Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08142001 - D.5 8 J' • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT County of Contra Costa, California 01. .4ti► G COUIZ% SCH # 92023048 tDECEMBER, 1992 1 { :1 ' DRAFT ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' FOR THE CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER SCH # 92023048 ' DECEMBER, 1992 ' PREPARED FOR: ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PREPARED BY: PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT 101 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 210 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 ' IN ASSOCIATION WITH: ' ABRAMS ASSOCIATES CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES WILLIAM SELF ASSOCIATES ' DON BALLANTI CONSULTING METEOROLOGIST ' INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project i' was made available for public review and comment on August 13, 1992. The East County Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft EIR on August 31 and September 21, I' 1992. The comment period for the Draft EIR closed on September 28, 1992. Numerous comments were received from local residents, agencies and interested parties. The comments raised important issues to be addressed. To respond to these issues, the project applicant decided to revise the project application to provide additional information regarding the project design -' and mitigation features. Additional technical analyses were also conducted in the areas of geology and soils and hydrology in response to public comments. ' The County has determined that incorporation of the new information regarding the project application and additional technical analyses constitute significant changes to the Draft ' EIR. Therefore, the County has prepared this Second Draft EIR to allow public review and comment regarding the new information provided. The revisions to the Draft EIR focus are focused in the following areas: • Additional information regarding landscape criteria, golf course maintenance, wetland habitat and mitigation plan, park land acreage and locations, and lake management plans. • Additional technical analyses conducted for excavation and levee construction and hydrology/flood hazards. ' Other sections of the EIR have been revised in response to comments from local residents, utility providers and local agencies. These revisions are provided to update and clarify the ' information presented in the Draft EIR. 1 1 i 1 DRAFT , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT ' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE , 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction 1-1 , 1.2 Project Location and Existing Setting 1-1 , 1.3 Project Characteristics 1-4 1.4 Proposed Mitigation. 1-8 1.5 Project Relationship to Relevant Plans 1-10 , 1.6 Discretionary and Other Agency 1-11 Approvals Required 1.7 Processing Approach 1-12 ' 2. SUMMARY 2.1 Introduction 2-1 ' 2.2 Project Description 2-1 2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-2 ' 2.4 Alternatives Evaluated 2-3 2.5 Issues of Community Interest 2-3 3. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION , 3.1 Land Use, Planning and Public Policy 3-1 ' 3.2 Transportation/Circulation 3-28 3.3 Air Quality 3-64 3.4 Vegetation and Wildlife 3-76 ' 3.5 Visual Quality 3-99 3.6 Noise 3-109 3.7 Hydrology and Drainage 3-118 , 3.8 Geology, Seismicity and Soils 3-147 3.9 Public Services 3-163 ' 3.10 Utilities 3-189 3.11 Human Health 3-216 3.12 Cultural Resources 3-223 3.13 Energy 3-232 t ii 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4. ALTERNATIVES 4.1 No Project Alternative 4-2 4.2 Ranchette Alternative 4-5 4.3 Low Density Alternative 4-8 ' 4.4 Maximum Density Alternative 4-11 4.5 Off-Site Alternative 4-13 ' 4.6 Commercial Alternative 4-16 5. OTHER CEOA SECTIONS ' 5.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Project 5-1 ' 5.2 Cumulative Impacts 5-2 5.3 Significant Irreversible Changes 5-8 5.4 Growth Inducing Impacts 5-9 5.5 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 5-11 6. REFERENCES/PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 6-1 ' 7. LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1 8. APPENDICES 8-1 1 Appendix A - Initial Study Appendix B - Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions ' Appendix C - List of Species Observed During Field Surveys Appendix D - Wetland/Landscaping Information Appendix E - Geotechnical/Hydrology Information Appendix F - Will Serve Letter from Oakley Water District Appendix G - Will Serve Letter from Ironhouse Sanitary District Appendix H - Cultural Resource Appendix iii LIST OF FIGURES , Number Title Page 1.1 Regional Location 1-2 1.2 Project Site and Vicinity 1-3 ' 1.3 Project Layout 1-5 1.4 Project Circulation 1-7 3.1-1 Other Planned Land Projects in the 3-4 , Bethel Island Planning Area 3.1-2 Census Tract 3010 3-6 ' 3.1-3 Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map 3-10 3.2-1 Project Location/Traffic Analysis , Study Area 3-29 3.2-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic - Volumes and ' Level of Service (7:30 - 8:30 AM) 3-32 3.2-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic - Volumes and Level of Service (4:30 - 5:30 PM) 3-33 ' 3.2-4 Existing Average Daily Traffic, 1992 3-34 3.2-5 Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-42 3.2-6 Existing + Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-43 ' 3.2-7 Additional Traffic at the Project Entrance 3-44 3.2-8 Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Traffic - Volumes and Level of Service . 