landscaped areas, so long as they do not create diversions, may follow pre-existing drainage patterns, subject to review and approval of Public Works. 5) For anything in these conditions of approval, which is subject to the approval of Public Works, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. B. TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES: The project traffic mitigation fees will be collected at the tirne of the Building Permit for each residential unit of this development. No mitigation fees will be collected from non-residential construction. The project traffic mitigation fee shall consist of: * The Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee (ECCSRTMF). This fee is for construction of the State Highway 4 Bypass. 18 * The East County Regional Area of Benefit fee (ECRAOB). This fee is to improve local roads identified on the Circulation Element of the County General Plan. * The Project Traffic Mitigation Fee. This fee is $6,500 (revised annually to reflect inflation, using the State of California Construction Cost Index as published annually by Caltrans, as a reference) less the East County Regional Area of Benefit fee and is used to mitigate project impacts not covered by the above fees. The difference between the adjusted $6,500 Project Traffic Mitigation Fee and the ECRAOB fee shall be put into an interest earning Road Improvement Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800 or other project specific fund) to be used to mitigate off-site local road and intersection improvements as reasonably determined and approved by the Public Works Department, which are identified in the EIR or the Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program, and are not included in an established area of benefit. These funds will not be used for on-site improvements; frontage improvements; the off-site improvement of Bixler Road from the project to State Highway 4; improvement of Point of Timber Road from Bixler Road to Byron Highway; the project's 50% share of the signal at the Bixler Road-State Highway 4 intersection; signalization of the State Highway 4- Discovery Bay Boulevard intersection; or any necessary construction traffic . mitigation along the specified project construction haul routes. if, after the 600th Build ng Permit, the Flexible Mitigatien P. tering Pregir determines that traffie assumptions have ehanged signifieantly and a Fnedifiea EentFilaution shall be modified at the 15011 st Building Permit na!er the 1201 t IVIG f the EGRAQ13 C. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: ment of up to 600 units based E)R these eenditieRs ef appreval, p! ff e e +r„ +' t + u. The Fn�ri e i i review' - a —shall ra Fithe f e r rn of—v e-t-te-r redert sum+narizFrg the--ebse-rved--prejeet develepment-tom Fwent assH ptiens„r€ast GeHAty. This new infeFFnatien will be e as to whether or nearaffie,assumptieRS have-ehanged 19 the CSI rR. b. The Flexible Mitigation Menitering Program will review the tra sn-n-np-ir than at the 400th Hnit and the 110 unat, and shall be eempleted Fespeetively by the 600th unit and the 1-200th unit to determine if the traffi, assumptiens the mplementatien E)f the State Route 4 Bypass shall be eensideFed). i if the initial assHFAp-Liens made are still val;d, the Fni#� (Fevased annually to Fef ee� iRflation, using the State of CalifE)FRia GeRstFHeteen Gest index as published annually by Caltrans, as a FefeFeRee) for additional eff site Fe impeveY enter after the forst inn H nits and the f'rr.t 120-0 units, et;, el, 2. if the traffie-assdmptiens have the worse and there eeHld be new, or additional, signifi- r,t p et ets net ;r entified in the CIR the o p, i eant shall peFfeFFn a more detailed tFaffie study to det mine tra€#moimpaets of the next phis t (e.g., 601 to 1 ,200 or 1 ,200 to bHi!dE)Ht) and reeemmen-d imnitc;gatiorn FneasuFes based en the Rew traffie assump t' Th + study, d th d tr ff' 'tig Trei'rS �r a f f i�,n-��a i i a the s�r'vf^,ro�ca n a i��c-ri-�ri n 9 c- t!E) rneasHres shall ^ s bjeet to the review and a D hl'nWorks. raff' t' res 'f e#-T-� This �m,-„-�-r;,,�a t+e;T-mTea-st��� rl;ff.,FeRt freffl these ;.-entified in the CIR be sHbj ,. r te-Teview at a public hearing. A.,,, signifiearit c4 dated tfaff e et .hieh eannet alif,. fer the EGR A OB or other fe_area ,il�e the sih;l;ty of th„ nr,t;f' rlt tri I d-cr m„2Q-s rg n F�ea i;r-rru Ti;-km-puctcri�-shall require mitiga tion . RIY 'f the level of s e does Rot Fn et the .,depte i trt f�e02l of serviee standard. The-pr-ejee*camppliean-t shall arrange fer mitigatien of eh newly of the 650th Building PeFoznit, and again prier to of the 1 360th oUildirig-RerF its if Re6esssar , 3. Irr,paets VVhi6h were id-e t,,,ed 'n the 'n't;al CIR projeet list, will be sideFed satisfied fer that nt of tome ;f impar.ts a iFlSigRifiearit (s h' et to the review at a uhl'.. 20 heaFiRg if Feqt3*Fed by law), and the appFE)Val of the Zening AdministratElF. (FINDINGS FOR IMPACT #36, NWA.G.) 6. The applieant shall submit a biannual Flexible Mi.;-ataen Menoter- ffejeetfs mitigation funds eewneneing at the 660th Building r eir r r�t and MA1�9FHng--rr$Q C a,Fnr, the prep es ed tremTc-mTrrg o-trorr-mrctiScir'es arid-,mitering ef-the-prejeet and Feview of these ; e. The pre)eet appIFeant shall pay its 'share of the eests of the f u+, .v edifieata , of the `t CIR• new et traffie mitigation et rr , of benefit to refleet additional . ets result of I"1i..,.,.. eFy Bay West; and modification of the County GeReFal Plan to aeeeFnlznedate the same purpose. The applueant shall en!y be Fequired to pay a fair share efthe east of ,Y e difieatien of the area of benefit pFegram if prejeets are being added throuigheut the PFe g ram-a Fe-as.- H6aPeoe-C, I fthe aFca-e f benefit 'rc irnodif'r2d selely at the , this pr-ejeet, then-the applieant shall beaF all ee 2) Construction Truck Traffic Mitigation: a. Prior to issuance of the first residential Building Permit, the applicant shall widen Bixler Road off-site to a minimum width of 28-feet from the limit of Permit 3031-91 and Subdivisions 7679 and 7881 obligations to the Phase 1 project entry. At the applicant's option, these widening improvements may be either an interim improvernent or a portion of the ultimate improve- ments discussed in 3)c. below. If a 28-foot width has not been constructed from the southerly limit of the applicant's responsi- bility to State Highway 4, the applicant shall widen Bixler to a 28-foot minimum width all the way to Highway 4. Any perma- nent or "ultimate" improvement constructed by the applicant which is the obligation of the properties involved in the above noted developments shall be subject to reimbursement through reirnbursernent agreements administered by the County. The applicant shall direct construction related truck traffic to the site via Bixler Road from State Highway 4, restricting construction 21 related damage essentially to only Bixler Road. (FINDING FOR IMPACT #68, MMB.c.) At the developers option, construction truck traffic may also use Point of Timber Road after it has been widened to 28 feet. Applicant shall leve su;bmJt imp o . ver. t _. plans, pay inspection and plan review fees for these road improvements. The applicant may use Newport Drive for no more than one month as a construction detour while Bixler Road is under construction. In no case will Newport Drive be used as a construction haul route. In order to determine the pre-project road conditions the appli- cant shall, prior to project grading, provide a video road survey for the following roads: Balfour Road from Bixler Road to Byron Highway; Bixler Road north to Orwood Road; and Marsh Creek Road from Bixler Road to State Highway 4. b. Construction Road Maintenance Agreement The applicant shall execute a bonded construction road mainte- nance agreement, assuring the County that the specified project haul route(s) will be maintained in a convenient, passable condition throughout the construction period. The bond shall consist of a cash bond of $1 5,000 together with additional security totaling the cost of upgrading of the specified project haul route(s). The bond shall be provided prior to the approval of the first phase subdivision improvement plan and shall remain in effect until the haul routes are improved to handle the traffic, or until upgraded construction is completed. C. Construction truck traffic monitoring: If the applicant uses non- designated streets for construction truck traffic, he shall repair the roads to the pre-project condition prior to filing the next Final Map, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. If the maintenance is not completed in a timely manner, the County will activate the Construction Road Maintenance Agreement for funds to perform the maintenance. d. Provide sufficient parking on-site for construction crews and associated personnel. The applicant shall not permit construction crews and equipment to park along currently existing public roads or interfere with neighborhood agricultural operations. e. Applicant shall indicate on all subcontracts, bulk and custom lot sales contracts, homeowners association documents, et al, that construction truck traffic shall use State Highway 4 and Bixler Road as construction access to this development, unless other 22 routes have been specifically designated by Applicant as outlined in 2)a. above. 3. Bixler Road Frontage Improvements: a. Applicant shall construct Bixler Road pavement widening with the easterly curb face established by first assuring a minimum 5- foot clear distance from any ditches on the westerly side to the edge of any required paved shoulder and thereafter providing the required lane and shoulder widths, but not less than 32-feet from existing centerline. b. Existing Bixler Road shall be reconstructed, or overlayed if studies warrant. The pavement shall be striped to provide one 12-foot northbound lane with a 6-foot shoulder and one 12-foot wide southbound lane with a 6-foot shoulder plus necessary channelization at intersections from the southerly boundary of Village I to Balfour Road. 6. Buxler Read shall be a 36 feet read width (2 12 foot lanes and of Village IV.IV. The—easterly—6HFb IiRe shall be 32 feet existing eeRtedine. The westeFly portion of the existing readway may be used as a separeted-seuthbound bike path/equestrian trail. HeweveF, delineation should Ret allow vehuele tFaffie to use this pertien of the old readway. d. Construct curb, 5-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), street lighting, landscaping and irrigation (EIR Mitigation RMCir-22). (FINDING FOR IMPACT #51 , MMC.c.) e. The a I be required te ee Ells c rd ct safety 'm""-ip r-o v 2i rrci i rJ aieng the freAtage of the Evan's pr-&�. f. Pads for the proposed bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be clear of the sidewalk area at potential bus stops. g. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage along the east side only. h. The applicant may need to remove and replace the roadway if required by the grade, alignment analysis and determination of structural adequacy, subject to the review and approval of Public works. t. The applicant shall submit improvement plans and pay inspection and plan review fees prior to filing of the Final Map. 23 4) Bixler Road, Off-Site Improvements: a. Bixler Road: i The applieant shall widen and overlay Bi)(IeF Read fFE)Fn the- r oleet-site-t to the-northerly limit of the preposeEl Subdwv*s'en 7679, Subdivision 7881 and PeFMit 3031 91 obligations to a 34 feet pavement width (FINDING FOR tiens to the d*teh system to FnaiRtain existing eapaeity it Permit or issijanee of Building Permits in Villages Hi eF IV and shall eomplet'e-the-improvements within one yea+ ­teF. The pli nt shall Fervieve, .,Iaee and widen the readway if required by the aligRment analysis and/or rleter.V,onat'. of strk t al -,rleq roe.. If .,Iaeperneent ..f approval of Publie Works. If the developers of Subdiv+'_ Sion 7679, Gubd*v6s*oR 7881 and,'E)F Permit 3031 91 haN not hended and/or eenstFHeted 130)(ler Road to a 34 feet width all the way te State Highway 4 Prier to issuanee of the 400th Building Permit, the appileant will be respensi- to provide a 34 feet vvidth ever aR'e defieient segment of B')(ler Read-. 2. If Bixler Road is reconstructed the minimum road grades will be adhered to. ? The Off s6te R'),In. Read i mvnrr shall be (designndd prior to filing of the FiRal Map for V kage H. The applieartt and plan review fees prier to filing ef said Final Map. 4. The applieaRt-shall provide-additienal Fight of way-,-4 eeessary for-The-roadway and Pertiensof the d+tz" system prefect-storm watof`', sHbjeet to thew request Rd expense, Ruhlic Works .vial obtain the 24 5. It is understood and acknowledged that certain portions of these off-site Bixler improvements may be impossible or impractical to construct due to wetland regulation or policy requirements. If Public Works determines that such occasion should arise, the applicant may be permit- ted to reduce the shoulder requirements, but in no case shall less than 28 feet of pavement be provided. b. State Highway 4 Signal at Bixler Road and at Discovery Bay Boulevard 1 . Arrange for Signalization of the State Highway 4 inter- section at Bixler Road prior to issuance of 200 Building Permits in this development if not already assured or completed by others at that time. Fifty percent of the signalization cost of the Bixler Road signal is reimbursable from the property owners at the northwest and northeast quadrants of this intersection. One hundred percent of any widening costs for Bixler Road is reimbursable from the same parties. Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan review fees, and apply for a Caltrans encroachment permit prior to improving the intersection. 2. If the Bixler Road traffic signal has been installed, the applicant shall contribute 50% of the cost of the traffic signal, prior to issuance of the 200th Building Permit, to a Road Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800) designated for reimbursement for its installation. 3. If the Bixler Road traffic signal is not warranted prior to issuance of the 200th Building Permit, the need for the traffic signal at the State Highway 4 - Bixler Road inter- section shall be analyzed by the Public Works Department prior to filing each Final Map, up until the 1800th lot when the applicant shall contribute a cash deposit, equal to 50% of the signal construction cost as determined by Public Works, to a County Road Improvement Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800). 4. The applicant shall bond for the State Highway 4-Discov- ery Bay Boulevard traffic signal prior to filing of the first Final Map. The traffic signal shall be installed and operational one year following the issuance of the first building permit, exclusive of model homes. If the traffic signal is not operational within the one year period, no further building permits will be issued. 25 5) Point of Timber Road, On-Site (Bixler Road to the east): a. Bixler Road to "D" Street: 1 . Applicant shall reconstruct Point of Timber Road to at least a 60-foot curb to curb pavement width within an 80-foot right of way from Bixler Road to "D" Street with Village I. 2. Construct curb, 5-foot 6-inch sidewalks (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation. 3. The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet behind the curb face. 4. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. 5. The applicant shall submit improvement plans and pay inspection and plan review fees prior to filing of the Final Map for this portion of Point of Timber with the improve- ment plans for the subdivision creating the 250th lot. b. "D" Street to the Easterly Boundary of Village I: 1 . Applicant shall install (on the south side) curb, 5-foot 6- inch sidewalk(width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation and grade the ultimate roadway with construction of Village I improvements abutting this segment. The location of the frontage improvements shall provide for: ultimate widening of the roadway to a 40-foot pavement width; widening to at least a 56-foot width at the D Street intersections; and necessary conforms. l street2. Genstruet Tci sc. Village 11 'improvements. 3. GORstr et . ad with viii-.ge 11 imprevements. 4. The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet behind the curb face (30' from centerline). 5. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. 26 of Village-N- 1 "^^lieenshal�+den Fein'of Timber fleedie at least a 28 feet pavement width; and pFeVide neeessaryeenferms at the easterly-beundaFy-ef Village and the- , boundary ef Village 11 as paFt ef the Village ". The euFb faee shall be leeated 20 feet nE)Fth of the existing ad a Marline (east of Village I the s „+her_ ly widening, beyend 28 feet tetal width, shall be th-e 2. Genstraet-(en the+fie•t,T;-side) 6uFb,-3 feet-6 iT,eh side- walks (width measur �fFem eH;,h f a ae) —n eeessa;=Y landsceappmg and irrigation- —witer with of the abutting portion of Village !I. ? right way_ l be leeated t least 10 feet v. ��'right �I, t,,,I,I,1�e`-�$n�c`31,�c-ry�Tca 'a�i —rvTccc h.,cehiRv-che-etltY7-faee(30' from e nterIine\ it Provide Reeessary Ir Rgit, .final and tFans„^rs^ dra'n 6) Point of Timber Road, Off-Site (west of Bixler Road): a. Point of Timber Road frorn Bixler Road to Byron Highway: 1 . Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan review fees prior to 200th Building Permit. 2. Prior to issuance of the 300th Building Permit, widen and reconstruct, if necessary, Point of Timber Road to a 28- foot pavement width (two 14-foot lanes with 2-foot compacted shoulder backing) and maintain ditch capaci- ties. This work is intended to divert project traffic away from Balfour Road (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-21 ) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #50, MM.B.c.) 3. The applicant with the cooperation and assistance of Public Works shall provide additional right of way, if necessary, for the roadway and the ditch system, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. b Point of Timber Q.,ad/ByreR Highway/State Highway 4 intersect 27 ") PFiE).—t-o the final e fh e—f first m a� f e r-Village 111,44e. e. Highway interseetieR and the ByFen Highway State .................... n=rrn. ? The Ge Rty at n .• lieant'S st shall aequire a" a d.di 4. One h,,n dFe d p Rt of these inte.-seetion Rts and right of way aequisitiens shall be eligible feF Feim 7) Project Improvements (Village I Public Improvements): a. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, approval of the first set of improvement plans or first Final Map, install signage along: Balfour Road, Point of Timber Road, and Marsh Creek Road westerly to State Highway 4; and along Bixler Road north of State Highway 4, to warn project traffic of farm vehicles and provide farm vehicle crossings (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-23) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #52, MMD.c.) 8) Road Dedications and Reservations (for Public Roads): a. Bixler Road: Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for at least the east half of the planned 84-foot right of way width along the frontage of Bixler Road. The eastern side of the right of way shall be increased at the project access points along Bixler Road to provide for channelization for turning movements to and from this development. The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet from the curb face. Off-site, the applicant shall provide for adequate rights of way or easements for the proposed road improvements including the ditch systems, however, the County will conduct the acquisitions of applicant's costs if applicant requests. 28 b. Point of Timber Road: Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, an 80-foot right of way between Bixler Road and "D" Street. East of "D" Street, the applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, a 60-foot right of way, plus additional right of way for left turn channelization and conforms along the project frontage, where this development fronts on both sides of the road. Where this development only fronts on one side of Point of Timber Road, the applicant shall dedicate at least a 30-foot right of way (measured from the centerline of the existing right of way) (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-32). The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet from the curb face. Off-site, the applicant shall provide for adequate right of way or easement for the proposed road improvements including the ditch systems, however,the County will conduct the acquisitions at applicant's cost if applicant requests. .P anlages aeeesr. IeRg west side-ef the lake. A ppI; ant sh IF prev,Qe a 56' maximum Feveeablereservation fee a „hlie readway fef a pessible future read aleng the westerly edge--of the lake E)R the Pantages property (FINDING FOR IMPACT #-64-, MM M n Of the ewneF/develeper of the Pantages n erty ean .,te that this d de+�e+}s-t �--ea n n er� e-a s#Ihe le atedOR the I PaRtages property eijtside wetland and within twe years __.. ..f ., nl',. nt's filing�th� f;r s t�FFinal fer Village I I.F + e +f+e t+ te -krti future .,t n to the RE)Fth too e the nertherl., PE)Ft;en of the PanTT[u9Ls property, ifthis area -ean be—pFevcn t6--be feasibly the Pantages property. d. Access along the southeast side of the Fire Station/Park Pro- perty: Provide an offer of dedication for a 60-foot right of way between Newport Drive and the eastern boundary of this property along the southeast side of the "Fire Station/Park" property. The alignment shall be rough graded to approximate finish grades with Village I grading, but no road improvements need be constructed with this project. Prior to the road being approved, the adjacent property owner shall expand the park site to compensate for the road right of way take. 29 e. The applicant shall provide right of way for future bus turnouts on the Bixler Road, Newport Drive and Point of Timber Road frontage of this property at appropriate locations in consultation with the responsible transit authority. Adequate right of way shall be provided for the bus turnouts, and the future bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers. 9) Abutter's Rights of Access (Public Roads): a. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Bixler Road, Point of Timber Road and Newport Drive, including curb returns. Access shall be permitted at the access points specifically approved with this project. Access points shown on the Preliminary Develop- ment Plan and the following additional points shall be permitted: the EGGID Canal at least 800 feet from_+he ether p r.+ the , nity .enter and multiple family * Emergency vehicular access locations, park and ride lots, pedestrian access points, and at the proposed RV storage area. b. Prohibit all single family residential driveway access onto major collector or arterial roads that provide project-wide circulation (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-29) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #58, MMJ.c.). 10) Sight Distance (Public Roads): a. In accordance with Caltrans standards provide for adequate corner sight distance at: * The project entrances to Bixler Road for a design speed of 55 miles per hour. * Other intersections with Newport Drive for a design speed of 40 miles per hour. * Other intersections with Point of Timber Road for a design speed of 40 miles per hour. b. Provide adequate corner sight distance, in accordance with County standards, for the following intersections: 30 * Village I: Newport Drive at "DDDD" Street, and at "ZZZ" Street; "AAAA Street at "BBBB" Street; "UUU" Street at "RRR" Street; and "VVV" Street at "RRR" Street. 1 1) Street Lights (Public Roads): a. Street lights shall be install on the public roads, within this subdivision and fronting this property, and the entire property annexed to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lighting. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by Public Works. Application for annexation to CSA L-100 Lighting District shall be submitted prior to filing of the Final Map. 12) Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities (Public Roads): a. The applicant shall construct 5-foot 6-inch sidewalks on Newport Drive from the southerly boundary of this property to Bixler Road. b. The applicant shall construct 6-foot 6-inch sidewalks on "D" Street from Newport Drive to Point of Timber Road. C. Construct a 6-foot meandering asphalt concrete sidewalk along the east side of Bixler Road from the project site to the sidewalk proposed in Permit 3031-91 (the Ujdur property) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #51 , MMC.c.). Where the sidewalk is adjacent to a roadside ditch, it shall be located a minimum of 2-feet from the top of the roadside ditch. OR, construct a new 5-foot 6-inch concrete sidewalk (width measured from back of curb, if adjacent to curb) along the west side of Newport Drive to Kellogg Creek, connecting with the proposed pathway location in Permit 3031-91 . This improve- ment (either alternative) shall be constructed within six (6) months of the completion of the first commercial use in Permit 3031-91 or at request of Public Works. d. Provide bike lanes with a minimum width of 5-feet (width is included in shoulder) on the following streets: Bixler Road; Point of Timber Road from Bixler Road to the east; Newport Drive; "F" Street and "D" Street. Prohibit parking (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-36a) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #65, MMA.c.), or provide adequate additional pavement width. 31 13) Utilities/Undergrounding (Public Roads): a. All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the existing overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of Point of Timber Road and the easterly frontage of Bixler Road. b. Relocate and/or adjust utility distribution facilities, where necessary, for all other off-site improvements. 14) Parking (Public Roads): a. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along roads with inadequate width for parking, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. For lots with less than a 50-foot wide frontage a parking study shall be provided for all roadways where less than 1 on-street parking spaces will be provided for each residence. On street parking requirements may be satisfied by providing parking bays, supplemental on-site parking, or other reasonable alternatives subject to the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Adequate parking shall be provided within an acceptable distance of each residence, subject to the approval of Public works. b. Prohibit parking on all project major collector or arterial roads including "D" Street and Newport Drive, except where the road is widened to accommodate parking. On the remaining road- ways, provide adequate paved width for necessary parking (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-26) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #55, MMG.c.) C. "No Parking" signs shall be posted along the north side of "F" Street, unless the roadway is widened to at least a 40-foot curb to curb width within a 60-foot right of way. 15. Landscaping (Public Facilities): a. Prior to filing eat the;final map, the applicant shall apply to the Public Works Department for annexation to the County Land- scaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping and irrigation facilities in median islands, parkways, and other public project areas not within the gated areas of Villages II, III and IV. b. Prior to filing eaeh the: final map, two sets of landscape and irrigation plans and cost estimates, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted to the Special District Section of the Public Works Department for review and recom- 32 mendation and forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. Plan submittal shall include plan review and inspection fees. Types and size of plant and irrigation materials within the public right of way shall be designed using reasonable standards provided by the Grounds Service Manager of the General Services Department. All landscaping and irrigation facilities shall be maintained by the applicant until funds become available for their maintenance by the County after final inspec- tion is cleared. C. Permanent landscaping and automatic irrigation facilities shall be installed within the public road parkway and median areas, and interim landscaping features shall be installed within the future road areas, if any. All work shall be done in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the County. Funding of, and maintenance of, the new plantings shall be guaranteed by the developer until the plants have been established and until funds are available through a landscaping district. The plants shall be maintained for 90 days after installation. The Cournty Landscaping District Adrn�nrstrator shalt cooroina: thej landsca.piirig program.......An Discovery Bay West vurth the Discovery Bay MAC by annually revrewmg the drstrrc 's program budget aril 00, in 6udgeit rnforrmatror to the MACon a regular basis. ................ ................ ................ 16. Transit: a. Certain bus turnouts, bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers shall be constructed by the applicant if transit service is established prior to recording of the last Final Map for this development. The location of these facilities shall be determined in cooperation with the responsible transit authority. Preliminary locations along the east side of Bixler Road are: south of Newport Drive; south ef Fal'14�61R Boulevard; Reirth of Point of tl and !". The installation of these facilities shall be assured prior to recording of the next Final Map after transit service is established to the project. The obligation to install these facilities shall terminate if public transit to the project is not assured at the time the last Final Map is recorded. Pads for the bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be clear of the sidewalk areas. b. Provide pedestrian connections from the transit stops to the internal project sidewalk system. Provide for installation of bus shelters at each pullout if transit service begins (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-34a) (FINDINGS FOR IMPACT #63, MM A.c.) 33 17. School Access: a. Coordinate with the school district on the design of the school site to accommodate a one-way circulation pattern with a large student loading/unloading area separated from the main collector streets (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-20) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #49, MM A.c.) The applicant shall coordinate with the school district to allow for a bus loading/unloading area separ- .......................... .............................. ated from the autemat+e automobile; loading/unloading area. b. Extend "MMM" Street easterly to the school site if requested by the school district to provide better school access. Access to the school from "D" Street shall be designed to minimize traffic conflicts on "D" Street. D. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS: 11 Private Read Impreye nts (Villages 11 III f2. Mi A I' + shall e str et the p ate ads . 4hin this ,Jeyelepment to a Th. shall be Re 28 feet wide private . a.lways (CID Mitigate M e RMG4r 26 and 26) nlr, s the ad s s less than 1 it ^tee?, adequate Parking has beeR assured, and the street b. 32 feet private readways within 37 fOet ffivate read easement-s +h a G feet r, .hlie u tilitie ., r,r and with Fell ^ rh shall serve no more han 50 Hnots. AdditieRal eff street parking ma­y +ha eRe eR street Rd two eff street parkingspaeesf8 r.h FemrdeRee sLIbjeet +^ the appFeval of PHbIie We,ks. 6. 32 feet private readways within 37 fool easement With a 6 foot publie utilities easement, whieh kave a stand verti6a! euirb, hallserve ^ �e r than z4-units. Additional off� feet r I+ OR less than spaees for ^h residence-subject to the al Of o ,hI'^ 34 d 'g' StFeet shall be at least a 36 feet ead within at ..., feet u y least 41 feet aeeess easement with at least-a G feet r ,hli utilities easement. n.d.ditee al „hlie utilities easements andeasernen width shall be provided for required sidewalk aFeas. This vv:dth — ,�St-Feet-and S tr eet-shall net be �less than oo-i o erFva� ways within 41 feet aeeess ea s ern e f t swith at-least ; to the appFeval of Publie Works. The Feadway may be Fedueed +hr, is a eenvenieRt, t, way h' ele path ,hien minimizes the need feF a bieyele path OR one -side of the roadway. RaI 'r shall h allowed ��n" Street and "C" C�cEra�A�h th r-�-�r�cm-vc�l�6=ah c -v n rc- ei�rrc read "s w4dened to allew parking. f. Divided PE)Ft'E)R of FallmaR Boulevard and "I" Street shall b-a designed with at least 18 feet IaRes in eaeh d4eetien. The diff e n. Q. The eefnersetbael(r Rt fer-the "U" shaped Feads, exeep� fOf----ji_S tFeet, shall �es I d nE OpO�ITh Ch e area wh er-c-Try hS+r 6t•.) alil.,„ ed (see exhibit) based on the extFapol.,+.,.d d ast..nee of 10 feet f.OFn .h fa 6nstead of the right of way line. The "JiStreet "U"-shaped-read toy shall designed ,•th at least 30 + � + "I " 1v r�f e o i� �1 n I F�lv rfl--cv� r-cccrr{l rt"f�I 1. Theether - - shaped streets shall be designed with at least 75 feet h. The areantshall eliminate theme Treet "A" Street intersee t+e eeause ef itselese proximity to "H"Street and :+'s leeat+en en-the-ifs si d e-e f-the= 35 The etAI .de sae muist he limo+„rd to a maximum length of 700 feet unless emeFgenEms- aeeess is provided at the east end of"T" Street. (The-a taehed- Ludy by the applieant satisfies this FeqbliFemert , The apploeant shall Provide adequate vehiele storage at, gees and design PFE S ons ince the site plan to expand ingress eapa6ty, by instalkng a third entry gate north eF SE)Hth of the EGGID Canal (FINDING FOR !MPACT 53 nnnn E ) The present design of "C" Street aeeess to BiAer Read she-- the afeinity-ef-Let K is unaeeep'tra.be.