3-46 , 3.2-9 Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Traffic - Volumes and Level of Service 3-47 3.2-10 Year 2000 Average Daily Traffic 3-48 ' 3.2-11 Cumulative Traffic Forecasts (ADT) and PM Peak Level of Service 3-51 ' 3.2-12 Roadway Improvements Required by the Project 3-58 3.2-13 Recommended Roadway Layout at Project Entrance 3-59 14-1 Vegetation and Habitat Map 3-78 ' 14-2 Location of Wetland Areas on the Project Site 3-84 3,4-3 Location of Wetlands Impacted by the Project Site 3-91 - i 3.5-1 Views of the Hotchkiss Tract 3-100 3.5-2 Views of Project Site and Sandmound Boulevard 3-102 ' 3.5-3 Views of the Delta Near the Project Site 3-103 iv 1' I' LIST OF FIGURES (continued) I' Number Title Page 11 3.6-1 Noise Measurement Locations 3-110 3.6-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 3-112 I' 3.7-1 Existing Drainage Facilities in the Project Area 3-119 3.7-2 Proposed Drainage facilities 3-128 3.7-3 Proposed Levee System 3-131 3.7-4 Proposed Emergency Evacuation Routes 3-138 3.7-5 Typical Lake Cross-Section - Water Quality Control 3-142 ' 3.8-1 Surficial Geology of the Project Area 3-148 3.8-2 Location of Faults in the Region 3-150 ' 3.8-3 Map of Soils in the Project Area 3-153 3.9-1 Fire District Boundaries and Location of Sheriff Station 3-164 ' 3.9-2 Location of School Facilities in the Project Area 3-175 3.9-3 Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails 3-184 ' 3.10-1 Existing Water Wells and Facilities within the Project Area 3-190 3.10-2 Existing Oakley Water District Sphere of Influence 3-192 3.10-3 Existing Sewer Facilities within the Project Area 3-201 ' 4-1 Off-Site Alternative 4-14 v LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page ' 1.1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses 1-6 2.1 Summary of Project Impacts and 2-4 Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 Development Projects Pending for ' Hotchkiss Tract 3-21 3.2-1 County Measure "C" Level of Service ' Standards 3-35 3.2-2 Existing Intersection Capacity Conditions 3-37 ' 3.2-3 Cypress Lakes - Vehicle Trip Generation 3-39 3.2-4 Cypress Lakes Trip Distribution 3-40 , 3.2-5 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of Service 3-49 3.3-6 (A) Projects That Would be Required by Cypress Lakes Itself 3-53 3.3-6 (B) Projects Planned for the Bethel Island Area 3-54 ' 3.3-6 (C) Other Roadway Improvements 3-55 3.3-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-65 3.3-2 Air Quality Data for Bethel Island, 1988 - 1991 3-67 ' 3.3-3 Emission Rates for Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment 3-71 3.3-4 Worst-case Intersection Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3-72 ' 3.3-5 Worst-case Curbside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3-72 3.3-6 Project-Related Regional Emissions 3-73 3.4-1 Special Status Species Potentially Occurring ' in East Contra Costa County 3-77 3.6-1 Summary of Noise Measurements 3-111 1 3.6-2 Noise Levels at Project and Off-Site Residences for Various Scenarios 3-114 . , 3.8-1 Active Fault Data 3-151 3.8-2 Results of Piezometer Testing 3-155 3.10-1 Project Water Consumption 3-196 ' A ' 1� ll ll1. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND f' 1.1 INTRODUCTION JAn initial study was prepared on the proposed project that was submitted prior to II February 6, 1992 (the date of the Notice Of Preparation [NOP]). The NOP noted that the project application may be amended during the process in response to environmental issues and concerns raised. Any amendments to the application submitted prior to completion of this EIR are it addressed herein. Subsequent amendments to address remaining concerns covered in this EIR and/or the planning process may be necessary. The application was in fact revised to address comments raised in response to the NOP, first DEIR, neighborhood and agency concerns and the finalization of preliminary environmental reports. The major revisions to the application include: ' 1.) greater preservation and enhancement of wetlands ' 2.) accommodations for a more effective and efficient drainage system 3.) elimination of neighborhood commercial uses ' 4.) the relocation of the potential school site 5.) more efficient internal circulation system 1 6.) preservation of cultural resources 7.) additional hydrology and geotechnical analysis ' 8.) additional landscape plans ' The revisions to the proposed project do not raise new possible environmental impacts that were not raised by the original project, negating the need for a new initial study. In fact, the revisions will lessen some of the potential impacts of the original project design as identified in the initial study. All potential significant impacts of the proposed project, as revised, are addressed herein. ' 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San ' Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County,approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley (see Figure 1-1). The project site is located in the 'off-island" portion of the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site is located at the junction of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road (see Figure 1-2), and is generally ' 1-1 1 Sacramento ' 99 80 0 Napa :;•: so Antioch 150 101 OConcord Stockton ' Oakley on 24 Project Area • 80 580 Brentwood ' San':::::, Aland S Francisco •� O - � 580 Zp • :; _ •• • 580 880 580 ••��:. 0101 1 1 280 • x San Jose L S LAKES & COUNTRY Figure 1-1: ' CLUB PROJECT Regional Location -__— VY LU �' •��`.� ,a' "/aY Nvtlu 'e"°r`1 7r..-�•-;, r.°)t_ P_=£quell, 6�uJ �1: �� 'aY aN•11•uNaDs Q �Arweow .a NoraY �e6 ul z z2 sNlrltl NNIl m - 1 1�1 � %� : 'A•NDLaN')INY Y. ` A •1'��/ ! aYY.Si Jr s ur ;• 1.11115 JAr Viz.- 'a 4 YL n anxn�dm. nGo DS14 -W Yl,•D t\�:!- `fit � � F,1•I A I� =I = �' i� b - ,or ' 9,t X11.1 fit` 1 ,`gip 1zYra d ' t� � Y fir` � '`� j.I � t E. ¢ ` `' E /• P ol le 1 E P S/� -,,r INS EPI - � � N. �•` 3 .. { �� p: L � _ i' - 22 � i .t' !P � x .:'... ��-Y•'•��' `rrte^^J Irl 1 bordered by Bethel Island Road on the west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and ' by agricultural uses on the south. The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and consists of several fenced , pasture areas, with irrigation and drainage canals crossing the property in various locations. A few homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are , primarily located along the unimproved portion of Cypress Road and east of Bethel Island Road. 1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ' The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would be constructed on approximately 685.9 acres consisting of seven parcels. The project would consist of 1,330 single-family ' residential units. In addition, the project would include an 18-hole golf course with amenities, an internal levee system, a man-made lake and channels, a day care facility, parks, a fire station, beach club, and a potential school site (see Figure 1-3). ' The project would be constructed in phases. The phases would be timed to coincide with necessary infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewage, storm drainage, water facilities, roadway ' improvements, etc.). The first phase would include basic grading of the site and excavation for the man-made lake and channels. Material excavated for the lake and channels would be used to construct a levee system around the project site for flood protection. The levee system would require Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval before any home constructed on the site could be occupied. Preliminary grading for the golf course would occur coincident with levee construction. The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from approximately 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Residential lot densities would average approximately 5.4 units per acre. The overall density of the project is 2.21 units per acre. Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) would be oriented toward the man-made lake of approximately 60 acres. Non-motorized boats would be permitted on the lake. A beach club would also be developed adjacent to the lake to provide recreational opportunities for project and area residents. The beach club would provide a swimming facility adjacent to but separate from the man-made lake. In addition, a day care center, fire station, potential school site and public park would be located in this portion of the project site. The residential development north of Cypress Road would include an 18-hole golf course P YP interwoven among the various neighborhoods. A clubhouse facility, driving range and maintenance facility would also be located in this area as well as several water channels. Commercial uses on the site are no longer proposed. 