—This IinteFseetieR must be redesigned-te--pr-evide adequate stael(lng length and enable + + v=enh';cI,Es--n i Is-c+-a lEen j+-entering this aeeess cr- A +�ci r Fl a r A u n d. The redesign shall be subjeet to the approval of Publie ' ' AS AN ALTERNATE, MATE I The pl"eant shall rnlaeatn tWs R. .Ir,r Read aeeess to the north Ede of the EGGID Canal-eff of "A" Street near Lett . The design shaII-he subfeet to the review of PHhaIe-weF1,s and the ,-..evv and approval of the ZE)n'Rg AdoniniStFater. n IE Provide t• fn c f f e c^vntFOI signage at the—easterly "A" Street "G Street anteFse .t;r R (RIRMitcigatme v�rr Jcr�'v FOR IMPACT 966 nnnn u , RIS-all-single #am a 6 6 e ss -o,=ate RI r-�?Ql E€IWBING FOR IMPACT #6$, PAMSI.DSingle f-a„m„y resideRt"al driveway aeeess will be permitted along the seuth sid-e that + +h '.de e d f " 6f ;"F-"--,�ti�Street, provided�,-.vz-rhe Re,=-rr,-�vc-i s-�;g,=,cv-�-v;—NO Rarki n �. Provide a d.d't'n „I detail on the Fall.-, aR Boulevard nntr., feat .1 G_ Vertieal rise garage doers with alltematie gaFage deer epeAers hall be stalled where garages e 20 feet .,r less_fr.,m the r d t c.cr�iTTc*�Tc- e — Th eZrnjmI'ccn�+-shalle6 nstruct r e—� Street bridge t-6 a Ec6fnm-6- rdat„ petnntial trail '+her, the EGGID Ganal 36 2) Sight Dist.,nee (Private S+Fee-t- � a. in aeeeFdanee with GaItFans standards PFeVide ter adequate gh+ ,-~;starer a+• * Village 11: "C"Street at "I" and at "KKK" Street. Village, l-la�"A�' Stree+ at ",QQ�Street,-a-+ +he-r e.leeat " meet, at "1313" Street, and at "FF." Street; "B 13" Street-at "IDIDStreet; and ""U" Street at "T" Street. * Village IV: "A" the releeated "S' Street, at "0" Street, at "i" Street, d -.+ " S+r + �— =Pd Rl��eer b. in aeeerdanee with Caltrans standards provide feF adequate stepping ht distaRee a1n "A"treet and "C" Street eF a d;sT, speed-ef 46 miles per heHr-wherg feasible, and not I„s than a 35 mile per hour design speed, sHbjeet to the review and appFE)Val of P ,b1ie-Works. The rte' & firs-sh I� lode-spe�� previsions to maintain the area eHtside-ef the read easement, needed to speed, o that sight�, stane -w,e.lTl not be ehs+r,�e+e,1 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements a. The design of community facilities, such as "park and ride" lots, clubhouses or community parks, shall provide for and encourage the use of bicycles. At a minimum this shall include bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers at the primary gathering points in the project. The number of bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. h Provide h ,e + + o. i 'Ir'paths erlanes Mfr I a m Irl�mza m--'cRfid+h of F feet A"Street, "B" Street, "G" Street, FallmaR Boulevard and "l" Street thFeHgheHt the preJet.RFehibrt parking n these streets to eRSHFe adequate bike lane widths, or provide adequate additiORal width for on street parki, e. Genstruet 10 feet edestr'an,/blc el. path within sidewalk easements djaeentte "B"treet frem ;street +„ "A" Std_ and aleng "I" Street to provide fer adeqHate bie'�6!e and pedes trian aeeess. Where—a- 0 feet pedestrian/bi6yele path 37 d. The appineantshall eenstruet6 feet-6 ine�-�idenva',ne�;T PallmaR Boulevard fFeFA BixieF Road to the easterly portion of "A" Street;.-and "r" Streetrn from the easteFy-portion of—"An Street to the ma e. Twe way bike�pedestFwan paths shall have at least a !0 feet, paved width with twe foot eleaF zenes on eaeh side (FINDING tnv IMPACT #66 norm . r ) f All r.orl.,walk shall mateh Go nt., standard plan widths i effeet at the t*me of filing the Final Map. 4) Storm Water (Private Drainage Faeilitles�--. a.All moieiTrrwaters-entering er—erTglna-relg within the sHbje t pr(�et. (inel� did the-outsid" lopes „f the levee) hall be ♦` c�.vpc��r-crr�'-rcvccl'�rr'cm�c eenveyed, within an adequate storm drainage-#nest, , to an madeadequate man drainageaI water eourse. The pump station leeation and design shall be subjeet too the r of the opylie Works[epartmentandthe propesed h. rern C+ ter fthe IaLe stem in \/'llages II, III and IV shall he T7 eeiieeted and eaRveyeEl on a private storm drainage system- Where pumping is required at high tide to disehaFge stermwatei: fFem the leveed area to nr.,dger Cut er fFem the outside of the I,,yee to Dredger r..+ the r,..mp system shall have an ,,., err~",ney pumping system subjeet to the review and approval E)f the Zoning Administrator, GR, Chewer n drainage stem shall be Elesigned as a passive weir system for gravity f!E)vv drainage wNeh wll net result 'n fleed'ng of hemes based eR the 100 year storm. if a pump system is Htdized to diseharge steirmwater Dredger Cut, 4 shall he deS'!, ed to e ate e sider'Rr, antiew gated ed ntatleR E)r-he lake system and an emergeney pumping systei2n. 6Aeeess FU S: a D '.d at Hast a 1 7 feet private ad in a 70' rr inimum aeees-s ea t to Lot GG and LTHH frem th" southerly PeFtwen of Village III and the ReFtherly pertien of Village IV (EIR Mitigatien Measure RPAC'r 32) The aeeess shall be impreved as a 12 feet graveled roadway (PINDING FOR IMPAGT #61 , NIMM We.). The applieant shall grant rights to the property ewneF to the east to ailow a6eess from B'x!eF Read for at least a 12 foot FA;nimum '•Irvch—aeeess read through the project site, svbjeette z the I of o„hlie Werk. The eeess shall be alar g feasible 38 streets;_ 6) Lake Management (PFiyat„ Faeil:ty): parameters for the lake tem; anteeipated—pr^vv:c^�r s and n to nts .h:eh may drat into the Lake pFieF to d: eha #fie-steFMwzteF iRteDredger Cut. Provide v m£-h=rt'cr.r,m-,�cc�rtc'F h as a homeowners asswe perpetual menanee /CID'Mit' at: 4.q 71 b. Th lakes hall t water eiretilatiOR stem able of and aeeemmedate the 100 year steFm based on the pFop iai(e eenfiguiFatleR (FINDING FOR IMPACT #4 , MM e.). ewe y the s t e>=m'vv ter-flow based Qnthe design s t e r m. 1fzrrc lakes are to funetk)n as detenteen basins vvith this development, they st be sized On aeeerdaRee-with Title 9 of the QFdir,-,nee !` .d (FINDING FOR I M DA C T #84, " )—The laI(e/deten t+err Rot be publiely Fnaintaine4-. d. P '.d sereens r, the lake e ,I„t;en system aR d r, .'.deea +r.h basins f run eff into the marina to s R fleeting trash from "bestentering the lakes and the Delta, and implement passive management pFQet+ees"saeh as the label ng of sterm dFains to IMPACT #F) MnnG 1e. _ Prier to reeeFdoRg C:r,.,I Maps for n eh of the Villages ll 111 a R d 1\! of impaeted segments o f Dredger C-Ll+ and Kellogg Creek eiFeHlatmen. The study will be sHbjeet to the review and app hrWorks. + , ,,. e# i D a o n� - �e-3��4£z'�R�--S�I�all,r�+l��I„c�rcFrr �r2cc - rv� Volla.9es 11,T1' "or-ar,d-ry f a signifieant ' _1.+, identified 39 f. The applieant shall submit the final groundwater monitoring plar+ of the ZeRing Administrator prior to beginning aRy eeristFuietierzi that require dewateFing to eemmenee, 7) Marina (PFmvate Faemloty): PFevmde eateh basins for Fun off to the marina to seFeeR out floatmprg trash (PR M;t4gateon Measure 4.1 10) 8) ErneFgeney Aeeess (Private Reads): Provide eFAergeRey aeeess points at or near the fE)Ilew*Rg pOiRtS eeerdunation vv:th the fire distriet, sHbjeet to the review and approval e4 (s. The emergeney aeeess points shall be gated and leeked unless they are eembined with a regular pFejeet aeeess. The emeFgeR" aeeesrs reads sial' be at least 20 feet wide, ng lead of at least 20 tons on all weather 6ORditieRS, and, Of gated and leeked, the f' rdistriet shall be provided a master I(ey (CIP M;+;r,atien Meas r., Rnn�.3). a. C ivrr—Br' reF Road t6 "G" Street near te n of-t-haest eer nrer 9f NMPAGT #62,MM G.e), and also near the saetiwest Berner of Village H. b. From Boxier Read to "A" Street at: * Voll.,„„ W (EIP nn;t'gat;en Mea ->E The Rerthwest eerner of Village 11! (CIP M'+'"-,tioR Mea sure R onG!r 3 3) (FINDING FOR 1M RAST "„62PAM Q.e.). 9) nn.,' + e (Private FaeiI;ties). a. A pp*I'I eaTt shall cs+ahSh e6ve n a n+See n d+ti e Rs-an d r es+r,'-e+ i e ns for the_development that clarifies the maRagement of all lake . ffovements, private Fead, private steFFn drainage, levees-, maintenanee agreement, by the homeGWRerswithin the develop r ent-vva-the hemee hers asseelation,,-er a^^t er entity,subject to the review of the ZeniAg Ad,YninistrateF 40 e# fae:;,t;es pFepo e` o be maintained by either a pubis-er +e +. This lest ,.hall hr,_ of D„hl'�. privircci�rcTt'¢. rr�—rr��a„�,..:ici f e£�—t-6—t the review WOFIES. E. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1) Roads: a. Submit a preliminary sketch plan and profile and alignment analysis to Public Works for the following roads, showing the horizontal alignment and analyzing the roadway structural sections to determine the feasibility of salvaging the existing pavement. The analysis of the roadway structural section shall include appropriate cores, deflection tests, R-Value tests, and estimates of anticipated traffic with construction and ultimate development under the County General Plan. Bixler Road from the project to State Highway 4. Point of Timber Road from the project to State Highway 4. The sketch plan shall extend a rninirnum of 1 50-feet beyond the limits of the proposed work. If the grade at the project's frontage is unacceptable, the applicant shall level, or remove and replace the pavement, as necessary. The sketch plan shall also show that adequate sight distance will be provided. An excep- tion to allow a 0.75% minimum grade may be allowed subject to the review and approval of Public Works. b. Applicant shall provide deed notification to those parcels that abut roads that are to be extended in the future. The applicant shall install signage at the end of the roads to inform prospective property owners that the roads may be extended in the future. C. Applicant shall furnish proof that legal access to the property is available from Newport Drive in Discovery Bay to the south boundary of this property. d. Submit improvement plans and pay inspection fees and plan review fees prior to filing of the appropriate Final Map. 2) Drainage: a. Storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance Code shall be designed and constructed in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 41 b. The applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage easement any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets to a natural watercourse or an adequate man-made drainage facility. C. All storm water arriving at the outside of the levee system around Villages II, III and IV and the stormwater arriving at, and originating on Village I shall be collected, conveyed and directed in a storm drainage system dedicated to the County. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey stormwater from the west in accordance with the Ordinance Code (FINDING FOR IMPACT #84, MM c). The applicant shall provide additional drainage facilities (per figure 4.1-4 of the EIR) to direct all existing drainage and irrigation west of Bixler Road through and/or around the project to compensate for the obstruction of flow to surface drainage created by the project and ensure that the area west of Bixler Road is not adversely impacted (FINDING FOR IMPACT #1 , MM1 .C.2.). Prior to submitting the first Final Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed drainage plan to convey off-site drainage and irrigation west of Bixler Road through or around the project site along with supporting hydrology data subject to the approval of Public Works (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-7) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #1 ). d. Conveying storm waters in an adequate storm drain to an irrigation district facility is acceptable provided: the developer obtains a letter from the irrigation district accepting the storm waters; the irrigation district owns fee title to the drainage facility from the point of discharge to the natural watercourse; and the drainage facility is shown to be adequate to handle the design storm, plus the district irrigation flows. The analysis shall consider the presence of low spots in the irrigation district canal which may affect the system's capacity. The applicant shall provide substantiation that reasonable backup measures such as a diesel or gas fueled back up pumping system, are in place in case of pump failure and/or power failure. The back up pumps are only required if pumping is necessary to drain the canal flows. The applicant shall submit written confirmation that the irrigation district will accept the additional stormwater flows from this property based on ultimate development of the watershed. e. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. 42 f. Utilize NPDES passive best management practices such as labeling the storm drains for no dumping. (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-10) �1 Drejeet Levees (Dr ate Faellities): a. The ., plieant shall n cif a_a plan for maintenanee ef_the Ir,. ee-s and identify a + h c,oWRers iiina i i i«rrTce—ent-I t�—�ti'c —�a�ra— 6 m c,v vPr�cr,� Final Map an Villages er W (EIR Mitigation Measwe 4.1 7). 19Levees shallbe elevated to at least elevation 1 1 .9 feet TFAean sea level with provision for the ability to elevate the levees to at least 12.9 feet-Fn ea n sea level around Villages 11, 1—.11 a;aI`�V and in subs4denee and sea level rise). e.T;e proposed levee system areund-ViIIages 11, IN &-1V shall be ee„st,Het-ed-te FEMA, U.S. Army GeFps of EngineeFs Ad strater and County standards. The levee system shall be d- Landscaping of the levees shall be s bjeet to the review of FEMA and the esti Sept the levee fer ma;nt-enanee, and the review and appFeval ef the Zoning AdmiRistrater. e. PFE)v;de deed i i i ca n o n and CC & Rs for elevation restrI cel 6 ns adveirsely impaet the levee system, and proyr...,- -- 'de fe levees. r f. Th d elep shall be a e that the levees r, etee+in a r,rtinn this development n+ ,h' + + f 'I 'f t nr I e'f—rrnvTecrcvTcrrrd r i;-i� net ep cr iy=i i ra i i i to ned The develeper shall exeeutn a tua11y affeeable re6ordavle docurnentwithrthe CoLARty „.h;eh states that the developer (and the owner and the futuire E)Yvn.ers of the property) will held harmless Gen+... Gesta Ge my and the GentFa Costa County Flood Gentrel and Water GeRseFvatien Distriet in the event of damage te the on site impFevements ass a resH!t of levee fa+l'we. 4) Floodplain Management: a. Finished floors in Village I shall be elevated to at least 10.9.0 ft. mean sea level. Villages 11, 11! and 1V shall be preteeted by a levee eenstrHeted to at least ele.,at'n1 1� .9ft. r,eaflsea level with the_ability to c�Icd-cto r6 1 �. 9 feetmean sealevel and - ry-r - 43 elevated furtheron aee•erdane-e—with—the County Fleedplain Management OFdinanee- Homeowners shall be advised through a deed notification of the potential sea level rise. (FINDING FOR IMPACT #4, MM4.C.1 .). 5) Creek Structure Setback: a. Applicant shall create "structure setback lines" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of the watereourses traversing the neFtherly pi:epeFty line, DFedgeF G t aleng the easterly ^ eperty line, and any existing natural water- courses through this development. The structure setback area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914- 14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. b. If sections of roadways fall within the structure setback area as defined by the Ordinance Code, then the applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report verifying the stability of the creek bank in the vicinity of the public or private access roads. 6) Sanitation District 19 Requirements: a. Applicant shall complete and have fully operational the replace- ment for well #4 prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. b. Annex the project into Sanitation District No. 19 and execute a master service agreement calling for the applicant to provide or pay for its fair share of the expansion of facilities necessary for the additional wastewater and water facilities. (FINDING FOR IMPACT #83, MM.c.). Applicant shall comply with the require- ments of Sanitation District No. 19 Ordinance and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District specifications prior to filing the Final Map. C. Sewage treatment and disposal for the project shall be provided by Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19. All sanitary sewer facilities serving the project shall be connected to the District's collection systern. The applicant will be required to obtain a Sanitation District permit to discharge sewage into the sewage system. The applicant shall be required to pay for the fair share of any studies required to accommodate this project. d. Domestic water supply shall be provided by Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19. All domestic water facilities serving the property shall be connected to the District's distribution system. The applicant will be required to obtain a Contra Costa County 44 Sanitation District 19 permit to connect to their existing well water system and comply with any District requirements relative to its fair share obligation to provide increased water supply. e. The applicant shall participate in Contra Costa County's Sanita- tion District #19 adoption and implementation of a water supply monitoring and management program (FINDING FOR C- UMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY, MM.c.). 7) Reimbursement: a. Certain required road improvements may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against Area of Benefit fees. The developer shall contactthe Public Works Department,Transportation Engineering Division, to verify the extent of any credit or reimbursement for which the applicant might be eligible. Prior to constructing any public improvements, or filing of any Final Map, the applicant shall execute a credit/reimbursement agreement with the County. No credit or reimbursement will be available for any improve- ments installed prior to execution of the credit/reimbursement agreement. Credit will only be given for monies that are programmed within the next three fiscal years. Any credit or reimbursement shall be based on the cost estimates included in the Area of Benefit Development Program Report only in proportion to each specific Area of Benefit improvement which the applicant is installing. b. The applicant is also eligible for reimbursement from adjacent and nearby future developments as outlined in E.7)c. below. If the applicant requests reimbursement from the County from future development, the applicant shall be required to pay the County for administrative costs associated with these reimbursement agreements. The applicant shall pay the Public Works Depart- ment, Engineering Services Division, at least $1 ,000 or as necessary to cover expenses as they are incurred, whichever is greater, for administration costs for each reimbursement agreement. C. The applicant shall be eligible for the following reimbursement agreements: * Should applicant install the State Highway 4/Bixler Road signalization and channelization improvements. The costs, above the applicant's 50% obligation towards the traffic signal, are subject to reimbursement. These funds may be deposited by property owners at the intersection. 45 * Installation of any frontage improvements along t#e fr-entage—ef the Evan's eF et;ei, properties fronting on public roads. * Installation of off-site road improvements not covered by an area of benefit, but covered by the Project Traffic Mitigation Fee paid by the applicant and collected by the County, may be credited toward the applicant's Project Traffic Mitigation Fee, subject to the approval of Public Works. d... The County will also cooperate with the applicant to "call" certain Deferred Improvement Agreements (DIAs) which may exist on surrounding properties to facilitate and expedite the construction of facilities whose installation is now justified. 8) Miscellaneous: a. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, with the exception of model homes, file the Final Map for Subdivision 7686. b. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. C. An encroachment permit for construction within the State right of way shall be obtained frorn Caltrans through the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. ............................. d. Obtain an encroachment permit from the A-pplieaRt A.p10 cat�.Qr1 ..:......:................... ............................. and Permit Center for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of public roads which are to be improved with minor improvements not requiring an improvement plan. e. Applicant shall comply with the County TDM Ordinance and the Growth Management Program regulations regarding transporta- tion. TDM measures that could be used by the project applicant include the provision of maps showing available transit routes, and providing information to prospective home buyers on ride sharing and vanpool services. 46 f. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. Provide a minimum clear width of 3.5 feet for all sidewalks. If a pole, utility facility, street sign or any other obstruction is located in a walkway, such that there is not a 3.5 foot clear width, then the walkway shall be widened as neces- sary. A note reflecting this condition shall appear on the typical section on the improvement plan. g. .: - Applicant shall furnish proof of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of all temporary or permanent, road, drainage and marina improvements. h. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, the applicant shall pay the County for all Public Works and Community Development staff time for work reviewing and cornmenting on this project through the planning and approval process which has not been covered by the application fees previously paid by the developer for this purpose. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-1 18) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region 11 or Central Valley - Region V). C. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Sanitation District No. 19 Ordinances and Delta Diablo Sanitary District specifications and requirements. 47 D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47,Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index [CPI] adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to recording the Final or Parcel Map. An additional tax may be required for marine patrol. G. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. H. Comply with the ordinance requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division and Hazardous Materials Division. I. Comply with the ordinance requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection District. AB/aa RZXIII/2963-RZC.AB 2/24/95 3/29/95 4/3/95 - EC (a) 5/31/95 6/29/95 I s Attachment B BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF REZONING MAY 2, 1995 These findings are made by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ("Board"), California pursuant to the California Environmental Quality A_ ct ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code.Section 21000 et seg., the CEQA Guidelines, and County regulations promulgated thereunder. These findings include this Board's Findings and determinations regarding the Discovery Bay West GeFieF i PlaR ^^ eAdment fTi6rtii3gi and Related Actions ("Project"), including the Project's impacts, mitigation measures, comments and responses, alternatives, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other findings required by State law and the County Code. These*€'rtdsupe>' ecf ar d ept €ce t e± rlie fir'd igs< € w ukf othenkm be ap{itcat l� t this rez ntrig a � ......................... I GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A few general notes about these findings are in order: 1. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the EIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any finding made by this Board shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this Board, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This Board intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole, and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. 3. Limitations. The Board's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible DBW\33390 29676.2 1 aspects of the Project will not exist. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 which states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the Board's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the County. In some instances, the Board's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas inside and outside of the political boundaries of the County. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the County's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The County must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. For instance, the ounty acting alone cannot solve the air quality problems of the region. 4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitioation Measures, Alternatives, and other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the EIR, the Project and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Moreover, the summaries set forth below, including, but without limitation, summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the EIR and other evidence have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the EIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings are based on the numerous mitigation measures to be required in the implementation of the Project as recommended by the EIR or identified by the EiR as already having been incorporated into the Project. It should be noted in this regard that the Project is designed to be a self mitigating document, often incorporating the perceived best option among various alternatives. This Board is hereby adopting and incorporating into the implementation of the Project those Mitigation Measures recommended in the EIR, which have not already been incorporated into the Project, (with the exception of those Mitigation Measures that are rejected by the Board in the specific findings in Section III below). This Board finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the Project in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 6. Specific and General Mitigations. The EIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the Project, one or more corresponding Mitigation Measures to lessen or avoid such impact. For ease of reference to the EIR, this document is organized in a similar manner. However, this Board recognizes that many of the Mitigation Measures described below or in the EIR may lessen or avoid DBW\33390 29676.2 2 the identified impacts other than those for which they are specifically proposed. In light of the above, this Board finds that (a) each Mitigation Measure adopted by this Board (as set forth above) or already incorporated into the Project may avoid, or substantially lessen, potentially significant impacts other than the impact for which such Mitigation Measure is corresponded in the EIR or below, and (b) each significant impact identified by the EIR is mitigated both by its corresponding Mitigation Measures to the extent set forth in the EiR or below ("Specific Mitigation") and by other, non- corresponding Mitigation Measures adopted by this Board that were already incorporated into the Project ("General Mitigation"). These findings shall be applicable wherever supported by the evidence in the record regardless of whether a specific finding of an instance of such General Mitigation is made. However, the findings of Specific Mitigation made below are independent of, and=in no way depend on, the existence of any instance of General Mitigation except to the extent that a court may find any finding of Specific Mitigation to be inadequate or unsupported by the evidence in the record. 7. Mitigation Measures are Conditions. The Board hereby conditions the adoption and implementation of the Project on the implementation of the Mitigation Measures adopted below. All such adopted Mitigation Measures shall be considered conditions of the Project- tktE Sent they ar$ red �z d as< ch r i se ffndtr gS. A. Description of the Record For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this Board includes, without limitation, the following: A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Project, including without limitation, applications for the General Plan Amendment, Preliminary Development Plan, Rezoning, Final Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, annexations, and other state and federal environmental permits submitted by Discovery Bay West to the County; B. The FEIR, including appendices; C. All County staff reports on the Project and the FEIR; D. All studies conducted for the Project and FEIR contained or referenced in the staff reports or FEIR, including appendices and any and all biological studies; E. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the Board and the Planning Commission; F. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings related to the Project and the FEIR before the Planning Commission and the DBW\33390 3 29676.2 Board; G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the FEIR; H. All matters of common knowledge to the Board, including but not limited to: 1. the County's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. the County's fiscal status; 3. County policies and regulations; 4. reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the County; and 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY A. Project Description 1. Setting ................ . The Discovery Bay West GeneF ' Plan ^mepdmef;tR zttntr concerns an area ....:. :.. . . . of approximately 4;A�8- Ig acres located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, to the north and west of the adjacent Discovery Bay Community. The project is situated 3 miles from the eastern edge of the Contra Costa County line and approximately midway between the northern and southern boundaries. There are 84-47 separate parcels located with the rezoning area. The-Fnajer-ity y of these parcels are 10 acres or less but there are also several large parcels 'inciuding one of more than 250 acres. The current uses of the parcels in the General Plan Amendment rezonang area are agriculture and rural residential. The land is flat .:. .......... with an elevation near sea level. Agricultural production is limited by the poor quality of most of the project area's soils Thi par ;fs tn'the rezon rtg re* are currertti zoned X*.2 an' d A 3 2. Project Description The Project consists of a GeReF ' P'a^ "meimidi:A eR+ Rezvr3ing for approximately _ .. a 8 756 acres to the north and west of the adjacent community of Discovery Bay. The GeReFal P'"" ^mendmeRt Rezoning changes the existing DBW\33390 29676.2 4 .+I rr�nrr�•+4ienr+l andn}her uses ... li ` to residential, The Hofmann Company project, hiGh f the IaFgest bleek of ^^Fee's, proposes to build a water-oriented residential community of 2,000 homes in four sections ("Villages"), a marina occupying a total of 12 acres "I '< kjnr� l an athletic/recreational facility occupying six acres in Village II, and associated infrastructure including 16.5 acres of space for an elementary school, park, community center and a fire station in Village I. Village I would have public streets while the other three Villages would be private gated communities. The firsthase of the development would be Village I Ctl aril;```:;:: 1 :r p 9 ..1 .:............ ............................................................ »: attt ti < encom assin a roximatel 97 acres and 3 th t t rj rt ; . :....ls:;>: p 9 pp Y housing units with a net residential density of 6 - < units per acre. Village I is proposed to include a school and park site, and a fire station. Desi:resattllJ:ntt< ents.: Iatd::ar�tl:: a .r:.::... ..Rr an Villages I I I I I :.::.::.::.::.:::.............................................................................. and IV cl€i< <ie <at< jatr< would follow the construction of Village I. ....:..::::::::::::::::::..:...:..:. ......... ....:::::::::.......::::::::.:.:.:. 