1-4 { I 1 m ' a � J l � { } ► i w ► i va i ► I ► I- i i ► i I y V ' t r ► r 1 z { l i uj -—------------------- 1-5 ,i The project design would avoid most of the existing seasonal wetland areas (6.52 acres) and waters of the U.S. (2.66 acres) present on the project site. However, approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands would be impacted by the proposed project. The project design would include replacing the impacted wetlands through restoration and enhancement of existing wetland habitat on the project site. ' The major land uses proposed by the project, including approximate acres of coverage, are summarized as follows: TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAND USES Land Use Acres Single-family Residential (1,330 units) 242.9 ' Fire Station 2.0 School Site 7.4 Beach Club 1.9 ' Daycare Center 0.5 Roadway Right-of-Way 74.6 Lake/Channels 61.0 ' Parks 33.7 Golf Course 170.3 Existing Wetlands 6.5 Levees 54.6 Levee Road 9.0 Drill Sites 10.5 ' Wetland Mitigation/Buffers 11.0 TOTAL 685.9 The primary entrance to the site would be via Cypress Road at its intersection with Bethel P Y YP ' Island Road. A secondary access would be provided via Sandmound Boulevard at the north end of the project site. Cypress Road would be extended through the project site as the primary collector roadway. Residential neighborhoods would be accessed by an internal road system consisting of primary roads, secondary loops and cul-de-sacs to provide access to the individual neighborhoods (see Figure 1-4). ' In addition to the above mentioned facilities, the proposed project would also include various storm drainage, water system, sewage disposal and public utility improvements. On-site storm drainage improvements would include curbs, gutters and drain inlets to an underground ' conduit system which would be designed in accordance with Reclamation District 799 (RD-799) and County standards. The proposed system would pump excess runoff into Sand Mound Slough. The project would include on-site detention of storm water in the proposed lake and ' 1-6 I i I I I 1 ` I � r 1 1 • 1 1 j1 1 1 , I 1 i I � 1 I , 1 CIRCULATION II ROUTES 11 ; Il 1 1 1 r � I ' 1 I I , III H ; i .11 z 1 \\\I I CYPRESS Rp,� f f 1 1 Y j1 1 J 1 1 . 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 , CYPRESS LAKES & Figure 1-4: COUNTRY CLUB Project Circulation 1 PROJECT Source: Chartered Land and CattleJI 1-7 1 11 it channel detention facilities. On-site sewage facilities would include a gravity sewer system, lift stations and pumps. Sewage from the site would enter the existing force main in Bethel Island Road. To provide water to the site, off-site improvements including transmission lines from !� Highway 4 at Cypress Road would be provided. On-site water facilities would include 6", 8" and 10" underground distribution pipelines. Other utilities, such as electricity and solid waste disposal, would be provided by existing service providers. 1.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts through the incorporation of the following measures: Levee System: The project design includes construction of a levee system around the project site to remove the proposed development area from the flood hazard zone. The ' levee system would be certified by FEMA prior to the construction of houses on the site. Storm Drainage Improvements: The project includes a system of channels and lake to ' provide stormwater detention on-site to reduce drainage impacts on RD-799 facilities. Water Quality Management Plans: The project includes innovative water quality ' management strategies to maintain acceptable water quality in the project channels and lake. Management strategies include the use of specific plant species to remove pollutants ' from the water and mechanical circulation of water to improve flushing action. Wetland Mitigation Plan: The project would impact 0.75 acres of the 9.18 acres of wetlands on the site. The project would include the replacement of impacted wetland ' through the enlargement and enhancement of existing wetlands on-site. The 0.75 acres impacted would be replaced with approximately 2.75 acres of wetland. 1 Ground Subsidence Monitoring Plan: The project includes measures to monitor ground subsidence that may result from de-watering activities associated with construction of the ' project levees, channels and lake. Monitoring wells and settlement plates would be used to monitor construction. If groundwater levels or soil subsidence exceeds acceptable levels, construction activities would be stopped and remedial actions taken. Landscape Plans: The project includes detailed landscape plans for the project levee and common areas. The landscape plans include lists of desirable plant species, irrigation techniques and other landscape criteria. Additional landscaping would be provided around the project perimeter outside the levee along Sandmound Boulevard and Bethel Island Road to reduce visual impacts on adjacent residents. ' Channel Enhancement Plan: The project includes plans to enhance the primary drainage ditch ("main drain") into a channel of approximately 8.0 acres in size. A new channel is also proposed in the north/south direction and would connect to the proposed lake. The ' 1-8 1 second channel would be approximately 110 acres in size. The channels are proposed to ' provide additional riparian habitat and visual interest to the project. . The banks of the channels would be sprigged with willow and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian cover. ' Energy Conservation Guidelines: The project is proposing to maintain a goal of , exceeding the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%. This would be achieved through the