9 : ............ Each of the Villages, II through IV, would contain a lake site of a approximately 20 acres. Village II is approximately 137 acres with 519 housing units at a net residential density of 5.9 units per acre west of the lake and 4.3 units per acre east of the lake. Village III is approximately 152 acres with 601 housing units at a net residential density of 6.2 units per acre west of the lake and 4.3 units per acre east of the lake. Village IV is approximately 160 acres with 556 housing units at a residential density of 6.2 units per acre west of the lake and 4.3 units per acre east of the lake. Further, the project provides open space in the form of linear corridors along the utility easements and the Fallman canal. It also provides open space on approximately 200 acres east of Villages III and IV, at the north end of Village IV, on the areas surrounding the lakes in Villages II, III, and IV, at the southeast corner of Village I, and various other landscaped areas through out the project. The total amount of this open space is approximately 320 acres. B. Project Approvals Discovery Bay West has requested three sets of approvals from Contra Costa County to accommodate the development of the Project. a. General Plan Amendment As described above, Discovery Bay West applied for an amendment to the County's general plan (the "GPA"). As discussed above, the GPA applies to both the Hofmann project as well as other properties within the GPA area but not included in the Hofmann development. The East Contra Costa County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") held a public hearing on December 5, 1994, at which time the DHW\33390 5 29676.2 Planning Commission recommended that the Board approve the Project. trt ........... ..:...:V[ .::h �� porn .t���.:.:a�d:.:.,a th b. Rezoning and P/Alom"nar\/ Development-Plan Discovery Bay West has requested the County to rezone the Project Site to the County's P-1 district (Rezoning 2963-RZ) rhe "RD122wneyelenment Plan 3075_91\pursuant to Contra Costa County Code Chapter 84-66 Article 84-66. ::On€:>} >:<the:::: ds<::: € r >:::Re' t€rr [ Pfat n ;.. . .: :. ::. :: :: . ;. va :<thercrn::>and< :r: irm > . <. :.. :..:.. strt.;: arrt .gni:.:: ....:.r.. a::..:::::::::::::.:::::::::.:::: ::::::::.::::: :::::::::::::::p.::::::::..::rha.:.::: vla .:rr�� rt. iP::............::........:...:::.:::::: :::.:::.:::::, ::.::::::::...:.,::......::......:::::. :::::: ::::.:::::. l Fonal Development Plan The Final Development DlaaR ("FDR") shows a single family Fesidentinl area (474.66 pares), Darh and Qeereuti parea / 6.71, P bl�'G anvsemi P cbrlirp use, (40 aaynrea�elt ReMa+ien an ee (303.6acres), and eCnaee (36.2 awes). The es she...n en the FDR eevyer annrevim afely 484.66 aarea t<: as.::.r:.. . .uested::::th >:: ora : o::::a . re<::a::>3 .re ::>:::: >:: t e :.::>: :.>: s..:.:.. .......................................................... ...................................... ......:.1..� ane.:. .PP :::.::::. .:::....:............... ......... ..................................................................................................................................................................... ata we fa:.;r `:.:rt#>`: <' Vie:::::>::PDP::::: :: eye >went ; ...:::::..:::. :.:..................................... .......::.::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: .::: e<:>:8..::CB:<:Ar: 1 :::8466 :::>::: ` e:::::ii <:<:>ss::>a<:: i .: :<# m:�: ::::: €da . .:: t t'e :;;: t c:.. �d.;;R re � :r>:: ` a>::. «: pct` s >>E > <:: d: ... :::. .................................r..................:. ......:.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. .::.:::::::....:::::::::::: r.::::::::::::::::::::::::: :...........................::.:::::: t.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : :::::::::::::::::.:::::::..:............................:.....:.:.:::::::::::::::.:::::::.:::::::::: . . ....................... :............::::...:.. :::....... u e s ;>a res eifa ec atr n<an t i oW a. .. n.- .en... ace... . .,.:::..:..................... ... . ....:::.::..::::::.::::::: :: ....::::.(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . ... .. .::.: : ::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::: :: .:::..::..... »:::: :.: . wry:>:. :<::: : :::>:.>::::::.>::< r. xtrrs€ acres .::.:' :::u.r ..n...::uses.: .:::a.::::::::: .:t.:::e::::::::::::::::: ter .:.:: ..:::::::: e..::::::8 . .::.:::::.:::::.:..::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......:::::::::::::.:::::::.::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::.: ::is ... r:.�vir <'::::the::<frrst>: :: ::>:.:':' i~{oeert:tfts<:trr�€e::::the::::±Goun: ;:>is:Vin.. ::.... h.as :: .:te..f'troect r :: ::::::::::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::.:.:::::..:...................... ......:R<�::::::::::...�.:::::::::::::::::::::::..R.........................::::.:::::::::::.::::::::�. . .........:::::...............:::: :::::::: .:::::.:::::::: .....: . .. .................................::::.:::::::::::>::::::::::::::::.::.:::::::::.1...::::. ............ .;.::.::; ::.. ::::.::::::.......::.....: ltiiia' ::: v ::>te>:rernacrc .:jd: ter.:.d . :::::::::..::::::::.::: : : ::.:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::...........................:::::::: .:::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::.........: .................................................................................................. d. Vesting Tentative Map Discovery Bay West has requested approval of a vesting tentative parcel map (the "VTM")(Subdivision 7686), prepared pursuant to Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code. ve ..........................................................�._.:::_::::.:::::.:::::::::. ow ,:sin <:Qevelt <.rrteat:::Pfan<:,:>:FDP::;:...sh s. Ie..tarnl.... ttl..mt�.lt..far �:i : : ::: : :.:::_....::::::.:: ::.:::: .:::::::. ::::::.: Y:..::::::::.::::::::::::::.::::::::::. :;;,;,>:»'.° < »: ;,,;,;"<<.>, «. ;>>:<.:><<; .;.:. and residential::>areas>> :arft and> c t1 n:.. .r. .. rehi ular....stc ra. a bI�. .:.. o:o: u<.> ase:::::. ;d eeer>€€Tet rase .. . .r .:.txt.:the.::FDP..o. ver. _. ... .. ...<.:::. ......:.:.. .: .. .. ....... apra€rnately 494s acres The F©f� may be phased subjet'to the ronang DBW\33390 6 29676.2 B. The Environmental Impact Report 1. Preparation of the EIR The County prepared an initial study (the "Initial Study") to determine whether an environmental impact report should be prepared for the Project. The Initial Study indicated that the Project could have significant adverse environmental impacts, and the County accordingly determined that an environmental impact report was necessary. A notice of preparation (the "NOP") of a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated to various state agencies, interested organizations and to any person who had filed a written request for notices with the County. `- - A"draft environmental impact report (the "DEIR") was prepared by the County - — pursuant to the Initial Study and the NOP. The DEIR was published for public review and comment on August 9, 1994 and was filed with the State Office of Planning & Research under State Clearinghouse No. 93033031. The DEIR was available for review and comment by concerned citizens and public agencies for a period of 71 days. The review and comment period expired on October 14, 1994. On September 12 and October 3, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive oral testimony regarding the DEIR. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that all comments be received and responded to. The County prepared written responses to comments received during the comment period and at the Planning Commission hearing. The FEIR (which includes the DEIR and comments and responses) was published and made available to responding agencies in October, 1994. The FEIR was submitted to the Planning Commission with a recommendation by staff that it be recommended for certification. At a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 1994, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of the FEIR. After considering the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission voted to recommend certification of the FEIR. 2. Certification of the FEIR In adopting these findings, the Board certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to the Board, which reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, the Board ratifies and adopts the findings and conclusions of the FEIR except as otherwise set forth herein. The certification of the FEIR and these findings represent the independent judgment of the Board. The FEIR concludes that many environmental impacts of the Project are significant but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, while a number of impacts will remain significant even after being substantially lessened or avoided by the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures. The Board's findings regarding DBW\3339 7 29676.2 these impacts are set forth in Section 111. Further findings regarding impacts that will remain significant after mitigation are set forth in Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations). 3. Evidentiary Basis for Findings These findings are based on substantial evidence contained in the record before the Board, as more particularly described below. For ease and clarity of reading, specific citations to information in the record upon which each finding is based may have been omitted. In most instances, however, these findings are based on the information contained in the FEIR, as supplemented with information provided - by staff reports, and reasonable-inferences drawn form .such information: 4. Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures The Board hereby makes the following general findings regarding mitigation measures: a. Mitigation Measures Adopted The Board adopts the mitigation measures set forth below, which mitigation measures are based on those recommended in the FEIR. These mitigations measures will be implemented as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval adopted by this Board. b. Effect of Mitigation Measures Except as otherwise stated in these findings, this Board finds that the significant environmental impacts of the Project will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the adopted mitigation measures. III. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED BY THE INITIAL STUDY TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SURFACE WATER Impact #1 Drainage a. Description of Impact. Runoff from portions of the project will increase approximately 100 percent due to the increase in impervious surface. Most of this runoff will drain into the project's interior lakes instead of towards the east. Total runoff during a 100-year storm event could raise the level of the interior lakes by 14 DBW\33397 8 29676.2 inches. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the Proiect. The project will incorporate a water circulation system capable of pumping approximately 19 cfs. This pumping capacity is capable of removing thelotal volume of a 100-year storm event in 2 days. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. The applicant shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the lakes, drainage facilities, and levees along with a maintenance entity acceptable to the County Department of Public Works. The applicant shall also provide additional drainage facilities (per figure 4.1-4 of the EIR) to compensate for the obstruction of flow to surface drainage created by the project and ensure that the area west of Bixler Road is not adversely impacted. (EIR page 4.1-7) d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on surface drainage. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would prevent the level of the interior lakes from reaching flood potential during a 100- year storm event and prevent project related runoff from flooding areas west of Bixler Road which reduces the impacts to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing drainage system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #2 Flooding on Kellogg Creek a. Description of Impact. Kellogg Creek overflows its banks in a 100 year flood LBW\33390 29676.2 9 event. The creek would flow in sheets eastward once its banks overflowed. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because according to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the Project is located outside the Kellogg Creek "drainage area." c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation Outside of the Project. Contra Costa County Flood Control _- and Water Conservation District has prepared an engineering study which proposes solutions to the Kellogg Creek flooding problem. The plan would form Drainage Area 109 and collect fees from development within the drainage area. The study excludes the project from DA 109. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. None proposed. d. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts of the project on the flooding of Kellogg Creek. Impact #3 Flood Plain a. Description of Impact. Much of the proposed project is located in the 100- year flood plain as identified by FEMA. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced .-impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. If the residential project precedes the drainage improvements, the planned site improvements must be elevated at least 1 foot above the peak water surface elevation. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the Project. The Project proposes to raise house pads in Village I so that they will be at 10.9 ft msl and there will be a levee constructed around villages 11,111, and IV which will be at 11.9 ft msl. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. None proposed. DBW\33390 1 O 29676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and which are described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the potential flood plain impacts of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to development in the flood plain have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would either raise development above the flood plain or protect development in the flood plain with levees. This would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Project's location within the 100-year flood plain, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #4 Sea Level Rise/Subsidence a. Description of Impact. The combination of subsidence and projected sea level rise could lead to project flooding b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EiR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. The proposed levees shall be raised to 11.9 feet and the minimum pad level in Village I should be 10.9 ft. Further, future homeowners shall be advised through a deed notification of potential sea level rise. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project from potential sea level rise. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the ^.BW\33390 29676.2 1 1 EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential increase in sea level have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would either raise the housing pads above flood level with a projected sea level rise or block that flooding with adequate levees. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential flooding due to the projected sea level rise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. - — Impact #5 Surface Runoff Water Quality. a. Description of Impact. The runoff from the proposed project will contain grease, oil and other urban pollutants. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the water quality from the urban runoff is environmentally superior to the runoff currently flowing from the site due to the reduction in pesticides, fertilizer and other agricultural pollutants. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project provide screens on the lake circulation system and provide catch basins for runoff into the marina to screen floating trash, and implement passive "best management practices" such as the labeling of storm drains to reduce dumping. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on surface runoff water quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Sidnificant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project on surface runoff water quality is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the degradation of �3W\33390 29676.2 12 surface runoff water quality due to the contamination by urban pollutants, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #6 Water Quality Impacts from Construction. a. Description of Impact. The construction activities such as the excavation of the lakes and the necessary breaching of levees could increase the short term sedimentation of adjacent Delta waterways. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less thane significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that Project obtain and comply with the condition of all necessary permits related to such construction activity including but not limited to the NPDES permit for storm water discharges, a General Stormwater Permit issued by the State of California, Contra Costa County construction permits, CWA Section 404 permits and Section 10 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a permit from Reclamation District 800 for breaching its levees if necessary. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation.. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project construction on surface water quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impact of the Project construction on surface water quality will be reduced to a less than significant level because "best practices" measures contained in the required agency permits will significantly reduce the amount of sedimentation occurring due to Project construction. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the degradation of surface water quality due to the construction of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #7 Waves and Bank Erosion. DBW\33390 1 3 29676.2 a. Description of Impact. The project will result in an increase in boat traffic which will increase the wave action along the banks of Kellogg Creek thereby increasing erosion of the banks. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes two alternative-mitigations measures. 1) Widen and deepen the downstream end of Kellogg Creek (near Tract 5811) reducing the speed necessary to maintain steerage in the channel. This could also entail annexation of the Project into Reclamation District 800 for the purpose of levee maintenance. or 2) Relocate the project marina to a location identified in the Relocated Marina Alternative or the Modified Relocated Marina Alternative identified in the staff report and the applicant's comment to the DEIR. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the first proposed mitigation measure identified in subparagraph c is infeasible because the widening of the Kellogg Creek Channel could lead to significant environmental impacts of its own and such mitigation measure is off the project site, on property which is out -of the proponents' control. The Board finds that the second mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the stability of the banks of Kellogg Creek. The Board hereby adopts the second proposed Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the increased erosion of the banks of Kellogg Creek have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because relocating the proposed marina would eliminate the increased boat traffic from the Kellogg Creek area, thus eliminating the increased wave action along the Creek. Impact #8 Boating and Water Quality. OBW\33390 1 4 29676.2 a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the amount of contamination of surface waters coming from boating activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because there will be no oil or gas service at the marina docks reducing potential contamination from those sources and contamination from normal boating operations would not be significant relative to the total amount of boating activity in the area. c. Proposed Mitigation. The board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any potential impacts to surface-water quality from boating activity. impact #9 Hydrology (Groundwater Degradation). a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the withdrawal of groundwater for domestic supplies potentially leading to the degradation of groundwater supplies due to downward migration of low quality water. b. Findings Regarding Sign ficance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project participate in a long term monitoring and management plan which would monitor the flow of groundwater, regularly sample water from the Tulare aquifer, define the recharge of the aquifer and .identify standard well construction and maintenance practices. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on ground water quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential groundwater have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would closely monitor groundwater quality and allow for a prompt response DHW\33390 1 5 29676.2 to a potential degradation of groundwater quality. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the degradation of ground water quality due to the increased use of Tulare aquifer water, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #10 Hydrology (Aquifer Overdraft. a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the withdrawal of groundwater for domestic supplies potentially leading to the overdraft of the Tulare Aquifer. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project participate in a long term monitoring and management plan which would monitor the supply of water in the Tulare aquifer, identify changes in the quality and quantity of water from the Tulare aquifer, identify potential alternatives to water from the Tulare aquifer, determine, over time, aquifer extent and safe pumping yield using analytical methods or a numerical model of the aquifer, and identify optimal well locations. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on ground water supply. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential groundwater have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure. adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would closely monitor groundwater supply and allow for a prompt response to a potential overdraft of groundwater. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the groundwater supply due to the increased use of groundwater, as more fully stated in the Statement DBW\33390 29676.2 16 of Overriding Considerations. Impact #11 Hydrology,(Land Subsidence). a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the withdrawal of groundwater for domestic supplies potentially leading to land subsidence. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project should have minimum pad elevations in Village I of 10.9 ft. msl and should locate wells such that mutual pumping interference can be avoided, thus minimizing overdraft. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on potential subsidence. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of_Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential of subsidence have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would establish a minimum pad elevation and substantially avoid the risk of land subsidence due to mutual pump interference. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the groundwater supply due to the increased use of Tulare aquifer water, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #12 Surface Water Contamination from Groundwater a. Description of Impact. Because the lakes are constructed below the level of the shallow brackish groundwater aquifer, it is possible that the brackish water could contaminate the lake water. DBW\33390 1,7 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitiq ation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the levels of the lakes will be kept at a level higher than the groundwater table causing the water gradient to flow from the lakes to the groundwater and not from the groundwater table to the lakes. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are needed to mitigate any potential contamination of the lakes with brackish groundwater after construction. Impact #13 Flow of Loose!Soil into Lakes a. Description of Impact. After excavation, loose saturated soil may flow into the lakes causing siltation. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Replace loose sand soils with buttressed fills keyed into less permeable clay soils. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the potential siltation of the lakes from loose soils along the banks. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. FindingsRegarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential siltation of the lakes have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would prevent soils from flowing into the lakes. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to siltation of the project lakes. as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LBW\33390 - 29676.2 18 Impact #14 Vegetation and Wetlands. a. Description of Impact. Project would result in the direct loss of at least 12.6 acres of wetlands presently on the site. b. Findings Regarding Significance of impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the-project restore or create replacement wetland habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the replacement acreage located either on site or off-site within a reasonable proximity of the project. The replacement habitat should be a large contiguous parcel surrounded by a 50 ft buffer. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on wetlands habitat loss. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the loss of alkali wetland habitat have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d..above, because the measures would provide replacement habitat of such an amount that the standards of both the Contra Costa General Plan and the Corps. of Engineers would be met and there would be no net loss of wetland habitat. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the loss of alkali wetland habitat, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact#15 Damage to Special status Plant Species. a. Description of Impact. Project would cause indirect impacts from increased boating activity which could result in the loss of Mason's Lilaeposis, California hibiscus and Suisun marsh aster all of which are special status plants. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board BW\33390 1 Q 29676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project create replacement special status plant communities located either on site or off-site within a reasonable proximity of the project. Advice on the mitigation sites and techniques should be sought from the California Department of Fish and Game. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts 'of the project on special species plant loss. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially. Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the loss special status species plants has been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would provide replacement habitat such that the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game would be satisfied that there would be no net loss of special status species plants. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the loss of special status species plants, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #16 Native Wildlife a. Description of Impact. The project will result in the loss of some habitat for a variety of native species. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the loss of habitat is insignificant relative to the total amount of habitat available for those native species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for native species. DBW\33390 2 O 29676.2 impact #17 Fisheries a. Description of Impact. The construction activity from the project and potential chemical contamination from the projects lakes could have adverse effects on the Delta fisheries. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the water quality from the project runoff is superior than that currently running off the site. c. Proposed Mitigation. Insure adequate main-channel mixing to dilute any runoff. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on fisheries. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project to fisheries is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the damage to fisheries, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #18 Mosquito Production. a. Description of Impact. Project lakes. channels and created or restored wetlands would increase mosquito breeding activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the applicant should aid the DBW\33390 2 1 29676.2 Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District in developing a source reduction and management plan which would include the reduction of shallow water environments and natural biological mosquito control. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on mosquito production. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project'relating to the production of mosquitos have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would actively control mosquito populations and reduce mosquito breeding habitat. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the production of mosquitos, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #19 Impacts to Delta Smelt. a. Description of Impact. Project construction activity could lead to increased sedimentation which in tum could lead to the loss of Delta Smelt which is a special status species. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project is not within the critical habitat area of the Delta Smelt and because the sedimentation would be short in duration. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes to minimize construction activity which could lead.to sedimentation during the period of December to July which is the spawning and migration period for the smelt. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Delta Smelt. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. DBW03390 2 2 29676.2 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project the Delta Smelt is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Delta Smelt, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #20 Impacts to Southwest Pond Turtle. a. Description of Impact. The Project may indirectly impact the Southwest Pond Turtle because the increased boat activity may disrupt their aquatic habitat. The Southwest Pond Turtle, while still a candidate for the Endangered Species List, has recently been denied full listing status by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the population of the Southwest Pond Turtle a special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the County enact and enforce a boat speed limit of at least 20 mph or less along Dredger Cut. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Southwest Pond Turtle. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Southwest Pond Turtle have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures will reduce high speed boat traffic, especially that associated with water skiing, will reduce impacts caused by wave generated erosion, noise, and physical disturbance which most effect the breeding population of the Southwest Pond Turtle. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Southwest Pond DBW\33390 2 3 29676.2 Turtle, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #21 Impacts to Aleutian Canada Goose. a. Description of Impact. The Project is in the general vicinity of the Aleutian Canada Goose's wintering area may reduce the Goose's potential winter foraging habitat b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the available information indicates that the project site is not an important wintering foraging site for the Aleutian Canada Goose. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR suggests that the Project consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the necessity of providing replacement foraging habitat such as corn fields. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is not necessary or appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Aleutian Canada Goose because all available studies performed to date indicate that the project site is not an important winter foraging ground. The Board hereby rejects such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project the Aleutian Canada Goose is less than significant without the proposed mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Aleutian Canada Goose, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #22 Impacts to Swainson's Hawk. a. Description of Impact. The Project will remove up to 240 acres of Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat and construction activity may disturb nesting pairs of Swainson's Hawk. b. Findincis Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 2 4 9676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the habitat of the Swainson's Hawk a State listed threatened species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project replace the amount of foraging habitat pursuant to the following methodology described in more detail in the EIR (pages 4.2-29 and 4.2-30). Following evaluation according to the above referenced protocol and based on the CDFG 1994 survey of Swainson's hawks, if any of the project site is within a 7 mile radius of an active Hawk nest and also contains highly preferred foraging habitat or less preferred foraging habitat, it shall be replaced with lands of highly preferred foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio for a loss of highly preferred habitat and 0.5:1 for a loss of less preferred habitat. Replacement habitat should be on-site if possible. In addition, the EIR proposes that construction activity on the project, within 1,300 feet of Hawk nesting activity, be suspended between March 1 and September 15. Also, any existing tree within 50 ft of a Delta waterway, which could be a potential nesting site which is removed should be replaced by three native oak or cottonwood saplings. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Swainson's Hawk. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Swainson's Hawk have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would cause any lost Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat and nesting sites to be replaced and would prevent any disturbance to nesting Hawks. (2) Remaining impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Swainson's Hawk, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #23 Impacts to Burrowing Owl. a. Description of Impact. The Project will directly impact the Burrowing Owl because it will eliminate Owl habitat. ^BW\33390 2 5 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the population of the Burrowing Owl a special status species. c. Proonosed Mitigation. The EIR proposes to conduct a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owl dens. Existing dens that can be incorporated into planned open space will be so incorporated as long as 6.5 adjoining acres can be maintained as foraging space. Where incorporation into exiting open space is not used, passive relocation techniques should be used to relocate individual pairs to suitable off-site habitat which would include a 2:1 burrow ratio. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Burrowing Owl. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Burrowing Owl have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would either preserve or replace Burrowing Owl dens located on the project site and prevent the disturbance of Owl nesting. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Burrowing Owl, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #24 Impacts to San Joayuin Kit Fox. a. Description of Impact. The Project may eliminate 376 acres of potential foraging habitat of the San Joaquin Kit Fox a special status species as well as subject them to potential vehicle hits. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the population of the San Joaquin Kit Fox a special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The applicant should consult with the FWS to determine the extent of actual habitat loss, and the amount of mitigation habitat, if any, DBW\33390 2 6 29676.2 a is required by the Federal Endangered Species Act. The EIR also proposes to conduct a pre-construction survey to locate existing Kit Fox dens and f any are located to: 1) avoid known den sites during construction, 2) impose speed limits on access and project roads, 3) cover open pits and trenches during construction, 4) impose pet regulations such as fencing of dogs, and 5) impose restrictions of the use of pesticides and rodenticides. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the San Joaquin Kit Fox. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the San Joaquin Kit Fox have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would replace any actual loss of Kit Fox foraging habitat and reduce the ' disturbance and loss of Kit Fox dens on the project site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the San Joaquin Kit Fox, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SOILS, GEOLOGY, and SEISMIC HAZARD Impact #25 Soils, Geology, and Seismic Hazard. a. Description of Impact. The slopes cut in native soil around the marina and lakes could be subject to instability. b. Findinqs Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Excavation of soil around the marina and lakes should be observed and any loose or unstable soil types should be replaced with compacted fill that includes a buttress that has been properly keyed into native soil. Dm—W\33390 2 1 9676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on constructed fill. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential geologic hazards of constructed fill have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would repair any fills subject to instability..11 (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the geologic hazards of constructed fill, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #26 Conversion of Farmlands. a. Description of Impact. 382 acres of the project site could be classified as prime and the project would result in the conversion of those acres to urban uses. b. Findings Regarding_Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because agricultural capacity and quality of the land in question is severely limited by the presence of Boron and salinity in the soil. This limitation on the productive capacity of the land as well as its designation by the County as being outside the "Agricultural Core" reduces the conversion of such land to a level of insignificance. c. Proposed Mitigation. None proposed. Impact #27 Slope and Soil Instability. a. Description of Impact. Structures constructed on graded slopes of 15% or greater within the project would be unstable and subject to landslides. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because there are no structures to be constructed on slopes of 15% or greater. DBW\33390 2 a 29676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. None proposed. Impact #28 Mass Grading Impacts. a. Description of Impact. Mass grading on the site including compaction, over- covering, displacement and disruptions to the soil, and changes in topography and ground surface relief will impact soil resources. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. None proposed. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mass grading on the site is unavoidable and unmitigable. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Remaining_Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any impacts relating to the mass grading of the site, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. NOISE Impact #29 Noise Impacts on Wildlife-Construction Noise. a. Description of Impact. Construction noise may disturb the breeding and foraging of special status species. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Swainson's Hawk: no new disturbance within one quarter mile around an active nest; 2) Burrowing Owl: fence off active dens with a minimum radius of 100 ft; 3) San Joaquin Kit Fox: avoid active den sites during DSW\33390 2 9 29676.2 construction through exclusion zones. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction noise on wildlife. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the construction noise on wildlife have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, adequate buffer zones and time restrictions on construction activity have been established and will minimize disturbance to special status species. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to construction noise on wildlife, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #30 . Construction Noise and Adjacent Uses. a. Description of Impact. Construction activities may create noise levels which will disturb adjacent land uses including residential property. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board ,concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation._ The EIR proposes that construction take place during normal working hours in areas which are noise sensitive to adjacent land uses. Further, stationary noise sources are to be located away from noise sensitive adjacent land uses and adequate muffling and enclosures are to be used when appropriate and possible. All vehicle traffic is to obey traffic regulations with regard to speed and noise suppression and should operate only during normal work hours. Construction vehicle routes should also avoid schools and other especially sensitive land uses where possible. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the noise impacts to project residences. The Board hereby adopts such DBW\33390 3 O 29676.2 Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the projected noise levels have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would decrease the projected outdoor noise to acceptable levels as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts to adjacent land uses related to construction activity, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #31 Noise Conflict Between Agricuitural Activities and Adjacent Residential Uses. a. Description of impact. Noise generated by adjacent agricultural activities may negatively impact the project's residential activities. b. Findings Re aq rding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project locate residential uses at least 100 feet away from adjacent agricultural operations. Project residences should be constructed with sound reducing techniques such that the interior sound level in the residences will conform to County General Plan DNL levels. Further, sound wails or berms and landscaping should be used to reduce noise and excessive DNL. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the construction noise impacts to residences from adjacent agricultural uses. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: :DW\333?0 29676.2 31 (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the projected agricultural noise levels have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would reduce the audible agricultural noise to an average level consistent with County General Plan DNL levels. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent agricultural uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #32 Residential Noise Impacts to Wildlife. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by residential development within the project could disturb wildlife. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant impact because noise levels will not be high enough to cause a loss in special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the residential perimeter be landscaped with vegetation or constructed with sound walls. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the noise impacts from residences on wildlife. The Board hereby adopts .such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project related to residential noise on wildlife is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to residential uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #33 Noise Impact on Off-Site Residents Due to Additional Water Craft. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by additional water craft will DBW\3339-0 32 .9676.2 negatively impact adjacent residents in the vicinity of Kellogg Creek. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project marina be relocated to another part of the project to the north of its planned location. The location identified in the staff report or the applicant's comment letter is satisfactory. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the water craft noise impacts to residences near Kellogg Creek. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on�: EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the noise impacts from watercraft on residence near Kellogg have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the watercraft activity would be eliminated in that area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to watercraft activity near off-site residences, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #34 Recreational Noise Impacts to Wildlife. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by increased boating activity generated by the project could disturb wildlife. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant impact because noise levels will not be high enough to cause a loss in special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that boat speed limits be posted and enforced through channel waterways and existing channel berms be allowed to remain DSW\33390 29676.2 3 3 when possible and appropriate to reduce noise impacts. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the recreational noise impacts to residences on wildlife. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project related to recreational noise on wildlife is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other .benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent agricultural uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #35 Noise level Conflict Between Proposed Uses. — a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by activities in the marina adjacent to residences may negatively impact the Project's residential activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation .of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that new residences must be constructed so that interior DNL is 45 dBA or less and so that indoor noise levels due to single noise events shall not exceed a maximum of 50 dBA in the bedroom and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the noise impacts to residences in the project associated with activities in the juxtaposed marina. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding_Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the DEiW\33390 29676.2 34 project relating to the projected noise from the juxtaposed marina and associate activities have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would reduce the audible noise to an average level consistent with County General Plan DNL levels. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of,Overriding Considerations. TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION 1. Project Traffic Impacts -Year 2000 Impact #36 A. Potentially Significant Impact Cir-1. a. Description of Impact. Traffic projections are based on worst' �e assumptions modeled by East County traffic model. This model may�7 be consistent with measurements of actual traffic generation factors and may under or over-state Project related traffic. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation Adopt a mitigation monitoring program which allows for an adjustment of the mitigation measures to correct for inaccurate traffic generation rates and road network assumptions. The program shall include a provision that after the issuance of the 500th building permit, the project applicant will fund a review of the assumptions made in the project EIR traffic study. If the assumptions are still valid, the mitigation measures will remain unchanged. If some or all of the assumptions are invalid, then further review of the intersections studied in the EIR shall be performed, the project's impacts reevaluated and appropriately mitigated. Road improvements which are covered by the East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) area wide traffic mitigation fees or funded by other sources shall be considered mitigated. The project applicant shall pay its share of the costs of the environmental review document and general plan amendment fee (if any) precedent to revising said traffic mitigation fee(s). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to DHW\33390 3 S 29676.2 mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would allow for an accurate continuing assessment of project traffic impacts, which reduces the impacts to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #37 B. Significant Impact Cir-1. a. Description of Impact. The .Discovery Bay/SR4 , Newport Drive /SR4, Bixler Road/SR4 and Fairview Avenue/Balfour Road intersections all operate at unsatisfactory levels of service with the project. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a sign'rficant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to the signalization of the Discovery Bay/SR4 , Newport Drive /SR4, and Fairview Avenue/Balfour Road intersections in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees). The project applicant shall contribute to 50% of the Bixler Road signalization improvements. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: DSW\33390 3 6 29676.2 (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would:, increase the projected Level of Service at the at the Discovery B'ay/SR4 , Newport Drive /SR4, Bixler Road/SR4 and Fairview Avenue/Balfour Road intersections to levels acceptable under the County General Plan, which reduces the impact to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #38 C. Significant Impact Cir-2. a. Description of Impact. The Vasco Road/Camino Diablo and Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersections would operate at LOS "F" with or without the project. However, additional traffic flow to and from the project during both the AM and PM peaks may negatively impact intersection performance. b. Findings Re acarrding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to an improved lane configuration at the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo intersection in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume (through payment of the State Route 4 Bypass Fee which at this time is only 50% funded through developer fees). The project applicant shall contribute to an improved lane configuration at the Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersection in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable fees. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Lessened but Remain Significant an Unmiti ac�ble. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been lessened ^BN\33390 -9676.2 37 - by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, however, the Levels of Service at both the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo and Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersections will remain at LOS F which is an unacceptable LOS under the County General Pian. The impact is therefore significant and unmitigabie. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo and Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersections, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #39 D. Significant Impact Cir-3. a. Description of Impact. The SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road would operate at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour with or without the project. However, additional traffic flow to and from the project during the PM peak may negatively impact intersection performance. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to the lane reconfiguration of the SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road intersection #thrtsugh th6 parrentf: � tat� Rafe # ��tpass deerhacht this tlrte tnly 5fl funded .... .. through developer.feesi ' d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation .measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the operation of the SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road intersection to acceptable levels as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other DBW\33390 - 3 29676.2 benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #40 E. Significant Impact Cir-4. a. Description of Impact. The Traffic on the SR4 Bypass will exceed capacity with or without the project. The intersections at Balfour Road, Sand Creek Road and Lone Tree Road will all operate at LOS "F." However, additional traffic flow to and from the project during both the AM and PM peaks may negatively impact both the road segment and intersection performance. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board s concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Contribute to the construction of the Phase I SR 4 Bypass project to include a four-lane cross section from the SR 4 junction south of Balfour Road and provide 2 southbound left-turn lanes (through payment of the State Route 4 Bypass Fee which at this time is only 50% funded through developer fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitig-ation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would cause the SR 4 Bypass segment and its Balfour Road, Sand Creek Road, and Lone Tree Way intersections to operate at acceptable levels as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #41 f. Significant Impact Cir-5. DBW\33350 29676.2 .`9 a. Description of Impact. The Byron Highway (north), Sellers Road and Balfour Road intersections with SR 4 will have unacceptable Levels of Service with the project. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to the - signalization of the Byron Highway (north), Sellers Road, Balfour Road intersections with SR 4 in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the projected Level of Service at the at the Byron Highway (north), Sellers Road and Balfour Road intersections with SR 4 to acceptable levels which reduces the impact to a less than significant level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #42 g. Significant Impact Cir-6. a. Description of Impact. The Byron Highway/Point of Timber Road and Byron Highway (north)/SR 4 intersections are located in close proximity to each other. Signalization of the Byron Highway(north)/SR 4 intersection together with added project traffic at Point of Timber Road will result in unacceptable operational performance. DHW\33390 4 O 29676.2 b. Findings Reaarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute 100 % to the signalization of the Byron Highway/Point of Timber Road intersection and interconnect the signal with the Byron Highway (north)/SR 4 intersection (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impacts fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The.Board finds that the mitigation _ measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regardina Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure aaopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the projected Level of Service at the at the Byron Highway/Point of Timber Road and Byron Highway/ SR 4 Bypass intersections to acceptable levels which reduces the impact to a less than significant level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Project Traffic Impacts Year -2010 Impact #43 a. Significant Impact Cir-1. a. Description of Impact. The intersections at Bixier Road/Point of Timber, Byron Highway/Balfour Road, Byron Highway(south)/Sr 4 and Sellers Road/Balfour Road will all operate at LOS "F" with year 2010 project traffic. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation ZBW\33390 29676.2 4 1 measures. C. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes the following mitigation. 1) provide an all-way STOP at the Bixier Road/Point of Timber Road intersection with two lanes at each approach, 2) provide an all-way STOP at the Bixler Road/Balfour Road intersection with two lanes at each approach, 3) pay the fair share of a signal at the Byron Highway/Balfour Road intersection and left turn and shared right turn lanes at each approach, 4) pay the fair share of a second northbound to westbound left turn lane at the Byron Highway(south) /SR 4 intersection, 5) pay the fair share of a signal and left turn and shared right turn lanes at the Sellers Road/Balfour intersection. The project's fair share of improvements noted in 3, 4, and 5 above should be made through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact - fees. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the year 2010 traffic generation have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the level of operations at each of the intersections to an acceptable level (LOS "D" or better) as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the year 2010 project generated traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #44 b. Significant Impact Cir-2. a. Description of Impact. The proposed design for SR 4 Bypass provides insufficient capacity through the Balfour Road and Sand Creek Road intersections (LOS "F"). b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. II8W\33390 4 2 '_°676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes to extend the freeway section of SR 4 Bypass south to Balfour Road. The project should pay its allotted share of this project (through the payment of the State Route 4 Bypass Fee which at this time is only 50% funded through developer fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of SR 4 Bypass. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the year 2010 traffic generation have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the level of operations of the segment of SR 4 Bypass and each of the intersections to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the year 2010 project generated traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #45 c. Significant Impact Cir-3. a. Description of Impact. The O'Hara Avenue/Sand Creek Road intersection has an inadequate lane configuration and would deteriorate to an inadequate operational level (LOS "F"). b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project should pay its fair share toward providing additional turn capacity at the O'Hara Avenue/Sand Creek Road intersection (through payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes ail applicable impact fees). d. Findings Reaarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to -I9W\33390 43 29676.2 mitigate the, impacts of the project on the operation of the O'Hara Road/Sand Creek Road intersection. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the year 2010 traffic generation have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would improve the level of operation at the O'Hara Road/Sand Creek Road intersection to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the O'Hara Road/Sand Creek Road intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #46 d. Significant Impact Cir-3. a. Description of Impact. The Empire Avenue/ Lone Tree Way intersection has an inadequate lane configuration. Project traffic with cumulative traffic will cause the intersection to operate at LOS "F." b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project pay its fair share of a lane reconfiguration of the Empire Avenue/ Lone Tree Way intersection (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of the Empire Road/ Lone Tree Way intersection. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the inadequate operation of the Empire Road/Lone Tree Way DBW\33390 4 4 29676.2 intersection have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the level of operations of the Empire Road/ Lone Tree Way intersection to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the year 2010 project generated traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #47 e. Significant Impact Cir-4. a. Description of Impact. The proposed design for the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection provides insufficient turn capacity to/from SR 4 Bypass. The project would cause further deterioration in operating conditions that are already at LOS "F". b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project pay its fair share of improvements to provide additional tum capacity at the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection (through the payment of the State Route 4 Bypass fee which is only 50% funded through developer fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Walnut Avenue/ SR 4 Bypass intersection operational difficulties have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would improve the level of operation of the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other DBW\33390 4 5 29676.2 benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the operation of the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #48 f. Significant Impact Cir-5. a. Description of Impact. The project will contribute to the inadequate level of service (LOS "F") along the Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road) road segments. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior-fewitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is an unavoidable significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. There is no feasible mitigation of the impact described above in subparagraph a which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that there are no mitigation measures which are reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road) because the Tri-Valley area has a preliminary policy which states that Vasco Road shall remain a two lane facility through North Livermore to the Isabel Extension. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Significant and Unavoidable. The impacts of the project relating to the inadequate level of service along Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road) are significant and unavoidable, because no measures that would improve the level of operations of the segments are feasible under Tri- Valley policies. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the operational characteristics of Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road), as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. Protect Access. Circulation and Parking. Impact #49 DBW\33390 4 6 29676.2 A. School Related Traffic Impacts a. Description of Impact. Provisions for local school related traffic circulation are not identified. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. ......................................... c. Proposed Mitigation. The-project should_ e a>= zod.at a one-way--- circulation pattern with a large loading/unloading area adjacent to the school site but separate-from the school parking lot and off of the main collector streets. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on school related traffic. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the school related impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would assure smooth traffic flows to and around the school site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential school related traffic impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #50 B. Inadequate design of Bixler Road, Balfour Road and Point of Timber Road. a. Description of Impact. The roads approaching the project (Balfour Road, Point of Timber Road and Bixler Road) do not meet the minimum width requirements for collector roads. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation DBW\33390 47 29676.2 of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should improve Balfour Road between Bixler Avenue and Sellers Avenue, Point of Timber Road between Bixler Road and Byron Highway, and Bixler Road between Marsh Creek Road and the northern edge of the project site to Celiester-feat standards specked the an"M ions '. apRoval. Alternatively, the project could restrict traffic access to Balfour Road eliminating the need to upgrade the road te GelieStW Read standaFds. - d. Findings-Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that either of the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. by themselves are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the below standard collector roads. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to inadequate collector roads have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the inadequate collector roads to County standards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to inadequate collector roads, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #51 C. Impacts to Bixler Road a. Description of Impact. Project will contribute 4,000 daily trips to Bixler Road overwhelming its capacity. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation .of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Project applicant shall install full frontage improvements along Bixler Road. Between the Project and the Albers and Byron 78 .project obligations, the Project applicant shall improve Bixler Road and install a pedestrian path. Alternatively.