incorporation of design features into each home to reduce energy consumption. ' Provision of School Site: To help mitigate the project's potential impact on local school facilities, the project plans include the dedication of a 7.4 acre school site on the project site. The school site would be dedicated to the Oakley Union Elementary School District for the construction of a new elementary school in the Bethel Island area. Provision of Fire Station Site and Facility: The project plans include a 2 acre site for a new fire station on the project site. The fire station is located near the project entrance at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. The project would also include construction of , a new fire station facility on the site. Provision of a fire station on the project site would improve fire protection services for Hotchkiss Tract and the Bethel Island area. Preservation of Cultural Resources: The project plans have been developed to avoid ' culturally sensitive areas present on the project site. Portions of the project site known to contain cultural resources have either been avoided or are proposed for less disruptive uses such.as parks and playgrounds. Provision of Parks/Recreational Amenities: The proposed project includes approximately 33 acres of public and private parks primarily located south of the proposed extension of Cypress Road. In addition, other recreational amenities are being proposed including: a.lake, golf course, beach club, trails, and open space corridors. t Affordable Housing, Fee: The project applicant has agreed to pay a in-lieu affordable housing fee equal to $3,333 per residential unit. For the proposed project this fee would generate approximately $4,432,890 for the County's affordable housing programs. These fees would be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. As an alternative, the project applicant may construct a portion, or all, of the affordable housing units on-site. Homeless Fees: The project applicant has agreed to pay an in-lieu fee to the County's Homeless Trust Fund. The amount of this fee would be determined by the County and paid upon issuance of building permits for the project. 1-9 J' 1.5 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO RELEVANT PLANS Contra Costa Countv General Plan, As Approved January, 1991 The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project is located within the County Urban Limit Line, which would allow development in accordance with General Plan policies and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map designates the area as Agricultural Land (AL) and Open Space (OS); with an overlay designation of "Off- Island Bonus Area"which allows increased residential densities under certain circumstances. The Contra Costa County General Plan states the following with regard to residential development within the Off-Island Bonus Area (page 3-29): A bonus density is identified in the "Off-Island" area of the Bethel Island Planning Area east of Jersey Island Road. The base density of this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This density shall be increased through the bonus program if the applicant participates in one of the following programs: ' Recreational Projects. Residential projects which include a distinct, identifiable recreational character by including substantial recreational facilities shall be allowed a density of 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre. Recreational amenities may include marinas or launching areas off the project site on Sand Mound or Rock Sloughs, a lake community, a sailingfboating club on a project lake, an equestrian facility, a tennis club, or a golf course. Purchase of Development Rights. The development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Land designation may be purchased and dedicated to the County to increase the base density up to 1/2 dwelling unit per net acre. Acquiring development rights in one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Core designation will increase the base density up to ' a maximum of 3 dwelling units per net acre. A program for acquisition of development rights shall be implemented by the Community Development Department. Within the Off-Island Bonus Area, the General Plan limits new.development to 3,000 primarily recreation-oriented units. Of this total, 153 units have been approved but are not.yet constructed, leaving a balance of 2,847 allowable new units. The proposed project's 1,330 residential units would fall below this limit. Two additional applications for projects within the Off-Island Bonus Area have been submitted, for a combined number of 1,653 residential units. These projects, when combined with the Cypress Lakes project, total 2,983 units which exceeds the remaining number of allowable units by 136 units. However, the latter two applications are not being actively pursued (Contra Costa Community Development Department, July, 1992). The proposed project includes an 18-hole semi-private golf course, parks (20 acres for a ' neighborhood park and 6 acres through-out the project, a swim and tennis beach club, and lake ' 1-10 1 - and channels designed to meet the recreational character requirements of the Contra Costa County ' General Plan for increased residential density within the "Off-Island Bonus Area." In addition, the project has an overall residential density of 2.21 units per acre (Gross Acreage - public and private easements - # of dwelling units) which falls within the 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre. No purchase of agricultural development rights is proposed. Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, April, 1991 ' The validity of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan (BIASP) and its EIR were challenged by various environmental groups. The Court of Appeal has declared the BIASP and its EIR i invalid. Subsequently, the County, project applicant and environmental groups entered into a settlement agreement requiring the recision of the Bethel Island Specific Plan, decertification of its EIR, and vacation of the existing development agreement between the County and the project applicant. Therefore, this EIR does not address conformity with the Bethel Island Specific Plan. The settlement agreement, December, 1992, established a framework whereby the parties have ' agreed to work together in processing applications on the project site. 1.6 DISCRETIONARY AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED The project applicant has applied for the following discretionary approvals by Contra Costa County for which this EIR is intended to cover: ' • Rezoning of 685.9 ± acres of land from General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1); • Preliminary development plan approval for the proposed club house, beach club house, beach club, public park, maintenance facility, and other uses not in the final development plan; • Final development plan approval for the proposed residential uses, golf ' course/driving range, wetlands, lake, channel and levee; • Vesting tentative map to subdivide the 685.9 ± acre site into 1,330 single-family lots; • Design review of the project. Other approvals and/or permits will be required to fully implement the project. This EIR is intended to cover all those necessary.approvals and/or permits which may include but are not limited to the following: 1. LAFCO Approval - LAFCO approval may be needed for the reorganization of the Sphere of Influence and annexation of the project into the Oakley Water District ' 1-11 and Contra Costa Water District for provision of water; the Ironhouse Sanitary District for sewer; and possible consolidation of the Oakley and Bethel Island Fire Districts in the Bethel Island Planning Area. Other annexation and/or possible 1 consolidation may be necessary for other services. 2. Financing and Maintenance Districts - The establishment of a park maintenance district,landscape and lighting district, geologic hazard abatement district,or other special districts for the financing and/or maintenance of infrastructure and other improvements. ' 3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES Permits - May be required for drainage discharge. 4. Section 404 Permit -The applicant will need to qualify for a permit under Section ' 404 of the Clean Water Act for the filing of any wetland areas on-site. 5. FEMA Approval - Approval will be sought for the internal levee. 6. Development Agreement - The applicant will request approval of a development agreement with the County to establish the terms and conditions under which the ' project will be developed. 7. Streambed Alteration Permit - The applicant will be required to obtain a streambed alteration permit from the Department of Fish and Game. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Other approvals and/or permits may be necessary to fully implement the project objectives which this EIR is intended to cover. 1 t 1-12 t j, 2. SUMMARY i2.1 Introduction ' An initial study was prepared on the proposed project that was submitted prior to February 6, 1992 (date of the NOP). A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project was made available for public review and comment on August 13, 1992. The East County Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft EIR on August 31 and September 21, 1992. The comment period for the Draft EIR closed on September 28, 1992. Numerous comments were received from local residents, agencies and interested parties. The comments raised important issues to be addressed. To respond to these issues, the project applicant decided to revise the project application to provide additional information regarding the project design and mitigation features. Additional technical analyses were also conducted in the areas of geology and soils and hydrology in response to public comments. The County has determined that incorporation of the new information regarding the project application and additional technical analyses constitute significant changes to the Draft EIR. Therefore, the County has prepared this Second Draft EIR to allow public review and comment regarding the new information provided. 