- tl3e:appI' nt can ;jnstatl=a sidewalk or�:the west side:'of DBW\33390 4 8 29676.2 Newport Drive bei green;the prQJect and the path cx3str�tcted b the arnmerc�at devetaprnent. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on Bixler Road. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided-or-Substantially-Lessened.--The impacts of the -- project relating to the Bixler Road design<have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate project traffic. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the impacts to Bixler Road, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #52 D. Farm Vehicle Residential Vehicle Conflicts a. Description of Impact. Project traffic and farm vehicle traffic will both use Balfour and Point of Timber Road leading to safety concerns. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate andJeasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide shoulders on Balfour and Point of Timber Roads, install signage to wam project traffic of farm vehicles and provide farm vehicle crossings. Alternatively, the project could restrict traffic access to Balfour Road eliminating the need to upgrade the road to Collector Road standards. d. Findinas Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on school related traffic. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. DHW\33390 4 9 29676.2 e. Findings Reclarding_Sianificance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential conflicts between project traffic and farm traffic have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide sufficient traffic separation and warning to prevent significant safety hazards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential project traffic-conflict with 4arm. traffic, as more fully stated-in the Statement of Overriding--- Considerations. verriding Considerations. Impact #53 E. Entry Gate Deficiency a. Description of Impact. Project access points at Balfour Road and Point of Timber Road may have inadequate capacity. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should maximize vehicle storage at entry gates and design provisions into the site plan to expand ingress capacity, either by installing a third entry gate or providing additional ingress lanes at the two existing gates. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project ingress and egress. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential project entry gate traffic impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would assure smooth traffic flows into the project site. ^BW\33390 r °570.2 Q (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and' other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential entry gate impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #54 F. Cul de Sac design Deficiencies a. Description of Impact. project cut de sacs are to narrow and too long as designed and have inadequate access for emergency vehicles and inadequate vehicle circulation. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact-Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project cul de sacs should be designed so that they are no longer than 700 feet in length and capable of supporting 20 tons of weight. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project's inadequately designed cut de sacs. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Sionificance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the cut de sacs have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would assure adequate emergency vehicle access, adequate traffic circulation and because they conform to County standards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the cut de sacs, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #55 G. Off Street Parking impacts a. Description of Impact. Because there is no off-site guest parking, resident's guests will be forced to park on-street limiting circulation and visibility. �HW\33390 9576.2 51 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that.could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should prohibit parking on all project collector/arterial roads except where the road is widened for parking. v to a Re side of 4{�e� Sern tFee4 32 f} reads anea_nFehihif_ kiR@ eAtiFeiy 28 ft d [aTrrc.e rsn► e R Fen +, On:other roads.provideadequat�:paved width for necessary parking: d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to on street guest parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially_Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to on-street guest parking have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would eliminate on-street parking where such parking could cause significant impacts. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential on- street parking impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #56 H. Closely Spaced Intersections Between Village III and IV. a. Description of Impact. Closely spaced intersections between Village ill and Village IV restricts traffic flow and causes right of way confusion. b. Findin s Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide traffic control devices at all approaches to these intersections. DBW\33390 2 9676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would control access at these intersections thereby improving traffic flow and reducing right of way confusion. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the impacts due to closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #57 I. Inadequately Designed Turns on "E" and "G" Streets a. Description of Impact. The "knuckle" turns on "E" and "G" streets in the vicinity of the marina do not appear to meet collector road standards. b. Findings Regarding_Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should redesign the turns on "G" and "E" streets to meet County standards. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitioation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the inadequately designed turns on "E" and "G" streets. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the inadequately designed turns on "E" and "G" streets have been SSW\33390 29676.2 =? avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would require the project to redesign the turns to meet County requirements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inadequately designed turns on "E" and "G" streets, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #58 J. Curb Cuts onto Collector/Arterial Roads a. Description of Impact. Some lots appear to have drive access onto collector/arterial roads, this causes severe safety problems. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should prohibit all access onto malar collector/arterial roads that have project wide circulation. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to curb cuts onto major collector or arterial roads. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to curb cuts onto collector/arterial roads have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would eliminate all curb cuts onto collector arterial roads with project wide circulation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential impacts from curb cuts onto collector arterial roads, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #59 DBW\33390 5 4 29676.2 K. Traffic Circle Design a. Description of Impact. The design of the traffic circle at Balfour Road restricts capacity and the traffic circle at Point of Timber Road could promote illegal movements. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should either remove traffic circles or redesign them to ensure safe traffic circulation. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to inadequately designed traffic circles. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to inadequately designed traffic circles have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would eliminate the traffic circles or redesign them to prevent congestion and discourage illegal turning movements. (2) Remaining impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inadequate design of the Balfour Road and Point of Timber Road traffic circles, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #60 L. Inadequate Marina Parking a. Description of Impact. Marina Parking may be inadequate to accommodate peak summer periods and poses safety problems. b. Findings Regarding Significance of impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation -�BW\33390 >6�6.2 rj measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the parking areas be re- designed to relocate access away from street intersections and consolidate driveways. The EIR proposes to relocate the marina to mitigate other significant impacts. This mitigation may eliminate the need for some or all of these mitigations, however, the relocated marina should be designed to conform to these design guidelines. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to on street guest parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures.__.. e. Findings Regarding Significance of impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to marina parking have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the relocated marina would be designed to conform to the principals set out in the proposed mitigation which would eliminate the potential parking shortage and reduce associated traffic hazards. (2) Remaining Impacts_. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential marina parking impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #61 M. Restriction of Agricultural Access a. Description of Impact. The gated community limits accessibility to all agricultural land east of the Hofmann project site including Failman. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide agricultural access between the project site and land east of the site. Access shall be improved as a 12 foot gravel roadway. d. Findings Re arding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation DBW\3335) 5 6 29676.2 measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of limiting access to agricultural land to the east of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the restriction of access to agricultural land east of the project site have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide access to the land east of the project site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the restriction of access to the agricultural land east of the project site, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #62 O. Emergency Access a. Description of Impact. Emergency access is limited to two access points. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide additional emergency access at Bixler Road onto "J" Street at the north end of the project, Bixler Road at "R" Street just north of the ECCID canal, and Bixler Road onto "S" Street just south of the ECCID canal, or at other locations in consultation with the Fire District. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to on street guest parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regardinq Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to emergency access have been avoided or substantially lessened by -'3W\33350 5 7 3676.2 the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide emergency access acceptable to the Fire District. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the emergency access impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. Transit. Impact #63 A. Bus Service a. Description of Impact. Transit stops are separated too far apart, there is no stop at the proposed school, and the circulation-system isnot compatible with transit service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Provide bus pullouts at all project access points along Bixler Road, provide pedestrian connections from transit stops to the internal sidewalk system, and provide bus shelters at each pullout once transit service begins. Consider locating all residential lots within 1,400 ft of a collector or arterial road. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on transit accessibility. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential inaccessibility of transit service have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would substantially increase transit accessibility and service. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inaccessibility of transit service, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. DBW\33390 29676.2 5 8 Impact #64 B. Regional Transit Demand a. Description of Impact. Regional Transit service is inadequate in this area of the County. The project will add to the demand for this type of service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Require the developer to study the feasibility of a implementing BART shuttle bus or other type of regional transit. d. Findings Regarding Pr000sed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on regional transit demand. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the- project he-project relating to the potential inaccessibility of transit service have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures could lead to substantially increased transit accessibility and service. (2) Remaining impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inaccessibility of transit service, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. Impact #65 A. Bicycle Facilities a. Description of Impact. The bicycle/pedestrian circulation system is discontinuous in several areas, requiring users to share the road with automobiles. Corridor widths are also undefined. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board --BW�33390 S 9 -?676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Design all two-way bike/pedestrian paths to 840. .J wide and one-way bike paths on streets within curb to curb shall be 5 ft wide, minimize mid-block crossings, provide signage per County requirements, and make the following additions to the bicycle/pedestrian circulation system: 1. Extend the diagonal corridor in Village IV southwest to Bixler Road/Balfour Road intersection. 2. Provide a corridor from Balfour Road through the project entrance to the lake. ` 3. provide a corridor in Village 111 adjacent to the ECCID canal. 4. Provide a corridor along Bixler Road from the north end of the project to Marsh Creek Road, or Newport Drive. 5. Provide a corridor from Village 11 to Village I via the entrance to Village 11. 6. Provide a corridor from Bixier Road to the southeast corner of the project. 7. Provide a corridor to the school/park area. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that, with the additional mitigation of relocating the marina, the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on bicycle/pedestrian circulation. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Bicycle/pedestrian circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would create a continuous, safe and complete internal bicycle/pedestrian circulation system. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to bicycle/pedestrian circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #66 B. Impacts to Bicyclists and Pedestrians from Outside the Project. a. Description of Impact. Bicyclists and pedestrians will be attracted to the project's park and school and will have no safe means of access. DBW\33390 6 O 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Provide a corridor connecting to the project site along Bixler Road to Marsh Creek Road and install bike racks or lockers at on site common areas such as the marina, park, school and recreation areas. An alternative to the Bixler Road corridor is a planned corridor connecting Newport Drive to the Byron 78 and Albers projects. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on out of project bicyclists and pedestrians. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to out of project bicyclists and pedestrians have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would create a safe means of bicycle and pedestrian access to the site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to out of project bicyclists and pedestrians, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 6. Construction Impacts. Impact #67 A. On-Street Parking a. Description of Impact. On-street parking along Bixler Road is inadequate to accommodate construction crews. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DBW\33390 6 1 ?9676.2 C. Proposed Mitigation. Provide sufficient parking on-site for all construction crews and associated personnel. d. Findings Regarding_Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction related on-street parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. - e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Miti ation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the impacts of construction related on-street parking have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide sufficient on-site parking eliminating the demand for on-street parking. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the demand for on- street construction parking, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #68 B. Construction related Road Damage a. Description of Impact. Construction equipment may damage roads approaching the project site. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Monitor road conditions and repair roads. Direct construction related traffic to the site via Bixler Road restricting damage potential to that road. 1Vewj cart Prt re miay be:dsed wh9 Sixler Road Js being wi dened` d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction related road damage. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the ^BW\33390 2 29676.2 EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to, the impacts of construction related road damage have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would restrict construction traffic to one road and provide for adequate repair of any damage which may occur on that roadway. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential road damage due to construction traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. - - - CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY Impact #69 Effects on Microclimate. a. Description of Impact. The additional 85 acres of open water will increase the evaporative loss of water by 15 to 30 percent leading to a potential increase in ground fog during the winter and the increased in paved spaces will increase summer temperatures. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the increase in both the water and paved surface area is so small that fog and increased temperature effects would be extremely localized. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate effects of the project on microclimate changes. Impact #70 Potential Long Term Sole Source Violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards. a. Description of Impact. Traffic generated by the project would generate air pollutants on both a microscale and mesoscale. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because projected air pollutant emissions are not projected to violate Federal or State air quality standards. DBW\33390 29676.2 6 3 c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no mitigation is necessary to mitigate sole source violations of Federal or State air quality standards. Impact #71 Potential Short Term Sole Source Violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards. a. Description of Impact. Project construction would generate particulate air pollutants on both a microscale and mesoscale. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced - ---- impact is a significant'environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. All project construction should follow "best management practices" for dust control. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction air quality impacts. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the .project relating to the construction related air quality have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would substantially reduce the amount of construction dust released into the air. (2) Remaining. Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential construction related air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #72 Potential Contribution to the Degradation of Air Quality. a. Description of Impact. Emissions of pollutants, especially CO and NOx, by project traffic will contribute to the degradation of air quality in the region. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33394 6 4 29676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact. because Discovery Bay West is located in a "non-attainment air quality region and projected emission of CO and NOx will exceed BAAQMD thresholds by the year 2010. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project implement strong TDM/TSM measures such as the provision of cable or optic wiring for telecommuting, improved transit service, and ride sharing capabilities. d. Findings Regardina Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c., are, both reasonably feasible and appropriate - to mitigate the impacts of the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts are significant and unavoidable. The impacts of the project relating to the contribution to the long term degradation of air quality are significant and unavoidable because even with a reduction in project generated trips, Discovery Bay West will still contribute to the continuing ozone pollution in this no-attainment area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the contribution to long term air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #73 Potential Exposure of Sensitive Populations to Air Pollution. a. Description of Impact. Microscale emissions of pollutants, especially CO, by project traffic will contribute to the degradation of air quality in the region which will subject sensitive populations, such as people with respiratory problems, to serious health hazards. Mesoscale air quality impacts will adversely effect sensitive populations to a greater extent than the general population. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because projected emission of CO is below criteria values. The Board also finds that the Project's contribution to mesoscale air pollution as described above in Impact #72 will adversely effect sensitive populations to a greater extent than it will adversely effect the general population. --BW\33390 6 5 29676.< c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no mitigation is necessary to mitigate microscale air quality impacts on sensitive populations. The Board also finds that there is no mitigation other than that proposed in Impact #72 that will reduce the mesoscale air pollution impacts to sensitive receptors. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the exposure of sensitive populations to long term mesoscale air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #74 - - - Potential Lorig Term Violation of BAAQMD Criteria for Significance. a. Description of Impact. Emissions of pollutants, especially Total Organic Gases and NOx, by project traffic exceed BAAQMD's Criteria for Significance. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation._ The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because Discovery Bay West is located in a "non-attainment" air quality region and projected emission of Total Organic Gases and NOx will exceed BAAQMD thresholds by the year 2010. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project implement strong TDM/TSM measures such as the provision of cable optic wiring for telecommuting, improved transit service, and ride sharing capabilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c., are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings. Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts are significant and unavoidable. The impacts of the project relating to the contribution to the long term degradation of air quality are significant and unavoidable because even with a reduction in project generated trips, Discovery Bay West will still exceed the BAAQMD Criteria for Significance in this non-attainment area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the contribution to long term air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding DOW\33390 66 29676.2 Considerations. LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact #75 Conversion of Agricultural Land. a. Description of Impact. The project would convert 921 acres of Agricultural Lands to non-agricultural designations. - b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board - -- concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project is inside the County's Urban Limit Line, the agricultural land within the project contains high levels of boron and salinity making it low in productivity. c. Proposed Mitigation. The board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any effects of a potential conversion of Agricultural Lands to suburban uses because of the poor quality and productive capacity of the land within the Project area. Impact #76 Adjacent Use Impacts on Prime Agricultural Lands a. Description of Impact. The land uses in the project could disrupt the viable use of adjacent agricultural land. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that appropriate fences and barriers be constructed between the residential uses and grazing uses. Further, homeowners should be informed of the potential agricultural practices that they will be adjacent to in the form of deed notices. Finally, there should be a buffer between residential and intensive agricultural uses. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c., are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on agricultural land uses. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. ^BW\33390 J 7 °676.2 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: 1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the conflict between adjacent agricultural uses and project residences have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide sufficient separation and buffering between the uses to minimize any conflict. Further, homeowners would be notified about potential agricultural practices. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the conflict between agricultural and residential land uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #77 Conflict with Adopted Plans or Goals a. Description of Impact. The General Plan Amendment would allow development elsewhere than the locations specified in the General Plan for the East County Area (Oakley and Bethal Island). b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project is located within an Urban Limit Line, the project is within the County's 65/35 growth management policy, and the project would improve the housing diversity while remaining compatible with surrounding communities in accordance with General Plan policies. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential incompatibilities with planning policies or goals. Impact #78 Substantial Growth or Concentration of Population a. Description of Impact. The General Plan Amendment would allow growth or concentration of population in the project area by allowing approximately 2,135 residences (housing approximately 6,234 persons) by the year 2010. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project will account for only about 8% of the projected population growth in east Contra Costa County and DBW\33390 6 8 29676.2 will occur over 15 years. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential population growth or concentration because the Project represents a relatively small increment of the total projected growth of the east Contra Costa County area. Impact #79 Effects on Housing Demand a. Description of Impact. The General Plan Amendment could generate a demand for additional housing. — _L- -__ - --- -- b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project would not permit land uses which generate an increase in the demand for housing and in fact would supply housing to accommodate workers attracted to job producing land uses in the east Contra Costa County area. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential increase in the demand for housing. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES Impact #80 School Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the number of school children in the Knightsen School District by 216 students, in the Byron Union School District by 636 students, and in the Liberty Union High School District by 422 students. All three of these districts would be impacted by the increased demand for services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. [Substantial Portions fleletedjComp#y with the>terrr�s of the agreement<with Kn#ghtsen �choo[:Cistrict and:Liberty Union i-igh School �stnbt arrived at.through the dispute resotuti process Further, fulfill the contractual agreement between the Hofmann Company and the Byron Union School District to DBW\33390 2 69 29676. construct or pay for the construction of additional school facilities (classrooms and core facilities). Finally, the developer must also make additional arrangements for the provision of facilities with the Liberty Union School District. Project applicant shall execute a School Mitigation Agreement which shall contain provision which provide for payment to affected school districts in amounts acceptable to such school districts, in order to mitigate the impacts of the project on school facilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the school impacts-from the project. The Board-hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Imoact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the impacts to schools will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because project would construct or pay for the construction of additional school facilities sufficient to accommodate the additional students generated by the project. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining school impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #81 Impacts to Child Care Services. ..................... a. Description of Impact. The proposed pro-ect-GeRe•al PlaR AFReRdF:Re t would increase the number of pre-school aged children will increase by 130 and the number of school aged children (aged 6-12) by 202. This increase in the number of children will increase the demand for child care services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Utilize the project's planned elementary school facility for before and after school child care and provide for any additional pre-school child care facilities per the Contra Costa County child care ordinance. ^BW\33390 - .70 ?9676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the child care impacts from the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the project's child care impacts will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because project would provide for pre- school child care facilities pursuant to the County child care ordinance and would promote the usage of the _ project's planned elementary school facilities for before and after school child care. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining child care impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #82 Water Supply Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will cause an additional daily demand for water in the amount of 1,560 gpm. Water studies indicate that aquifer capacity will accommodate the additional demand but long term aquifer overdraft is still possible. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Annex the project into Sanitary District 19 and participate in a water supply study. d. Findings Regarding_Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the water supply impacts of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the water supply impacts of the project will reduce those impacts to less DSW\33390 .71 _ 29676.2 than significant level because annexation to Sanitary District #19 and participation in the water supply study will allow for the development of contingency plans to prepare for the unlikely event of an aquifer overdraft. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining water supply impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #83 Sanitary Sewer Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will--require sewage conveyance and treatment facilities capable of accommodating .72 mgd of average sewage flow. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Annex the project into Sanitary District #19 and provide or pay for the expansion of facilities necessary for the additional the sewage treatment capacity and additional conveyance facilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the sewage treatment system. The Board hereby adopts -such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the sewage treatment and conveyance capacity of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because annexation to Sanitary District #19 and the necessary financing of facilities expansion will accommodate the additional effluent flows from the project. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on sewage treatment capacity, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #84 Flood Control and Storm Drainage Impacts. DBW\33390 72 29676.2 a. Description of Impact. Residential development as proposed in the project would increase run-off due to greater area with impervious surface. Further, The adoption of the project would alter the 100-year flood plain and require the construction of a storm drainage system. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. -- - c. Proposed Mitigation. Construct project levees and pads to 11.904t-rnsi and - 10.90 ft msl respectively. Provide for the construction and maintenance of drainage facilities to protect areas located to the west of the project site from the effects of the project. Meet applicable requirements of Title 9 for detention basins. Investigate the geotechnical impacts of construction on Dredger Cut and Kellogg Creek Levees. Provide for perpetual maintenance of drainage facilities by creating an entity with fund- raising powers. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the flood control and drainage systems. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the storm drainage and flood control systems of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because proper levee and pad construction will protect structures from flooding, construction of drainage facilities will protect areas west of the site from flooding, proper construction and maintenance of drainage basins and storm drainage facilities by an entity with the power to raise funds will insure an adequately functioning storm drainage system, and investigation of prime flood control levees will insure primary flood control. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on the storm drainage and flood control systems, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #85 Mosquito Abatement Services Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project could cause an increase mosquito -,BW\33390 73 29676.2 abatement workload which could overload current staff. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Seek advice from Mosquito and Vector Abatement District staff about implementing anti-mosquito practices during construction. Cooperate with Abatement District staff in the development of a Mosquito monitoring and source management plan. Consult with the District-with regard to off-setting District staffing needs due to any necessary additional wetlands inspections. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the mosquito abatement services. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Miti ation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the mosquito abatement services impact of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the implementation of design and management practices will reduce the need for additional mosquito abatement inspections and consultation and cooperation with staff will mitigate those impacts which remain. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on mosquito abatement services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #86 Police Protection and Marine Services Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will require a significant increase in the need for police and marine patrol services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DHW\33390 .74 29676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. The project would be required to create and fund, at $200 per unit per year in accordance with the existing formula, a police district to provide higher funding to augment current levels of police and marine patrol services. The project should also coordinate design measures (lighting and security designed structures), social organization measures (crime watches and education programs) and legal measures (posted speed limits and recreational use restrictions) which will reduce the need for additional staffing. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the police and marine patrol services. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation. Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased need for police and marine patrol services impact of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the implementation of a police district with its additional funding levels and design and management coordination will bring response times up to County General Plan standards and will reduce the number of incidents occurring on the project site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on police and marine patrol services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #87 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Services Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will generate an increased need for increased fire and emergency medical service in order for adequate response times to maintained. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation proposed in the project - The project proposes to dedicate approximately 1 acre of the public/semi-public land for a fire station. DBW\33390 29676.2 75 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR - The primary developer must design, build and equip its fair share of a station as negotiated with East Diablo Fire Protection District. The cost of the new station should be apportioned among those developments benefited by the increased service. Further, streets and other features in the project area should be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the fire protection and emergency medical response services. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to fire protection and emergency medical response services impact of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the construction of a new fire station will ensure response times within County General Plan standards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on fire protection and emergency response services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #88 Effect of Development on Utility Easements. a. Description of Impact. Development could cause disturbances of utility easements. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because all utility easements within the project area are designated for open spaces uses. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to utility easements. RECREATION Impact #89 Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities. DBW\33390 7 6 29676.2 a. Description of Impact. The lands within the project dedicated for park use may be insufficient to meet the acreage required under the County General Plan. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should meet Contra Costa County General Plan park standards. Other arrangements, acceptable to the County Planning Department may be made such as a substitution of "common area" recreational acreage for active recreational use. f shekl fect v ©% a reap etedtt Theproci far prruat ,.park li#ie larger than ate act + rch air a aft t recreate :p I eompgnent . d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to park facilities. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased demands for park and recreation facilities will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because sufficient park acreage will be provided to meet Planning Department and General Plan requirements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining parks impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #90 Increased Unauthorized Use of the ECCID Canal. a. Description of Impact. The development in the project will add population to areas immediately adjacent to the ECCID Canal property which will increase the incidence of trespass on the ECCID canal. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation DHW\33390 .77 29676.2 measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Responsibility of the easement should either be transferred to an entity such as the East Bay Regional Park District which is capable of managing access and accepting liability for trespass or the Hofmann Company should make arrangements with ECCID to provide additional security such as added fencing along the Project's common boundary line. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to the ECCID canal property. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased trespass on the ECCID canal property will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because either trespass will be managed by an entity which will convert the property into a public trail or the applicant will provided sufficient security to minimize incidents of trespass. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts to the ECCID canal property, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #91 Increased Boating Activity on Kellogg Creek. a. Description of Impact. The project marina will generate increased boat traffic (255-420 additional weekly boat trips) along the narrow portion of Kellogg Creek leading to public safety hazards. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project marina should be relocated to the Fallman property north of its originally proposed location in an area g8 erally mdidated<as a poten �al .locatror on Ilia pre€unma}r deceloptnent:plan, whichis.also tl�e location generally indicated in the staff report or the applicant's revised relocated marina alternative (as discussed on pages 7 through 10 of the Hofmann letter in the FEIR). DBW\33390 78 29676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to the Kellogg Creek channel. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the E1R and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased boating activity on Kellogg Creek will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because all marina related boat traffic will be removed from the Kellogg Creek area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts to the Kellogg Creek area, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #92 Increased Boating Activity within the Project Vicinity but outside Kellogg Creek. a. Description of Impact. The aevelopment of the project will lead to an increase of approximately 400-650 boat trips per week. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the increased boating activities (515 to 525 additional boats) would be dispersed along the waterways of Indian Slough, Old River and Werner Dredger Cut all of which are large enough to accommodate substantial boat traffic. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any potential impacts of increased boating activity within the project vicinity because the waterways in the vicinity have the capacity to accommodate the additional boat traffic. VISUAL IMPACTS Impact #93 Effect on Views from Adiacent Residential Areas. a. Description of Impact. The Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment project would be visible from adjacent Discovery Bay Residential areas that are already developed or under construction. DHW\33390_ 7 9 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact the new development would be visible from the middle ground perspective with views of Mt. Diablo not adversely effected. Further, visual contrasts would be low. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures would be necessary to mitigate potential visual impacts to adjacent residences. Impact #94 Effect of Open Space Elements of Views from Proiect Residences. a. Description of lmgact. The lakes, parks and other opens space elements in the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment project would be visible from project residences. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the open space elements will be aesthetically beneficial to the environment. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures would be necessary to mitigate potential visual impacts of the project's open space elements. Impact #95 Effect on Views in Kellogg Creek Area from Increased Boating Activity. a. Description of Impact. The 330 slip marina proposed in the project would generate boat traffic which would visually impact adjacent residences in Discovery Bay. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The proposed 330 slip marina should be relocated to the Fallman property north of the marina's originally proposed location. The new location should be consistent with the staff report or the applicant's Revised Relocated Marina Alternative as discussed on pages 7 through 10 of the Hofmann letter in the FEIR, and as generally proposed in the preliminary development plan. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation DHW\33390 8 0 29676.2 measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the visual impacts to the Kellogg Creek channel area. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measure relating to the visual on the Kellogg Creek area will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because all marina related boat traffic will be removed from the Kellogg Creek area thereby eliminating those visual impacts. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining visual impacts to the Kellogg Creek area, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #96 Effects of Wall Along Bigler Road. a. Description of Impact. The wail along Bixler Road proposed in the project would create a visual barrier to drivers along Bixler Road. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the proiect - The wall is proposed to be constructed as alternating segments of solid sections and wrought iron fence sections. Further, trees would be planted in front of the wall to soften its appearance d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the visual impacts of the wall along Bixler Road. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the visual impacts of the wall along Bixler Road, will reduce those impacts ^BW\33390 a 1 29676.2 to less than significant level because measures will break up the continuous nature of the wall and the plantings would distract from the any monotonous uninteresting and repetitive appearance of the wall. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining visual impacts of the wall along Bixler Road, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact #97 Disruption of Potentially Historic Structures a. Description of Impact. The project would result in the demolition of four potentially historic structures. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the structures slated for demolition are not identified on any local or state inventory of historic properties and are not associated with any significant historic person or event. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that a qualified professional historian examine, record and photo-document these structures prior to demolition. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both unnecessary and inappropriate to mitigate the impacts to cultural resources on the site because none of the effected structures are identified on any historic inventory or are associated with historic events or persons. The Board hereby rejects such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project on potential historic resources is less than significant without the proposed mitigation. (2) Remaining impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the disturbance of potential historic resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #98 ^HW\33390 8 2 - Z°676.2 Potential Disruption of Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Site a. Description of Impact. The project could result in the disturbance to historic and/or prehistoric archaeological sites. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because no historic or prehistoric resources were identified in the project site and evidence suggests that the probability is low that any sites would be found upon excavation of the site. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that in the event significant historic or prehistoric resources are discovered during construction of the project, a qualified archaeologist identify and evaluate the situation, offering recommendations for the protection and preservation of significant finds. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to cultural resources on the site. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) lmgacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project on potential historic or prehistoric resources is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the disturbance of potential historic or prehistoric resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS Impact #99 Potential Health Hazards resulting from Power Lines Crossing the Site. a. Description of Impact. Persons residing within the Future Discovery Bay West Residential area on lots immediately adjacent to the RoW might experience exposures to magnetic fields in the 2-mG range. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 29676.2 83 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the conclusion that magnetic fields associated with power frequency (60Hz) can cause adverse health effects in humans. C. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to residents of the project from exposure to the EMF radiation from power lines crossing the site. Impact #100 Direct or Indirect effects of EMF radiation on Project Residents. a. Description of Impact. Persons residing within the Future Discovery Bay West Residential area may be adversely effected by EMF radiation conducted to project residences. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because no homes are planned to be constructed close enough to the power lines to be subject to stray voltage nor are the power lines old enough to cause concern that large amounts of stray voltage will be conducted to the ground. c. Proposed Mitigation. Construct project residences to comply with the current electrical code. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to cultural resources on the site. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the potential EMF radiation effects on project residents is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to potential effects of EMF radiation on project residents, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. RELOCATED MARINA MITIGATION OBW\33390 a 4 29676.2 Impact #101 a. Description of Impact. Relocating the project marina from its location in the proposed project to a location on the Fallman property to the north, and construction of a canal to access the relocated marina from Warner Dredger Cut, will cause a potential loss in wetlands, a potential decrease in surface water quality due to loose soil and sand washing off the canal walls, potentially impact special status plant species, and increase the noise levels on the Fallman property. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should construct the relocated marina and connecting channel such that areas with loose sandy soil would be replaced with buttressed fills keyed into less permeable clays 'tbpfgElfs 51'tcrulci reevir / a pitcant'e st y of rnat• . c an ne[ scau ng aid rds c rE, t rtp�ase apj r�pr;ate < , r .measuQst #any; Further, wetlands lost because of the construction of the relocated marina should be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Finally, impacted special status species plants should be transplanted pursuant to appropriate CDFG guidelines. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of relocating the project marina. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to relocating the project marina, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures will prevent substantial siltation resulting from the erosion of marina and connecting channel banks. Measures will also require off-site replacement of wetlands according to County General Plan and Corps of Engineer requirements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the relocation of the project's marina, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IV FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS BW\33390 8 5 29676.2 As required by CEQA, the EIR evaluates the growth inducing impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g)) and the cumulative effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). These growth inducing and cumulative impacts, together with appropriate Mitigation Measures are set forth below. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The growth-inducing potential of a project is generally considered to have a significant impact if the project has the potential to either induce growth or create the capacity for growth above and beyond the levels permitted by public planning policies or anticipated by public or independent projections. However, a project's growth inducing potential does not automatically result in growth. Growth at the local level is fundamentally controlled by the land use policies of local jurisdictions. Accordingly, the growth pressure is transformed into actual growth only by the actions of local elected decision makers. Under CEQA, growth inducement may not be considered necessarily an adverse, beneficial or insignificant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g)). Induced growth is considered a "per se° significant impact if it is substantial or leads to a concentration of population (CEQA Appendix G (k)). Growth inducement can lead to additional significant impacts if it directly (or indirectly) effects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth in some other way significantly effects the environment. 1. Population and Housing Growth Inducement a. Description of Impact. Development of the project will add approximately -2,135 households to the East Contra Costa County area. This could stimulate further residential and commercial development in the project area including pressure to convert agricultural land. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Mitigation. The Contra Costa General Plan Growth Management Element establishes policies which would control growth pressures caused by the project. The polices include an established urban limit line, adopted service standards, and agricultural preservation measures. Those policies should be fully implemented. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to _-W\33350 29676.2 86 mitigate the growth inducing impacts of additional population and housing. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Lessened The growth inducing impacts of the increase in housing and population will be lessened by implementation of the Contra Costa Growth Management Element because growth would be prohibited in areas not designated for growth or not capable of accommodating growth. However, the Board also finds that significant growth inducing impacts remain and cannot be mitigated. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining growth inducing impacts relating to the increase in population and housing, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1. Inducement of Commercial Growth a. Description of Impact. Development of the project will increase the demand for retail and commercial services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the record and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the Discovery Bay contains significant under-developed retail and commercial service space. The buildout of the Project will generate a critical mass of demand to allow the commercial development in Discovery Bay to be viable. c. Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any growth inducing impacts the Project may have on commercial development. 3. Growth Inducing Impact of the Expansion of Utilities a. Description of Impact. The expansion of water, sewer and other public utility infrastructure will induce growth in the vicinity of the project area. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DBW\33390 29676.2 87 C. Miti�c ation. 1. Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project. Water and sewer facilities are to be sized only to accommodate the potential projects within the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment area. Further, sewage treatment capacity will also only be enough to accommodate the needs of potential projects within the GPA area. 2. Mitigation outside the scope of the Project. The Contra Costa General Plan Growth Management Element establishes policies which would control growth pressures caused by the project. Those policies should be fully implemented. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the growth inducing impacts caused by the expansion of utility infrastructure in the project area. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the E1R and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Substantially Reduced But Significant Impacts Remain. The growth inducing impact of the project due to the extension of utilities in the project are substantially reduced because restrictions in the sizing and capacity of the Project's utility infrastructure will inhibit future growth which would rely on these services. In addition, the County's Growth Management polices will inhibit growth in the area by requiring future development to independently meet infrastructure service standards. However, The project's infrastructure may be sized to accommodate other potential development projects within the GPA area and hence may facilitate some limited growth. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to growth inducing potential of the project's utility extensions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The EIR describes the cumulative impacts of the project in relatively general terms. Such general analysis is anticipated and permitted under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) states that "the discussion (of cumulative impacts) need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness." Moreover, E(Rs considering general plans and general plan amendments are not required to provide the level of detail required of site specific DSW133390 a 8 29676.2 project EIRs. CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 states that "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR... An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed.... than an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan... because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy... An EIR on... the adoption... of a local general plan... need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." Similarly, CEQA recognizes that the mitigation of cumulative impacts may also be broadly drafted. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(c) states that "[w]ith some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption _of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project by__ project basis." The EIR's cumulative impact analysis considers the impacts of cumulative projects approved within the Discovery Bay Region. These projects include the Albers General Plan Amendment, which include 379 single family units, and 1.3 acres of parks, and the Byron 78 General Plan Amendment, which includes 176,000 sq ft of retail space, 80,000 sq ft of office space, an 44 acres of light industrial space. For traffic impacts, the EIR considered a larger geographical area with additional projects because it was determined that the regional impacts of the projects traffic impacts required such a discussion. A number of the environmental impacts evaluated in Section III above are cumulative in nature. The Transportation impacts in particular, consider the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with the projects assumed in the East Contra Costa County Traffic model. The EIR has considered each of these impacts and devised mitigation measures, where appropriate, to mitigate this project's impact on an individual as well as regional basis. Cumulative Impacts on Agriculture a. Description of Impact. The project in conjunction with the Albers and Byron 78 general Plan Amendments will convert 1,073 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Policies designed to minimize the loss of prime agricultural land such as the urban limit line and policies related to the Agricultural --BW\33390 _ 8 9 29676.2 Core, which are incorporated into the Contra Costa General Plan, as well as the County's proposed Right-to-Farm ordinance, should be fully implemented. d. Findings Regardina Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative impacts of the loss of agricultural land. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EI R and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially_.Reduced. -The mitigation.measures relating to the cumulative impacts of the loss of agricultural land, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures will keep development within defined urban areas, will limit development to 35% of the total area, will prohibit urban development within the Agricultural Core, and will limit the conflicts between urban and rural land use activity. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative impacts of the loss of agricultural lands, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Recreational Opportunities a. Description of impact. There will be a area-wide shortage of park space and increased demand for boating access. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EiR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation _of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the project - The project will add more than 23 acres of active and passive parks space and will provide additional RV and Boat storage and access to the Delta. It will also provide more than 50 acres of lakes which can be used for recreational activity. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative impacts on recreational opportunities. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. DBW\33390 - 9 O 29676.2 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative impacts to recreational opportunities, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures add significant amounts of park and recreational acreage in excess of County standards as well as increased boating opportunities. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative impacts on recreational opportunities, as more fully stated in the Statement_of.Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Boat Traffic a. Description of Impact. The project in combination with the Albers and Byron 78 General Plan Amendments would generate additional boat traffic on Delta waterways. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project will contribute to the formation of a P- District which should increase the level of marine patrol enforcement. Further, the ..homeowners association should inform marina users to use caution in operating their watercraft. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative boat traffic impacts. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Substantially Reduced but Still Significant. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative increase in boat traffic, will substantially reduce those impacts but remaining impacts will still be significant because while the measures will reduce the incidents of boating accidents the overall increase in traffic will still have significant adverse impacts. ^3W\33390 (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts due to the cumulative increase in boat traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Traffic Impacts a. Description of Impact. The project in conjunction with other projected development in the East Contra Costa County Region will cause several intersections to perform at unsatisfactory levels by the year 2020. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that-the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Measures proposed in findings on impacts #36 and #42 through #47 are designed to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts in the year 2020. d. Findings_Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative traffic impacts, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures will improve the impacted:intersections and road segments such that none will operate at a LOS of E or worse in violation of the County Growth Management Element. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, socia[ and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative traffic impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Water Supply and Quality a. Description of Impact. The project and the Albers and Byron 78 General Plan Amendments cumulatively will require an expansion of Sanitary District #19 which could eventually lead to an overdraft and infiltration of the project's aquifer. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board 'BW\33390 29676.2 92 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Sanitary District #19 should adopt and implement a water supply management program. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative impacts to the projects water supply. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. _ e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative water supply impacts, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the measure will allow Sanitary District #19 to ensure that the water supply will be preserved in the long term. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative water supply, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife a. Description of Impact. The development of the project, Albers and Bryon 78 could lead to a cumulative loss of special species habitat and wetlands as well as a fragmentation of alkali wetland habitat. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant, unavoidable an umitigable environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project. c. Proposed Mitigation. The board finds that no measures are available that will mitigate the cumulative loss of special species habitat and alkali wetlands habitat. d. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (2) Unmitigated Significant Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any unmitigated cumulative loss of DBW\33390 9 3 29676.2 I wildlife habitat, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Findings Related to the Relationship between Local Short Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity. Based on the EIR and entire administrative record before this board, this Board makes the following findings with respect to the to the Project's balancing of local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity: 1) The Project would convert agricultural land into a residential recreation oriented community. This would remove this land from agricultural production for the foreseeable future. However, it should be noted that the agricultural potential of the project site is naturally limited by the relatively poor quality of its soil. 2) The project would develop a suburban land use where there currently is open space. The open space with its incumbent regional value would be lost for the foreseeable future. However, the much of the environmentally valuable open space on the site, most of the wetlands, would largely be preserved as open space. B. Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts Based on the EIR and the entire administrative record before the Board, this board finds as follows with respect to Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible effects: 1) The project would result in certain Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible impacts which are more fully discussed in Sections III and IV above. 2) Specifically, the EIR identifies the following as Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts: a) Increased boating activity generated by the project would cause some erosion of the banks and levees of the Delta water system. b) Construction of the project and its mitigated marina could cause the loss of on-site wetlands. c) The construction of the project would require mass grading which would change the natural topography of the site. d) The project will contribute to the unacceptable and unmitigable Level DBW\33390 9 4 29676.2 of Service on the Vasco Road corridor and the Byron Highway corridor south of the Camino Diablo corridor. e) The project will contribute to the incremental increase in air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region which does not meet Federal and State air quality standards. 3. In addition to the impacts identified above and specifically discussed in Sections III and IV. this Board acknowledges that the project would result in construction activities which would entail the commitment of natural resources, energy resources and human resources. This represents an irreversible commitment of these resources. 4. This Board finds that the Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts of this Project are overridden by the environmental , economic, fiscal, social, land-use or other benefits of the Project as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. VI. ALTERNATIVES CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "[djescribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project..." (CEQA Guidelines 15126(d). As the phrasing and the use of the word "or" implies, an off-site alternative analysis is not required in every EIR. This approach was endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, (1990) 52 Cal. 553. The Court emphasized that an EIR need only review a .reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which(1) "offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal ; and (2) may be feasibly accomplished' ... " (cites omitted) Goleta at 566. The EIR evaluates and compares several feasible alternatives to the Project, and this Board's findings regarding these alternatives are set forth below. The FEIR includes an analysis of an off-site alternative but determined that it was infeasible as defined by CEQA. The Board concurs with the alternative site analysis contained in the EIR. General This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project so as to foster an informed public participation and decision making and to permit a reason choice. This Board finds that the EIR adequately discusses and evaluates the relative merits of each of the alternatives. 1. Mitigated Project - Relocated Marina CBW\33390 9 5 - 29676.2 Brief Description The Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina Alternative (as discussed on pages 8-2 through 8-5 of the EiR) would relocate the marina to the Fallman property north of its location in the Project. The location is similar to that proposed as mitigation in the EIR. The maximum allowable number of units increases to 2,178. Concerning Areas 1, 2, and 3 in the project, Area 3 would remain the same as the project. Areas 1 and 2 would be changed from single family high density to single family medium density. Further, there are two areas of multifamily residential low density, one area surrounding the relocated marina and one area next to the proposed school site. Finally, there is an area in the northwest corner of the site, which would be designated single family low density. Findings - This.Board finds that the Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina Alternative is infeasible:Project and rejects the Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina Alternative for the following reasons: a) The higher density multi-family housing units would be unmarketable and hence could not be sold without loss. b) The fiscal effects of the Alternative would less desirable because of the unmarketability of the higher density multi-family units. c) The alternative would not meet the project objective of successfully creating a marketable development project. d) The alternative would result in increased destruction of tidal zone habitat. 2. Reduced Density Brief Description- The Reduced Density Alternative (discussed on pages 8-5 through 8-7 of the DEIR) would reduce the proposed number of residential units by 604 to 1,530. All of the Project site would be changed from Single Family High Density to Single Family Medium density except the southwest comer of Area 1 which remains Single Family High Density. Findings - This Board finds that the Reduced Density Alternative is less desirable than the Project and rejects the Reduced Density Alternative for the following reasons: a) The marina would have severe unmitigable noise, visual and recreational impacts on residents along the Kellogg Creek Channel. b) The Reduced Density Alternative would have greater wetlands impacts than the Project because the alternative marina site has more alkali wetlands than does the Project as mitigated. IBW\33390 9 6 29676.2 1 c) The Reduced Density Alternative would be less likely to be able to finance necessary public facilities and mitigation measures. 3. No Marina Brief Description- The No Marina Alternative (discussed on pages 8-7 through 8-8 of the DEIR) is the same as the Reduced Density Alternative except that the marina site is replaced with Single Family Residential Medium Density. Area 1 would replace the Project's Single Family Residential -High Density with Single Family Residential - Medium Density except for the Southwest comer which would remain Single Family Residential -High Density. Findings - This Board finds that the No Marina Alternative is tnfeast#ie and rejects the No Marina Alternative for the following reasons: a) The No Marina Alternative would not meet the project objective of a connection with and orientation towards the Delta. b) The No Marina Alternative would be less likely to be able to finance necessary public facilities and mitigation measures. c) The No-Marina Alternative would be far less marketable than the project. 4. Revised Relocated Marina Brief Description - The Revised Relocated Marina Alternative (discussed on pages 7 through 10 of the Hofmann Letter in the FEIR) is exactly the same as the _project as mitigated in the EIR. Findin s - The Board adopts the Revised Relocated Marina as it is identical to the Project as mitigated in the EIR. Rerr}oved:Poing TtnberrI aitet�at;v , because it Js tlot mcli3dec€ in rezone S. Lagoon Site Plan Brief Description - The Lagoon Site Plan Alternative (discussed on pages 11 through 13 of the Hofmann Letter, in the FEIR) would utilize 283 fewer acres than the Project and contain 1,400 units, 600 fewer than the Project. The project would construct an extensive lagoon system, similar to that of the existing Discovery Bay development. Further the Lagoon Site Plan Alterative would construct an 18 hole golf course. Findin s - This Board finds that the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative is infeasibf ............::....... :.. and rejects the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative for the following reasons: DEW\33390 9 29676.2 1 a) The Lagoon Site Plan Alternative would not meet a major screening criteria because it would not meet U.S. Army Corp of Engineers approval due to loss of jurisdictional wetlands. b) The Lagoon Site Plan Alternative would impact rare, endangered and threatened species to a much greater extent than the project. c) The construction of an extensive lagoon system as well as the irrigation of a large golf course would degrade the surface water quality to a greater extent than the project. - - 6. Discovery Bay East — Brief Description - The Discovery Bay East Alternative (Discussed on pages 13 through 16 of the Hofmann Letter in the FEIR) would utilize land east of the existing Discovery Bay Project. The alternative is an 'off-site" alternative as defined in CEQA and endorsed in Citizens of Goleta Valley V. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, (1990) 52 Cal. 553. The alternative would have extensive lagoons and waterways like the existing Discovery Bay development and the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative. The alternative would have between 1,500 and 2,500 units. Findings - This Board finds that the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative is infeasible and rejects the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative for the following reasons: a) The Discovery Bay East Alternative is not feasible as defined by CEQA because the alternative would require that the entire site be excavated at least 12 feet and the peat soil removed to another location. b) The Discovery Bay East Alternative is unfeasible as defined by CEQA because the site is below the 100-year flood plain and would need to be elevated in excess of 40 feet from the bottom of the lagoon to meet engineering and FEMA requirements. c) The Discovery Bay East Alternative would have more impacts relating to boating activity because the alternative would be more oriented to boating activities than the Project. 7. No Project Brief Description - As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2), a No Project Alternative was evaluated as a project option. The No Project Alternative (as discussed on pages 8-9 through 8-10 of the DER) would involve continuing development in accordance with the current General Plan land use designations, zoning and other relevant policies. Under the No Project scenario, the site would DBW\33390 9 B 29676.2 continue its agricultural uses. The No Project Alternative would represent a decreased level of impact in all areas measured on a quantitative basis when compared with the project. However, under the No Project Alternative any environmentally questionable agricultural practices would continue. Findings - This Board finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and rejects the No Project Alternative for the following reasons: a) Mitigation Measures incorporated into the Project, or otherwise adopted by this board, will substantially lessen or avoid most of the environmental effects of the Project thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or impact avoiding benefits of adopting the No Project Alternative. b) The No Project Alternative would achieve only one of the project objectives; minimizing impacts to wetlands. c) The No Project Alternative would force the existing Discovery Bay development to shoulder more of the fixed costs of necessary area-wide infrastructure improvements such as drinking water quality improvements, contrary to project objectives. d) The No Project Alternative would provide few if any of the environmental, fiscal, social, economic, land use or other benefits derived from the project, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. VII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Introduction The Board has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts identified in the EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the EIR describes certain impacts which, although lessened, are potentially not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Notwithstanding the identification and analysis of impacts which are identified in the EIR as being significant and potentially significant which have not been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance, the Board acting pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the benefits inuring to the Project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and that the GPA should be approved. This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be significant and unavoidable in Section III, IV, and V above. The Board also finds and determines that the mitigation measures which were discussed in the EIR, public comments, County responses, or other portions of the administrative record but are not adopted or will not be incorporated into the project as determined in =aW\33390 29676.2 99 these findings are infeasible given the project's overriding benefits. Each of the specific project benefits discussed below are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Each of the matters set forth below, independent of the other matters, constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project despite each and every impact that will remain significant. B. Specific Findings 1. Project Benefits Outweigh Unavoidable Impacts. The remaining unavoidable and irreversible impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, land-use and/or other considerations set forth herein because the benefits of the Project outweigh any significant and unavoidable or irreversible adverse environmental impacts of the project. 2. Balance of Competing Goals. The Board finds it is imperative to balance competing goals in approving the Project and the environmental documentation for the Project. Not every policy or environmental concern has been fully satisfied because of the need to satisfy competing concerns to a certain extent. Accordingly, in some instances the Board has chosen to accept certain environmental impacts because to eliminate them would unduly compromise some other important economic, social, environmental, fiscal, or other type of goal. C. Overriding Considerations Specifically, this Board finds that the following social, economic, environmental, fiscal and/or other project benefits warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any significant impacts of the Project which are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. a) Provision of Housing. The Project would provide approximately 2,135 housing units for the area and region. The Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") has projected an increase of approximately 58,500 households in Contra Costa County between 1990 and the year 2000. Of these, approximately 6,600 are projected to settle in the rural East County region. The project would accommodate approximately 32% of these new households. b) Master Planned Community. The Project has been carefully planned in conjunction with the existing Discovery Bay master planned community. The two projects taken together provide both cohesion and economic and planning synergy to each other. By providing comprehensive master planning to accommodate projected housing needs for the DBW\33390 loo 29676.2 r more rural portion of the East County, the Project can successfully provide the infrastructure and amenities required to support carefully planned residential and commercial development. The alternative to a master planned community to accommodate projected housing needs is often piecemeal and uncoordinated planning which taxes county resources and infrastructure. c) Provision of Recreational Amenities. The Project will provide an additional marina, boating facilities and additional lakes. These water related amenities will enhance the community and the East County. In addition, they will make the Delta more accessible. d) Provision of Long Term Jobs. The Project in combination with the existing Discovery Bay Community, together with the amenities that each project provides, helps to create an attractive base for potential new employment generators and the creation of new jobs. With traffic congestion continuing to impede commute patterns and with the advent of new technology such as fiber optics, telecommunications and the information highway, increasingly master planned communities such as Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West will attract new industries oriented towards telecommunications and information transmission. The Project will also provide housing for employees of any new industries attracted to the area. e) 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. Additional sales tax revenues will also be generated for the County by Project residents and by contractors during construction of the Project. The Project will also generate additional fees towards local and regional agencies for solutions to public services and facility needs. f) Provision of Long and Short Term Jobs. During construction the project will provide significant numbers of construction related jobs to County residents as well as the long term service jobs which will be generated to support the needs of the project residents. g) Project support of Local Retail The commercial demand from the Project's residents will make the commercial space located in the Discovery Bay and Byron 78 projects more viable, causing both an efficient land-use pattern and a reduction in trips for out of the area shopping. DBW\33390 1�1 29676.2 VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Based on the EIR and the entire administrative record before the Board, the Board finds as follows with respect to Mitigation Monitoring: 1. Time lines and long term responsibility with respect to monitoring Mitigation Measures will be assigned at the completion of the project approval process pursuant to a Board approved Mitigation Monitoring program. This Mitigation Monitoring Program will be finalized prior to final project approval. 2. The interest of the Mitigation Monitoring Program is to ensure the draft Mitigation Measures are tracked and that timing of mitigation is appropriately conducted. If a Mitigation Measure were to fail, the County would then use its police power to enforce appropriate changes which would bring the failed Mitigation Measure into compliance with the original intent or change the Mitigation Measure where the original Mitigation Measure proves to be infeasible. 3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is in full compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 4. The Board hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. IX FINDINGS REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Based on the entire administrative record before the Board, the Board finds as follows with respect to the Discovery Bay West Rezoning: n The GeReF.+l Plan AmeRdment it ir�teMally nGRsiste Rt and is eensie.t z. rT,v�..+v,�cr 1 Pursuant to Govemm ent Gode section;66803; the:bisccivery 13ay 1tV rezt�tng is cansistent wi#h<the pDlicies of the Contra Costa Gbberaf F}l 8S 3f328ntfei by the Discovery Bay.Wes �Generai :Plan.Amendment of Decembet,2(}, 1994: The discoveryi3ay West rezoning will canstttute a residential environment of sustained.>desirability and urill be m':harmony with the:character b.f the.:nearby community.; X96763290 102 6 3 1n::accordance'with the requirements'necessary dor :adoption of P 1dtstrtcf zoning, :the Board #finds fhat:the developrnent is of a harrrtonious tnnouattve pian and justifies the exceptions fro.m:the normal application of:the.zornng:code, Including. variances andparcel cori#figuration and.designi to pro �de:a #�ettec conformity vuitl ............. . . .. ... . existing terrair3 features and favid use fimitattons>in th'e area.. 4 The'project .appllcan# has::ndicatod.tbat they intend to pornmence constructton w�thln a and one half:years of.th effective date Qf the #final ptolect approval :�BW\33390 1�3 _7:676.2 1DDENDUM to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -REPORT, DISCOVERY SAY WEST April 23, 1995 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Background_, The Discovery Bay west project was originally :-submitted to the Contra testa,-County Pla .- -- epartnent in =1993. The required prnject applications consisted of a General Plan Amendment, a rezoning request (2963 RZ) , and a Development Plan (3025-91) and a subdivision (7686) . A draft Environmental impact Report ("EIR") was prepared pursuant to the California .Environmental Quality Act-of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ) and circulated for public comment on August 10, 1994 . In response to public continents, a final EIR was prepared in November of 1994. On December 20, 1994 the Contra Costa County Board of supervisors, as Lead Agency, certified the final EIR as complete with regard to the General Plan Amendment, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21151 and approved the proposed General Plan Amendment with some changes. Proposed Changes &p thg Discovery Day-West -Project. The original Discovery Bay West project preliminary development plan proposed to construct an approximately 330 slip marina on a portion of the project site on the southern portion of the project adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Pursuant to the changes in the General Plan Amendment made by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 19941 the project preliminary development plan now proposes to rezone that portion of the project to accommodate the preservation of the alkali wetlands open space and eliminate certain impacts associated with boat traffic along Kellogg Creek. Further, the marina has been relocated to the Fallman property near the center of the project. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Purpose of this Addendum. Under CEQA guidelines section 15162 , after an EIR is has been prepared, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may not be required unless: 1. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project; . 2 . Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken . which will require important revisions in the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous EIR; or Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 2 3. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and A. the information was not known and could not have been known at the mime the-preyiou%gilt-etas- eartif ied as - complete, and R. the new information shows any of the following: wt - The project EIR will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) Mitigation Measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. Staff has considered whether any of foregoing criteria have been met since the original EIR was certified as complete and concluded that, using these criteria, a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR is not appropriate. However, section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a lead agency to prepare and Addendum to an BIR if: 1) none of the conditions described in section 15162 have occurred, 2) only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EiR under consideration adequate under CEQA, and 3) changes to the EIR made in the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. Therefore the purpose of this Addendum is to set forth the basis for the conclusion that the minor changes in the project description do not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Although the conclusion of this Addendum indicates that no new mitigation measures should be imposed to address project impacts, staff may recommend the imposition of now conditions of approval to insure that the project as amended complies with applicable county ordinances, policies and regulations. These conditions are not mitigation OBu\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 3 measures per se because they do not relate to significant environmental impacts. II. PROJECTIMPACTS -� SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT COULD BE REDUCED To A-LEVEL-_OF INSIGNIFICANCE Staff's review of the project focused on whether the changes proposed in the project require EIR revisions due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts, whether substantial changes have occurred with respect to the - - circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and whether previously unavailable and important new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15162 has become available. The discussions immediately following are for those impacts that were either found to be less-Athan-significant, or that were found to be significant but could be mitigated to a level of less than significance by changes to the project. Each section has the objective of explaining why the proposed project changes would not result in additional significant impacts, or exacerbate existing impacts to the point where additional mitigation would be necessary. A. SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER The EIR analyzed the project's potential impacts related to drainage, flood potential, surface water quality, stream bank erosion and groundwater quantity and quality. The EIR concluded that the portion of the project related to the marina could have significant effects on stream bank erosion in the vicinity of Kellogg Creek. The changes to the project will eliminate the potential increase in stream bank erosion along Kellogg Creek by eliminating the potential for significantly increased boat traffic along Kellogg Creek. Further, examination of the plan by a hydrologist indicates that the new location of the marina will not generate any significant new impacts in the nature of current changes, erosion or flooding. (see attached letter) B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES D8u\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 4 The EIR analyzed the project's potential impacts of the marina location on the biological resources in the project. The EIR concluded that the additional boat traffic could disturb the habitat of the Southwest Pond Turtle as well as increase the ion of the. habitat of -the Mason's lilaevpsis� Califora=- - - hibiscus and Suisun marsh aster. The Elft also noted that construction of levees and channels could result in the short term degradation of aquatic habitat. They EIR concluded that the marina would not directly result in the loss of any other special species habitat. The changes in the project will eliminate the potential disturbance to Southwest Pond Turtle habitat in the Kellogg Creek area but may cause disturbance to Pond Turtle habitat in the area of the new marina. Staff concludes that the changes in the project will not add any new unmitigated impacts to the Southwestern Pond Turtle because the mitigation discussed in the UR would mitigate the loss of the habitat equally well in either location. Further, staff concludes that both the original and the relocated marina could cause the loss of Mason's lilaeopsis, California hibiscus and Suisun marsh aster habitat. However, staff concludes that the changes to the project will not exacerbate these impacts because the mitigation measures discussed in the BIR will mitigate these impacts equally well in either marina location. C. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMIC HAZARD The EIR analyzed the potential impact of seismic activity, soil instability and topography Change on the project and the environment. The EIR concluded that construction of the levees - including those required for the marina could result in unstable slopes especially during seismic activity. The EIR proposed slope engineering techniques as mitigation. Staff concludes that the changes to the project will not substantially effect any of the noted geologic impacts„ because the overall grading and construction activity with regard- to the marina will not change. D. NOISE The EIR analyzed the project's potential noise impacts on surrounding land uses as well as the project's susceptibility to noise impacts from surrounding land uses. The EIR concluded that the project's contribution to the ambient noise level after Dau\33340 49455-1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West page 5 construction was significant especially with regard to projected levels along Kellogg Creek. The changes in the project will substantially reduce the ambient noise levels along Kellogg.-Creek by eliminating--the -projected increase in boat traffic. The changes will result in increased noise levels along the proposed connection to Dredger Out through the Fallman,. .property, however, that property is much less sensitive to increased noise levels. Therefore staff concludes that no new significant impacts will=b6-daused by the change in the project and no additional mitigation is necessary. E. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The EIR examined the impact of the marina location on traffic levels and on circulation patterns. It was concluded that the marina would not significantly add to cumulative traffic levels or disturb interior circulation. The changes to the project will not effect the overall level of traffic and while there is a change in the internal circulation pattern staff concludes that the relocation of the marina will not cause any new substantial circulation impacts. F. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE The EIR analyzed the project's potential impact on air quality - and climate as it relates to the location of the marina. The EIR concluded that there would be a slight change in the microclimate near the marina due to the presence of surface water. The changes to the project will cause changes in the microolimate of the area where the marina in to be relocated but will eliminate the change in the location where the marina was originally proposed. Staff concludes that this will not add any new substantial impacts. G. LAND USE AND PLANNING The EIR analyzed the project's potentially significant impacts on land use and planning. The ETR concluded that the project would have potentially significant conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The original location of the marina was not in the vicinity of any neighboring agricultural uses. DBV1,.33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 6 The new location of the marina is in the interior of the project and staff concludes that in its new location the marina will not conflict with any adjacent agricultural uses or generate any new significant impacts. H. UTILITIES,AND PUBLIC SERVICES The EIR analyzed the project's impact on public utilities and services and concluded the project would increase the consumption of water and sewage treatment service, inorease school and child care enrollment, increase the demand for police and fire service and increase the need for mosquito abatement and flood control protection. The relocation of the marina will not effect the projects demand for schools and child care or the demand for sewage treatment or water consumption (see attached letter regarding water consumption through the lake system) . The changes to the project will also not effect the severity of potential flooding (see attached letter) or the project's demand for fire or police protection. As such, staff concludes that no addition mitigation is required because of the changes to the project. I. RECREATION The EIR analyzed the impacts the project would have on the demand for recreational facilities and also the impacts the projectfs proposed recreational facilities would have on the public. The EIR concluded that mitigation would be required to reduce the project lack of parks facilities to a less than significant level and also to protect the public from hazardous trespass along the ECCID canal easement. The EIR also concluded that the marina in its original location would have significant impacts on the homeowners along Kellogg Creek. The changes to the project will not effect its supply of or demand for park facilities or the likelihood or risks associated with trespass along the ECCID canal easement. The changes will, however, reduce the impacts of boat traffic on the homeowners along Xellogg Creek by shifting the boat traffic to Dredger Cut and the new proposed access to the relocated marina. There are no existing or proposed homes along the proposed access channel to the new marina location. Further, Dredger cut is sufficiently wide and well used that the additional boat trips will not have DBW\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 7 significant impacts on adjacent uses. staff concludes that the changes to the project will reduce the existing impacts on recreation in the Discovery Bay area near Kellogg Creek-and- will. not add any new significant impacts elsewhere. J. VISUAL RESOURCES The EIR examined the visual impact of converting the project area from agricultural use to suburban development. The EIR 'concluded that given, the relatively flat terrain, no scenic vistas would be disturbed. However, the BIR did conclude that the oriVinal location of the marina would have a .significant -negative impact on the homeowners opposite it along Kellogg Creek. The Changes to the project will not effect any of the studied vistas except that the relocation of the marina will cause the view of the homeowners along Kellogg creek to remain unchanged as natural wetlands. This will eliminate the significant visual impact the original project had on them. Staff therefore concludes that the modifications to the project will reduce the visual impacts projected in the EIR and will not add any new significant impacts. K. CULTURAL RESOURCES The EIR examined the project's effect on potential historic and prehistoric resources located within the project area. With respect to the location of the marina, the EIR rioted that there were no potential historic or prehistoric resources. The new location of the marina is not within any area identified in the ETR as likely to contain historic or prehistoric resources. Therefore staff concludes the proposed relocation of the marina will not effect historic or prehistoric resources within the project area and will not require addition mitigation measures. L. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS The EIR analyzed the impact of the high voltage electric lines located on the project site on the proposed project. The EIR concluded that the high voltage electric lines would have no significant effect on any intense land use located near the power lines. oeu\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 8 The modifications to the project do effect the exposure to residential or other intense land uses to electromagnetic fields. Staff concludes that no new EMF impacts will be generated by the changes to the project and therefore no additional mitigation is necessary.- _. III. PROJBCT IMPACTS - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE UNAVOIDABLE The following discussion addresses those impacts that were found to be significant in the BIR and that could not be mitigated to a level of less-than-significance. Each section -has the objective of assessing whether the proposed changes to the project will result in new or exacerbated significant environmental impacts. A. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMIC HAZARDS The EIR analyzed the impact of the mass grading required by the project and concluded it was significant and unavoidable. The changes to the project do not significantly change the amount of grading required for completion of the project. Staff therefore concludes that the significant and unavoidable mass grading impacts will not be exacerbated by the changes to the project. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The EIR examined the project's effect on loss of woodland habitat . and concluded that the development of original marina site would result in the permanent and unmitigable loss of 12 acres of alkali wetland habitat. The changes in the project will preserve this alkali woodland habitat but may result in the loss of an equal or lesser amount of wetlands of a lesser quality. As such, staff concludes that the impacts to wetlands will be reduced by the changes to the project but will remain significant. C. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The EIR analyzed the traffic impacts of the project on the Vasco Road and Byron Highway corridors. The EIR concluded that the project would contribute to the unacceptable and unmitigable Level of Service along those corridors south of the Camino Diablo corridor. a0u��9a 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 9 The modifications to the project would not effect the overall amount of traffic generated by the project and therefore will not effect the Levels of Service along the Vasco Road and Byron Highway corridors. Staff therefore concludes that the -- _- - modifications -to the project-will not- exacer-bate a-ny--of the unavoidable traffic impacts identified in the fIR. D. AIR QUALITY The EIR analyzed the project's impact on regional air quality and concluded that the project will Contribute to the incremental increase in air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area, an area which does not meet Federal and State air quality standards. The EIR concluded that mitigation will not reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The changes to the project will not effect the amount of air pollution which will be emitted from project generated traffic. Therefore, staff concludes that the impacts to regional air quality will not be effected by the changes to the project. : D. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ,The EIR discussed several growth inducing impacts of the project. The EIR identified the precedential effect of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning, the extension of sewage treatment service and public water supply, and the inducement of commercial development as the most important growth inducing aspects of the project. The EIR discussed mitigation measures but concluded that no mitigation could reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications to the project would not effect the overall scope of the development or the need for utility expansion or the market for new commercial development. Staff therefore concludes that the changes to the project will have no effect on the growth inducing nature of the project. E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The EIR analyzed the project's cumulative impacts on the environment when taken into account in conjunction with the other planned or approved development projects within the Discovery Bay area (Albers and Byron 78 projects) . The EIR concluded that the oeu33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay west Page 10 project cumulatively would increase the loss of agricultural land and open space, increase traffic congestion, increase the regional ambient noise level and decrease the regional air quality, add to the reduction in valuable biotic habitat, add to the visual- conversion of open space-vistas -to=suburban-= - -- development, increase the number of people subject to geologic hazards and add to the strain on public utilities and other public services. The EIR concluded that these cumulative impacts were unavoidable. The changes to the project will not changes the project's contribution to all of the above cumulative impacts. Staff concludes that the modification to the project will not exacerbate the already projected cumulative impacts. IV. CONCLUSION OF THIS ADDENDUM The circumstances that would justify the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR for this project are not present. There are no changes in the project or changes in the attendant circumstances or previously unavailable new information which would suggest that the project will have substantially new or - substantially more severe significant impacts than predicted in the original EIR. Further, there is no evidence which would suggest that new mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially lessen the project's significant impacts. This should not be taken to imply that additional or amended Conditions of Approval for this project should not be considered for items of concern that may be raised by Planning Staff, the Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors. DBW%33390 49455,1 P.7 a f O d tla Z� Q d Q �.► �. Q � � w 0 - A G p � w � C d^} t-. craw � y v •ren � °� � a d y C ' cit c 77 G:; >,En cz a 'CAcl c Uv cz o ami ° ' 73 << ccs " j E b p U U oj Cls L. cn w tn C. U o k .b o a p Scn o 00 � � ash, � � � >, � ,a? •� o cl Cl 40 rF+i�l Cc;M�1L� 4� O '^ u *s. N cn t' 0 O �✓ Q» talo N 3 (u cu a,-C 1•�r a� ° ° aninn �t = E w � o o co as " r v ? (U tj o 4(5 Im 1 to ed CJ Cl. >1O. C as 4 tv cts . .cz C. tn h� two cz CA y U O N w U It cC V bA C V Ce3 N wco '« pp cC O �. y. Q Eoa� E EUE � . U o U <: ° ccz o cz ►�. U C01 C rte+ O p » O C4 CC Cil m .b 4. CC1 A U w " .. O a� >, O im cl oa o o o a o yCz a 3 < UUUUUU i° o o , w •� L cz � ,-- A b :?Www• � � «s ctt ccs c� cet �u" v � �-' cn cn cn C,3 cct p O ;> < 0� ::: UUUUUUUUW Ww J24 c o r- (L) � ° a b � A u1:1 > q1:1 Wpr� syo _, Uacvv� Vocn U A a � UdU rn 3 UUUUUUwU � ww aE� dw U U U U U U U A U W A d 3 A B U U U U U U U U G r \ A w :• :. �' r y � a d� • r. .fir V � r J • N !r�� � G 4'• i Ate. A � f^• •rn O �. ,,,r •- � � G.O.. .y rr •"� G r r•,p G � r � G w ifH •� y T ro v T C G O r . � v v t A A, N G r✓ V A fl' I G i• �+ O y 7. A V V "� i V +,r, r.R i i A Cr. U iN+ O v G '�G AC-o u U �1 i Cn !� y oa O G u A A C O a✓ G C O O oo r. A � �O N J "� .G G v .+ v �' Cy,. ie a 'O O Ye• u p A t 0,- F O p ,r v G_ r i V y �- N A i "> C G �i 4G 'b x A 4•�G r bb �• A •. O+ �D+ G '� p+ u •N 'v Q � %% �•OG y �4 y G• G uq ,qui, �n p � q p,'� .��?j u �e �a � p A vcy, G •Op. h yAto wt 'A hru "Qc ' A 'Cy A u Ee �. .r .+. J F J V u •✓ •v Q V ✓ V AD ON aA -p - Yi •i� ✓ 'N w V i y �• y G 4 V 'G '•,.r A 'ia h o d' r✓jO. pe ; u p•w es t� oe � •o o. A 7 u G E r .kl c r• J u > 0 C- u < L) < CIS w 4) zo Gjl LL. -C3 tj vs CD Cc ✓ �luz tu > > CA -tr V C V V � � v r G r C r rr d —rd CIS, a v Ci O✓ � � � v O •r- G G ::, G O r� oA F✓ G d G CG y V ♦ N r, - 12 4 rte"' 'y, y ,,; � G � ;, ,�'y 4; � 3 A t„y ;4 � ,� $ d �•3 J �, A G UG ✓ •-- � w0 G y v U Q " A d•'�7 � p � D � y �; d i " `��' N,"O A y e y c - U V � G.6 y A Q 'GA J y ✓ ..0 •y=C N d U "� y i G 'R y A "'.' U. S> y G U G y N � �, 4 rot er" d ♦ ✓ YA y O G 7 G �' N � py O o0 O i � y� dG..� ,Gh i R ad+� ✓moi' t+ 'i G y Q• � it� �it � v Ani '/� � N r �„ � .� rD r" 4 � �" O �O O y y („) e� G (} .• � A 'o t� .. U `,+� 3 v p tj O °> �.' �, '✓' "v' 7 v .. � `� p.✓ p. N A .� � V {�••y G O d •3 n � N� � O / i '�'" � G � '+� GA'A O ""` i „' y W! .� p •O v A oa •'O 'G rr`J i v O y d 7 � "id V ... eJ G 'O .r A J v U N v •� U ✓G A �, �"' W rj„A � ✓ O {�, ✓ � O fj i %? v C• y 'S v, GA v �i i G � '� " N V y N G v, 4� A�� y �i'GaY✓ N,,, �3. V�' '�3�' N `"� y r ,yr✓., � � Gy') t�"4 y A A '".9 N" ? � � .y., '�3 V i ✓ '� i CO A .N+ y N y � y G�""' u N Q y S% �' y A •�O N y y N� � V � 4) G .N O G w (i O �' y � , 4 G N 3 w y y V O A " �+ A v O ass O• % O r V GO � ♦ yam. 7 V � > � y �'� � G i ✓+ y yrs Q i % �� t�61 +yi~j `'"•� r r d G JS u 45 V^ .. ry„ V v ,i• 6a V I`� N � p A U vN i •v A 3 '� ✓ 7y � ✓ Q d � .�y V r O �• � � O � A A ♦ G N cUo O E G• OA '2. r. G G C W � o W cd s: r G Cts >+W G E a v G G ' G o � cozo � H � w � Eo.v z to 45 - Z �• ,w � ,. ca v m .ek ao R y r F- Z O 3 Z' c G cc N 1J t ri, J � N n C N 63 Z G ao tj R W 7A ^ R O w y N y eNacr A V W U � d na i C y O a R u � � N U d R i— to O y � u � ° r � •N . = L C c = r A U= ' I A to M 00 A E b G cs a 3 a0 E8R �% H C6Do io at y r C.'G u G ° 0 r oc > G. cco O CN E ° op ed Q > cc v � = Equ � so- a °°`° Fav = $ tj ' 3 ° N cv/s 00 0`0 F y ra .ti an ° .3 a`°r ° oo a mow, S y E E o , � o.� Eu ° E ° au 'S c� 'E .G i! d w N wOi V w �.. O .b "d ts O at -0 C ti+ C „ `� c m'3 � •tom—ami � .� V � � � a� w o o •o ,:'4"'. '^ 3 a c 3 A G C U — u C e`Qe ,Nrco Do o a -E j Q`'.� •�° :A °ti "0N C '�' N N a •a� •61 per. w E u Coc° `C°� ctO E aeo= o a > a cc E rs cr o r.+ Z iY d C O � O �. .•C 6i c N r,j G "fi eG0 i ..r •� G�E. CG p x q c -I " y y d r� i y ✓� y .~'.� �S r a WU' oo i i Y v y Larl a> d t O W O .00 p R G d Y A � Ga to 6 W " O' N ei O , � � s41 o ? v •a v t°N ' a a � G 3 G �V ✓ A •- .a � � � d��A to N Z � q J � Z Z � a Q ca v � r :o •P i '� i •d N N 7 tO r w G R N N ♦ co VI A y A � � O N R C O• W ✓4r 6 .� ,� a R o G O e '� A W I y N ✓ Y i ta to rI oD G ' ice. v u 'A �.� r t01 G .�- A G r r• ♦. OG i J r v G ♦ i "O A V l y O = n y ♦ p y A u N r G 9 G op j,.. •:4 w •G '� u oD w 7 Q'; Cr5 3 '� �" � G O G y � %' co y eG4 .. G J O u E �d GA .u"i� � .NJ �"' G � '„p p0 G O V 4 A A .u.•u '�♦„4 ce 46 u 6 A A G v w O CL O O _ O. O' v .♦ s GO :P G Wr+� p C � T U ? p.3 N :: `r. G'♦'. " y A 3 yA 'GO eo c�a G R A -' y u ✓ w G O " tp y� .♦ O G i O A rJ O G y O A Q � � v � � � w J O• H i� � ,O♦. O 'C u �. G O .G ,. J U s5 ° � $ yc °..' rte" i .Obi r > u V 'O to O > V O to OD '•C R Z °,: G �O O » • 44 .. v �. T �� i 'i•O N �^ y G A � O i 'O d � JWu,,, e~i A N O•+ A es ve L7 0 '.oGR 3aQ, yo 0 Q � Q � A d � � M s♦ N N � � � � < \ c \ j � & 15. » S U ; / Poo � \ � X� ; - � W % < m OR � ® � t� . • kk © % $ O % © � \ f � ? � � \ f � = U i ' J p 1 a •^�• 1, i O v� vA ? w � w d G ° Q O •~ � M � ••. ,�n a A H J T �N O G N u s�O i 'n J i A � y ,u.• 'r 0 p �'' •3 30 � •.. t� oo y � � A y� Airm •Na �Of'yo> v y a � y •4 3' �' Too r i p ..• O V '� •9 d+ A w � O O is m'7 V � C7 a G•J G 0 «� c w = N i tJ3 (� t 3 7 ✓ 'eco a N. f LL J 14 � � •G � � � vii F= a =,�`:" tv c W � u C rs C- C- C- < Gc41 en V ea 10 eo OC c R v n u u G = a ou4 A '7 ...�.. 3 Q.W. M N w+ 00 « u O0 N e0 + L C 00 L C L>` i « y u O (� L to r to C ep t4 > O G N O C tO LU U ss0 Y^ G utj A ►. V y R A 00 ". "O G R 00 C W ��. is u w °> a C 3 y E ; •y c?4A 4.4 v 3 p +: •.�'°. i eOe C cs <? O y V �O,i U a .r. r 4 A ? :'8 w til U y a: O MO C O j u eo O G C v N O .>. H c :, � .i '� •c� a o C6 ft Q `" �'', o PQ n O *.3 tO3 >> Ij O G v rte. G O+ vii G eya L T 0 se v �i+ r N G C G .rte g, 9..= X'T 4� C. G.r ► '. �ti" . 41 _� ,ZS ca 'a to to SI vs o, � 3 u Z N c z z m E- 3 a r 3 c N U L to > > 3 ry N ^ 3 Z Z Z v Q "O c o`. d ea Com'' U d N N r�1 C �ii C •"•� �•C �".. `n w C L .C. L'• �i Q: O !. O O y � .�' j cm socr 3 o uo � � � oE �'Ev ° .. cco � E c. a "c eyi O s y G u j 'y ° .�U Cv.. `amu o i° O in O U tf :: f ; ° a ? , = -' N ., '� C C rJ C•3 a 06-j CL1 cA E s Ow c '^ fl. c o c .� v y :u N Q'..+ C o Q ao u Q V 4 •.�.+ d CL' ��" .4 A �j+ � A, W O '� vi •y CQ J N �,.,,'O a ... to Im- 4A '3 a h to i C G r" Gy w F G.• tj u Cl- y a Z �, ,� � �•'�'> cr s V $ O C � V {{�� a Q t�4 .7 C '•'�. �^'�,�' s) Via..` � N 6 vF. to cr to u A cs. it G 3 r '^ c :L v a'o � N. = 0 -°• O V CG � © S �� a Z O � J � C E- v Q ;n 3 v J r J � A N N J '� .•'JC 4 7 � w + A •• j ems, ¢ � n r Am- G ;,, n sA � r � r •3 irG OVA SS v G J � N ♦ jo tO o A °• cam ? : y s G N '9 v G 3 es 0 ..tr .3 3 W r u n R ^G G OPV r VD R I G ✓n+ ' O '�i r O G * y '�� V R 1 i+a j O tom„ "� N p. ✓ i ,.. v N .. „r G .+ N G b d+ (} G v � U ` N G �jj R m °: R h.♦� G G A �' ff'� � G ^ • y "' •n G :p oa ��. V 1 6 -- ✓vj � Qp u..r N� Lb _ y R v N G Q r y 7 w y, 'i i. !6 R f ta ra U R C� u :a o � W .• s I �d J I j r i r � v 4 � w 7 U n r � R y Q o• U p0 N to r� V Q el Q Q ✓ E" 2 d t' 3 t r A ^ U LV tj m•. vG 'ea St IS Z p 'v •� a w telIr fi G G G G ��• i O y 'rj 'O A p. a u •n L ,v � ,�,� O � •7 i " � w 3 � e0a °• w �•' Q � rzs,, O � v'G � t0 >. Q` i/ y yy-` � N •w i r G. O C+ � 4.1 V 6Ab �' U V .G Y' v y � � G V '% � . G+r �� r � 0• _, „ A �.i ..• � to '4 � e0a O �, �'. sr %G G � � '• i A O G G •w I = `^✓ f-- i !t' G V r H d r w O �. V O y"+, 0? C. ea v A �" + %+ 0 "� G i Aes I-j tr v U O A V C G G y y a A u .•, v G r ? i G* v `• , N K .•� d A p O �. „ , I . y „,. r i � r".r w w v V i C3+ V �, T.''f• G Ca• i =� G 'may a ti � A3tc � � o`"• � y :i c v > i` � � c o- ' °, �$ E e � y v uG � c @to 4-1 00 •w 4 cG ate. •y, c a I v l p I d N s J ^ , ✓ G Z, 00 v y GL ✓ ��,, c0 f.� G R � r G J J p � J �•v w N'r U y �✓ a o ytn A • 10 4 O•„ r Q O r p r 1 r � � N T t, 1. • ,r•w•�� r r j Z 's � G Q = G G "' � d •3 � oG � u s C r � •n .. _ G :s %s•� 3 O n C L v G a tj d 'o N v ° A on w u t ed C C G n G 7 C iL' .+ V G 7 ~.• A Y++ N u ¢O Y .► 3 y h ;3 A „3 y� :� y y G l •' ^ 4 .0 = v to on as ,� to `" u 0 Ulu .�.- G = cr d u O G N "J C �' G " A G G G 4 E `,.N A '� Cl r _ Ca C C' u 7 - dan .V'.. .� G ! ..+ ka aC A E.. c Q o L .7 O � C N J J N N 'J i :J r Q o _ T o G d O N jp $$ L U `c ✓y � � a'` GA�`nrS n N G ! stQ n N � G oD n 3-5 G r A Z,. n A V G'.a' y O• 7,j Q •� �" y V A i n N tj r %a yre� � � oDy c a ,, 7, ea u 3 p a„s, " Dow O o G A cs.p 7 i '�� G °� " °a refs n v✓�} a�'i �mG '�� j• G O A jy NGD'.'S) n G+ iY to p 'Q is � G G r w 1 e4 G U i G I OD JA 5 � d OG? y C v V V N do i 0 �%• r v 7 °fin N G' y•A �r1*4 � G es A y C T Aoo S/• :t1 i �y A W 9D .. �� i �T r ii 'C� � v ��- 0� v G � r r N u A O .. ✓ O (�. v y R G .• '�° ✓ yr. ry y reu v G ea oD ` `'" N t I a E•' tl v V -' C• z g •�a cy -s Q $ Z � I I N, N 27 v4 72 tz m m A a s cz 2 00 C cr 00 CV u E ZO = = -0 0 l7 C (J CO C:L C4 CL 84 < M. r- 'pd 4) 'Lob to to 17 m 04 to m 2 • '22 fto an — w "U �s = > 10 C6 .1 4, to72 41 �o J-5 -EliEU - ---------- C C. 9- w 72 J C4 (} ¢ m $ Z � u GC G .0 .uC O C r « . .u^. 3 'n' " to Z n � G�� � O � w, t ,O a :5 41 cc to u .�+ tr u T u a u GG `GS fO 'fl kw. v 1d u G.' u Erz , � Gr v tu to ba 0 G w 3 > O u ea C — u w io co u .n a G eb. .�. 6 0 y c C v G 3 b U U ^L s .•,^. 'K ;� yf _ �' u v.. �� � e.Ca y k U 'p �y tC�i. G p. � u,. to c is •: c c > a q ti t`s. 3 �, ., 4.1 0 .=4A G A s C � y C pia ~,,, t�•> � .AC � u _� O � u '�' u tiL''' �i G � — ^ � $ 04 a`a► aba c �r� =,—yam N r O C7 = n u u ._ .uu C G ey+ eo u o • r C) z Q z O = a d �- a G � i T ,J d c v C i co con Q V y ca v A C 7j N C y y T C C 3 w • c CSN. U .> A J 6. i A +'. •i U tT6 V 'D y ct' u 3 m A u .G ✓. G '� t y a rad ' ice^ ,. to tZ to ro C y S tj �+ t4 G �vs ou a O u a u 0 u A •I-4j to Ij 3 3 Z5 u % uAll w O a Z O O E' Q U Ia � U U J � '• a (..% r.- + u :J r. • u V 30 � G. G G w C. G• G O LL v Z C. a` a C M ^ C C G V U < U Z a n c 4 u v u c raa A Gam/) O uv O L A O » N U ��a+ A p,b OD41 _ _ d A T 4 l0 C. S7 O J Q 3 y M C. 9�0 �'. "�' i. G•' or, N N y'Qj p '� �a > tUi v •ii 4 C !2U L v •� �' H ra u •-,� a y � •u •� Q :: U 'pq � "C � •CY� C y �: u N U ..' �. O O.v N m o a s c L N c o rv� jA d N E G Y N N N Q i0 Yj N C •O O a .O Y Q _ v " _ o °' iy G C � G A R � �' . ; o` �•� ski � >, •a ,a � � E a _0 3 � •N �, ,: rz a e N d C 4 t m wOj y go 4A 4w Z C m v p b C C qpp _ a .r A oA 7 `pper t4 � � •i• y�y 3a O C. = Y p G � .� C '� Y '_ C G.�_ u N q 0 G Z C r cc v+ N N syr, u d v Z ° °- d N U Q w a tS1 C" ern se o+ •�_ u r ° T A s to 'f}' v r G L d woo4" 3:cr � a m+ y � N Y ✓ © 0 3 u a c, ED 4 Ir. O� r - O G Z CA a o Z A 0 N N r � - �y is y, Q � c Q G 7 u a Z cr L�'J A - L-.av0 _' s tj a ., oci 'ur° u as Cd _ �"' E c E cT c •= � � >..= .c u H � oo E 3 c" o = � c ..�. tj 6. _ u o u u c ye z sv aL y �_ y _""' a� 'O p N .v, v to E tn c •7 L �. r O G > .�. C w`�i N .tea ." rJ A C E 7 N e E C ,w . u _ U. N G r iI7 > T .� Ci # C a .O G C O uC �^ .� N 04.t =) 10.6 9 N , ._J. u 4Q ay •!D V •u .� i7¢ 7y. „ c •14 yt tai 3 :rt 4i '9 C 1! G oo to c ° E s, E— Z � Z 0 r+Q G i '7 � � � � z s � k � � � a +_� ■ a « 5 . � Ir as ' \ �4 \ k g ° � � « % � u . r r . � U U �. � • • 'G G �, y G U r o v ••i G+ O ca '� G •i '� O O G+ v of "' v L G v y i •7 b O L; ;'�" G ♦ N 'p N J v T yy'• 4 ."`. r "yJ' C's i ,w,} ♦ J Q' w 7- 301 to ��. c♦a 4 " V G '3 °� }L ♦ G 10'►N r O G G �e p O w N J v 3 3p F. v i G Jpi G ♦ 7 cd v O♦ y i/f n J G y � T a N •N G �" y 4 V N J .r N 'A 61 y r '� . G E v i p i w y 2 41 W A .y+ i N 4 N U y G A 4 i n♦ oc R w ' r p ... %' A �' � •r G � v oA d i� 'N .. i 9 G � $ � r ? G at n y Sal G �► .p y O p„ N y r J O• GN > r.. '� G'j d A � '7 •r �`,�„ L •.,. y G v y r � % �' eGi � y i O i v A ✓ v O .. G R 4 yrr a 3 6. ,{r 9 J 06- G � t' $ i R y t% r +•r G :d •o . ti a a d =+ Z G 77 Yf Li C 'G J U Q O U < O U d Z t" 16 E C :a ri tj n N w h ,YQ U j Cq— U � y � u 3 � � d •� u '� � ° uv» y •� y Nr Q p ai°axci Rr X toa C-1 rc ea ' c u G `° .c c % c c c N Q Iii L Q L I C l c c c U o N z _ o � � v d " o o a CISi 'w d -~ o F•- .o ta 3 L Z M- c,/� u G 51 3 G ca a o � ° c. � � .. � •v, G, c c cc -mac rau d am $ tl es '7 •� y a '3 "� �y ..�, G v ` n vyi U c bo p ti c c -3 ar � v 3 v G ze co O �r, v 6 I y J i i J .; i .i G G G• � t �G.• "Q vi :�6 i r G ton es i G "' •G G i A G ? v o• d ea 3 J �4 �+ v 7 r i pp i p G 4 p a, tA © L' G ti"�'-,eve •� C' %fl V � � 3 J �O d "'� u�" O� r ✓y v' QG �tU ' J V �6 .u/ Gb '�,. Y ,� i C ✓ Nr, 7l � J v a' y 3, v :: 4 c •r '"a L o► c .� � � 3 us o V" r F• W ' O V _ A v .o• a r U r U V r J T y r v G ' U c+► d o. +� AG f' G Z -- i r f � i A G i � O d z 1 � • i i G y Z R d � y V G U � :► �1 4r. ii J 1 E 7 ro r i� U v N � d lnEd 'f Z ea 3 �' c 3a Q •L � O a s f U Fd .. i y 3 N a M u ou Q� `t t � R 1 r v w►� td V 7 Y - S. J Q O v �O z v C� '^ O �y G G a y n G� � o �acy O�•� �' v G � e"d�• � d �V �.. s ,o c, Iz (.� ✓ as '� � W � O H Q r . peJ6 U r R � r p, N .n r n ^l I V �f G S A O G J Q � J w V�' r 12 C� d C •tom!' �' �,. *� r,,,. O d i m o r R N. r Jti v o. „s 1 I i J O} r I v i d ;i O N N SSS v � � •G N C�tn to Q = p 40 02 W G� Z a 2 v y Z v JA O r � eCa V.- v. oA fn .f+ v F s v 3 i C• w f i JS Oa N ::3 o AA 3 i r� �y pI s d a � •off W W 1 4 Q L p �� 7 � •O � G C2 G �J q Zr I In ocs u c G ,� co i � •:S �l r3 ij y 4 V In '•"� N Q sem„+ •% I On r a u C' P r VN F o. 6 ..J i N r > v r C U Z, N .r+t. ea G. Gam„ 6J ;,; •? C:6. � v ox = � O � 3 rG,, G G tw 13 v G iri .� a� r• .� � v =, a R wa°-Y `� E 2 y o o QG A J•6� .L' �' ",' CC �••r CY ••.� c a olu i A p Q Q U y ? o V T� 03 Q p. xc°nr � ? ta ° � � � " a �y �, G► c v (n a .+83."'1 a Cl G to G ' o L i U y y 6316 `► • 'M ►+ � G H L � p 'd "G"' d p Q d U J .! y Q G � r � (%3 .r O E cc ccvt m I*,-tr Ij U rz za 0 C CZ > ci4. tz .%A in —1c s as ti OD oto y 04 re. 75 �L C6o 4.) tj 7— , t ce. 75c zft tA z 0 wr raj tj a p 0+ i � J G n � i SN 3 3 Go a 4 sat, ca o R o 70 1L s v ^n 4 G S o u N ro Q :a WO d S 'i r• 3 P► a4 rte// ZY, O � � v r r 7 OA r t-, r• .r �t 0- r G � O r •� � i �V O i � o 1 � a �� � �` � �� d �' �� moo/v '✓ ��i c � o AM- ja y 4 W. •J, � O oD u .o o► W ,, o C�► i' v N r ca j G Y^ �^. N G •.. t op d © Q, .. t 4.0 = o i •� 'tls no cc CJ cc 03 tj tj 171 .z M VfC— W Ll. cz cts 04 cc 0 W %%', ": > w �: FE Vim„ ci ;A or- to C:6 qj > S fj 10 as > 0 CL. C6 ca to En %0 ip ej 42" W G7 d > 45 41 u s F- CA W cc 1 ii G O n J J Z n'E- a a Q � N H Cr � O ':7 r V � as O CG C �- oA Q 7 CM r � r y r v s .:. ma Jl- CZ GD ..a. z Q z Q U F � R ca .. 3 � U'f N N +n v A rr 7 I) Vf 1 � N J a ,G L.. �, ;� CtD w d e0 •C^ c:1 d c Z ° Z J C7 � t33 c 3 e- U 3 m o Q cu ° � w- .5 ,a.�' o c C a • E .. E v .� G z O � o z fl U � r ea .Y Yi �. o'. t r"'. �1 t � � \\ r r i ;� J � ! •, I .� r. � � J � � :.W 'ii �L-r" J I Z, 4' .d o tt, �� y y �' .-+ �. G ..� i .� 2� � J (� 1� 3 7d. r � � 1 7� .� "�' W r � 70 z n y � ✓� :A i � �• .., � ? V'� G � d. �' `�' d � a v o � . � a .i i N � � � is .. �R � � � Z � �'�, O � � m Z O � � f !S �C �I � Qom^ d I I r� � �� I 's U i �. �} Od r S N, a 4 'J - :C 7 Q+ n Z ti 17 cc J � ° o v d � J Z Q Q -� c =6 w A Q . n °X V R cis 'y d G.O.. Z O O v tj !� U N tm i J i J t R � �G r *S. i I I 1 Q 7d J N 19 N V Q � V A .• o a r G r A �U N, > 43 > m 65u Z zm .0 .z 0 Cc cc 4j > 0 U -= -5 u Hcg ,g -p .0 03 > C6 cc 7S cc14 'Ci Cl =0 Na cc C— m Q La T y •J � G J r � y C L r i '..• A y � „♦ � G s � r ♦ I _ :► 6 j N y . a a • 44 IS IS 71 A • ♦ '„ R G Z V 7 O♦ 08 0 v �. G t" v •'n � O p. a� G .. 'Ji rAj �PUJ 'y J •G � '' Cy � J N . tr r r, „D r r, v r i J i J r i n o A a d u d r ed U� `A3 n W � 7' d 'R' ,� 4 Ate' s Cu OL ,; ,, p•YAo r � � � � ✓'�+ Ott y• O mop O p G yvE O � � too r, O � , Z u O •r' U a a, r� J :a 'S y G J G � � •. J n o `�' o •-- as 0 � d E o o..•�i, ss G a� R ''s � r d 'C � G ea ci CSS•� ""�. O C m O J G Js N f S 7 i \`j r i ~".i a G G ?? as .eL O �..� `• G G eei o W t� At U G T'� e,► a> p, ,n ... O O ✓ G a � n G •'". �" v A Nom. e �f1 a. L ... J I 'J r r.. p c.. 'Z R 3 •V ves C T ojo © eC Cl. bD CJG e> p N v eC v O O► O i v Or la �►�•, pp tOul rO'� i cb }�.n� Oa u 'a-•• N .moi i CS R O un 0 Q ' 00 r. CSC •'./'� :D 1. s :n 4 A �G -- Z R a. d o a 3o No 3 d ct le•p sem.. 3 '>. 3 A p p ,,,,,, ,� G G "„� � � - �. u � o ^' oda ,� °' 3 -' � fl- •'o •� f, "' � Yom.. y 10 r CL 7. p eo a+ FE 15 Z � } ,� � Q c 3 � 3 � •� c = �"' � � o obi {'°„ ' w z N Z O v a 0... on u in N cn %A \ � 2 ) - � 3 « � � ƒ * - Z q � S « 3 ® meg � \ � \ � • � � 22 . ' c : : % ■ � - � �.�. . 2 R � . � _ g � e . \ d % � / 2 A « « , � v -L i � J G Z 'cb 4r G y O v � r- =' JV v r+, w G � U w d ts d G f 00 y y O r O fs. So � a Z Q � Y v_ $ r2. u G o � •c M vi y y 1 n 3 J j .r n NN� 0-0N = may '= aisn V U 4�„ y C � •" `� � L:3 •— � d w. ca� y p O � t^1 cu 'd v G •, '.�• .r d V it J) d Or w o ri a et ... � ° n � ,e ,.. R�•a� •A i' u, 000 v+ � M O u U �Gy3 A c'3 b �yy J ca N 4l v m y y tJ R N y C r � z Z 'L _ ZW Z r-' cm U Z C A Q o0II..t cR,,? Cd O. V'1 c!1 � �\ � m - � </ q � . � 7 _ > . U � 7 � U I � � t � 7 . � = g W ® q � � 6 I ƒ C6 / - 40 k J � mak $ 0 Z � / � & ƒ \ '2 i 2 � « k ` ¥ . G � � � � � � a \ � \ � 2 � Z � � � � d ■ 7 Z � � ». c 3 _ . k � - � � § � 7 •S - � � � � � a � 3 � 7 � M 7 \ R , � . Y 1 i r tn oD T o Z ° ,..1 aGi •� ad d � ° 7 C6 J y Vr L * e w r � = 3 N O 4 � c- - H (� w Q t V Z Z •U O �n ao § § / \ � j 2 � � oI � 7 d � 2 at � S � � \ � § E � � 2 Q l � � a 3 Z . % 2 . Z 0 � C � . , f . J 0m � \ . � d � . Ln f v F � s , d G Z � o �y w U a- Z �W C? A Cts y A (yy N y N Q i w 3 � � o z .L '4 z z o Q � v m czN mo 0 tri vi A O. r. J � j %z > z d v V �r z v W � o � � u 'S U CS1 � O :S1 !r1 y J N ro Z Z d N ;. r _ Lela P ± � \ \ � 3 . to - � � � / > d 3 � A e \ � k » � . k 7 k ? Q � � � � 4P a a.. 1i i � ✓1 •J r J � on I y JZ 7 Off.. Q i U r � -� t' � & tL1 3 °a � N a M til o c�i Y 7 w n ve C v G Cl+ O .'►.. � C Gam'' A fY pG 09- Izw U © 12 G !r+ O O f a vi 1 J l+ �• j ° is � �1 .eL G a U �`�•j p `�a D G S n 3 d N N G., 3 `; U $.'o w AS N � 3 oo N "Q ♦ O � � ✓ @ N G O 5) R Cf+ r va J r "4 V V "� .� 4w '✓ fs a ✓ c ✓ lr yCt �-m 0 O R E V Y G r+ . 4 / J l J G J r f �• V .r N r C Q LL ,, U. d JA rz o ° a •s� rr V VCS i b.. U G A G L Np. Cl. U > G O G +o p p u m C6 a� - o = � c IR- 7s ? 1 R u 43 •G v? x w u Z a cr+ Z U C7 C+ v H G J m ► V N F J � 'Q y i J v c O O GII C G v .— Z = � J " � C cis N r ¢� 'O G vim. A 3 L UN t� o A ,.. � C U L 6? OJ d N � `tLG � t O G u rs E- u > voi c o tIn °� O y C � u ac id A u w j C > ,r G O O N > 'a c a, y O cr ., u a o cam.. a �'mss Z _ � u Q G C 4n u G � V' V1 i ja j C �� � C3. SU u C c.La = = � .� •00 Z — ^vuJJ o E E E I N A N 12 Z ° c 2 E u u rZ W 0 = 0 04 tu U Q eta u Z C e� ? G v moO O 'p O u LQ o cz LLI cc .c c 0 u = u - C c CuC > uCC c vs rj � •J X CG iq r CS N O `� O C, O 4 y y y .+ U o u u c O M vs v U U O G Z _ O � J QD ^ U Q > "25 u Ij Cl. lZ 4) u r4 0 Its ern tA CIS -Z 4j,:: Do CZ ZZ en co lz .6 �i J i t r � ~ r i f i r rZ� V d � +, G 2 O � CZ VP .' u ^' J i U $ G sGt R ; t0 N •� i C3� •,r � � G � y � U A '� uC•70 � u i .: r v m .- n O G 1� � V A r ii 'r J l } a� { % « \ � \ � 2 % S � . � k � \ . o - u \ I � � u c \ \ \ � 5 � ■ � � � D � f � { 3 S � \ � k � I I I 1 j J �- — an C n C d Z � 0 c c iCj Q d C S;: O. > V Z ✓� U ¢ ,Cn C7 c c O � H 7 .s CJ fin x c a ,w: ° j = ° m to ca A tj A: m c' Z a Q, E tj R -o E ew Z L m c7 O Z O � U U Q, C J C c5 y :v CS m 4 � F e vi 4 0 0 u ro 73 rj W itt Q < Z3 > Z M tj �4-- = "; > ca. cc 9 E >0 .0 fl zi L= u C> < os en s Y y t J I J 1 i V J I " to �a G v G •3 i, D '�' d yvj :'n•. G� i �, E G 7 'C y o 41 I" •� '7 c 'V �� � � r� i 011 y U a � a 'G.nOG G v o G G a j (� t6ti G �" C� D� ,•aci G N ?n `� ` °��° Z A Z O a d U c N N N ,D D -A Y t :L i f r J s t J J F � n a a d r � y d G J 0 f U •y '^'� O O r U ,,, G� a ss. oq es d J !i Q o . j � Q Q l 1 �4 p. a � a- O ZIS .J'U.., y G icy 4 G 'is 4" JA Qt '� N v+ �• '� A CGs S n ai O G p, n G d 15 14 ~ ~ q '1 a , N � " G ACZ _ G 4 ey d U O w N rG ¢" O � :s G ,�/ 1 r.r+ G.V. .D W N � .fl �,. � w � � '"' ..,. "� U .► U^+GC� V .�.� C� -oz a O z 0 ! N r d dfl y . � N d LT- 25 Z o > Z %.` O N y C U L v A •C LLI . u o 3 E u + H a 4I ` a o er > LA �"" "3r N C y y1 • u ca u ? ^�" w c L ►�. R ar r W t4 ca Z O Q G J CL cc tj Q w D 73 t7 d Iw- tj tj ca la p— CJ LLI zi A ,C g M 0 tj -0 a a 1,40 40 Em u CA to ca G 6y S7 15 cc C. w qu CU y o AM o qu cc CE .20 ZA o. X J •J T X r r 7 M ~ r ' Z o •... c u Oou ^^+ ) w 45 �n >• G �� C' G era e � D G d g s its v a+ Z r. O N co p J r ✓ p. � I G 7 O Q, •� G J "'r i O G .eL i ti CJ U O � 3 ,i r G ca G v N +- G .�• �•� � O d A N G ,� U ! G CS 63 T .i 3 c•�� � � � R a° c,o i J •O 'n .,,, A � O v ,y ��• O o O � � i -i 1 4, O � Q J Q sd G 6 ° p. .r U '•' U Z r CC% u v� cn r •�, V = cm O O O W im.. ro V e3 i c eVC O O h V •-, � � :o a3 � -� E A u C6 ca. od, 2/ 'C Z 0 Z U .J'3 'r tPf �.y 4J ut N 00 r 'J ` r r .. � v! • J J ✓ O J =� G G� 1 y r 1 7 G � +0•� � ;G G d LL G ✓ r � ID co v w -- d ;r y A W c3 N '% �,G v G y ✓ q G '� C7 y A p, O G p, W y w y y ►G t!1 h r OQ G r G ► .. N i 'd �O„� .p � � � ^ ,w0�E T • 7 8 � � o� G� o• � � w Rw a •�or> C� G .. ►TU w c" o �� fcf"+ i O► ^A d� � A � J - ,� CA orr w Ira 0 O � E p � �-- h` 3 ................. co U fu %a C ej 14s N 2 — cG ,a cc C6 C 04 0 Ma Cl. E- z tj 76 is cc 0 -0 0 A os 15 m .0 *,= BP Ap E v RI 2 C6 = Lft J t < O o tj Xf v -• :J ' .� y � .. ♦rte � �.» .� W �:: 06. Z • JInQ, �'�.. O V d t.i .� E C y U .� •,.,, � �i a J y C7 lei L •� G p � ^� ... '4 fl. F. cz cc tj 3 u _ H as u CG o � w � cro E3 � 4» ° cM a o. y c 4 a O z bDc A — r�o c •� '� c%tn �+ .G i ^' �.. u.C7 •�^. O vi tOj N !w Ed OD `� H w si on a► M03 G ci Z Z ° G O ca 04 0 0 < a u < Lu o > > > 0 0 a c Q. C:6 E tj Li r U Uo. zi .0 V 4j E z Q = 2 cr,J4 Q. vi E-0 E E C6 V) C C—I R U (A >% Q fu OV, 06 UU co < > cz oil w y t7 U V3 U U cc 00 luj DO 0 w N M ai C .= 0 "a lu vul In go V3 > & CA .4 t cc tA vs CL fj C—O0 p S 7 0U "' a+ M P• e> 'i G '� �J "� C11 • U Z C G GO d � V .""i '� U " • N G y G • p.. y A � v G P✓ � � .O � 61 iGp0� � 1 .^ v = v cs ,0'^i N Z , V !q t3 3G f u 'OS. Gi � nH a' °� � v � •r°.s G O ° '% �^ b � ✓, V G 4 i y '4 q �. � ' N ..Gi 41 v y G AC N r N G f'. � tb G rGi. A r 1 J O � '� + '.9 � ", 011� � T O i �✓' oat n y ""•,', AR cs v Uj u d R A i �64 v`� :n fY s G �i a1 � H F' O y 4 ✓ O 'C ep v ?� ,�, G � N d ✓ v i v � N N '� `� S O � '�' G � r i OO `n i 'L r i G ... ••G i ' CY+✓ v.. 3 j " i 43 v jui :p G O G e7 w i '7 eD 'p ✓ O V A O 3 o-v rte„ G 'v 4 N l y ,�..� •may �G 'O C � ''u+ v �i�� T,� p u '1 wo Q r=12 •� •On � CG o. v r 00 a Q C Q v Z• .0 G C C G _ �. v o a c Qi% a` ¢ii ilii Q J V a � a c jR Lp s -a~ - O O y 4Ci y ow4i abc Vi Q u © ? ¢� rn `" O t .0 «t V d qu tj 4j 0. 0 m 87 w 2 L ca u wo a Q e'a V y in 04 8 O co a y a E a Q c. > a u • a tx •s r; �C .� vin > a av p O. a � M �•. � � C � C � O op V � � w � O eq C y � �,,,,� O a C a _y,• a v Q o � e v � U8 �+ v LU {ZZ e� tY pp ao � 00 � � ^ \ \ \� R � 7 ± � c 7 � . � $ t \ = k � $ � § 7 =6 § 6 � £ � § � 2 ■ � , - C6. ■ 3 � a � #� e gW4J D S � 43 / \. & � . i J • r, I J Y y{,, i � �-• r 3 d ° J Z 4 = R 1 y d s. G �3 r u r i i i 4 7• � '+� O � ai a .cy IS O "•�' G v T y � y A � v o r t4 G Q I N 1 cn d r� y J J a � G BE � Z > v Er ^ 25 ct Q G e O W ~ c d Q � v ' v r N Ny cc Ln cc Ci G Q Q � ui �`i3 � �j d L w. G V O •own 4i .cc to,Q G A 00 CA Con Q _ V � �; .fir O v � � �y w G L. (� y+ U w► �+ . '3 Q OO � •V w Ute.. N •.~.� � �'^ t] r!+ •a d 00 b w.l "„$ sL. 1-+ OG� R Q "C3 � G.Gr d► pQ• ,Q Qa. �, o 3 ec• 'a, Q ca3a v o U 4cL o, Tya. ;. c o E :- � v = o o es � � � •�'�': � C O J U N 4. sd �.. � 00 cc E v � r Z � o Q a oa c v g m „ 0 8. M Tj :d Z ` Z .. d Z ° Z ,.y � o L � J > ° o N ctii a � � R � O w p `n � v •O'in 43 Z y° c. •on 5 o v Z G Z J_ G. o a u A c o � � i i � n Q � •ss 4 u. Q � o a w 1+ U >" o •c 6; � v 4 L` 06o ° cc vs in SU G o G to NA o E .7' a w ° .4 4 O . =x I 4 o -r r. U J J LL G ' C a Z ° Z _ y a v L �S Cl w o •� •an n? *n 4 0 CA to *00 Lir •Q` O C6 u a. Z Z o C6 Li c � v -Z cp O rb