2.2 Project Description The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley. The project site is located in the 'off-island" portion of the Bethel ' Island Area, commonly known as the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site is located at the junction of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, and is generally bordered by Bethel Island Road on the west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and agricultural uses on the south. The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and consists of several fenced pasture areas, with irrigation and drainage canals crossing the property in various locations. A ' few homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are primarily located along the unimproved portion of Cypress east of Bethel Island Road. ' The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would be constructed on approximately 685.9 acres consisting of existing parcels of land. The project would consist of 1,330 single- family residential units. In addition, the project would include a 18-hole golf course with amenities, a swim and tennis club, a man-made lake and channels, a day care facility, parks, a potential school site, and a fire station. ' The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from approximately 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The overall residential lot density is ' approximately 5.40 units per acre (1,330 units on 246 acres). The overall density of the project 2-1 1 i 1 is 1.94 units per acre (1,330 units on 685.9 acres). ' Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) ' would be.oriented toward the man-made lake to provide a lake-front living environment. A swim and tennis club would also be developed in this area to provide recreational opportunities for project and area residents. In addition, a day care center, park, fire station and potential school site would be located in this portion of the project site. The residential development north of Cypress Road would include a 18-hole golf course , interwoven among the various neighborhoods. . A clubhouse, driving range and storage maintenance facility would also be located in this area as well as several water channels. The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts. The primary mitigation measures incorporated into the project's design include: • Internal Levee system around the project to remove the project site from the 100-year flood hazard zone ' • Storm drainage improvements including on-site detention facilities • Water quality management plan • Wetland mitigation plan ' • Ground subsidence monitoring plan • Landscape plans Channel enhancement plan • Energy.conservation guidelines • Provision of a school site . • Provision of a fire station site and facility ' • Preservation of cultural resources • Provision of parks and recreational amenities • Payment of affordable housing fees • Payment of homeless fees 2.3 Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures ' The evaluation conducted for this report included an examination of the environmental impacts associated with the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project and those measures that ' could reduce the identified impacts to insignificant levels. The project impacts and corresponding mitigation.measures are summarized in Table 2-1. The significance of each impact is noted along with the required or recommended mitigation measures. The significance of each impact , with and without implementation of mitigation proposals is also noted. The following impact categories are used in Table 2-1: (B) beneficial impact; (NS) not significant impact; (PS) ' potentially or possibly significant impact (an impact which cannot be precisely assessed at this time) and (S) significant adverse impact. 2-2 1 i`� 2.4 Alternatives Evaluated Chapter 4 of the EIR describes and evaluates six alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives include: • No Project Alternative • Ranchette Alternative • Maximum Density Alternative • Low Density Alternative • Commercial Alternative • Off-Site Alternative 1 The analysis of alternatives evaluates how each alternative would either avoid, reduce,or in some cases worsen, potential impacts when compared to the proposed project. . This comparison between the project and the alternatives allows the public and decision makers to clearly understand comparative merits of the alternatives. This approach to the analysis of alternatives to the project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d). 1 2.5 Issues of Community Interest Several issues of community interest were identified during the public review period for the first Draft EIR, these include: improvement of the existing RD-799 levee system,construction of an internal levee system and the potential channelizing of floodwaters along Sandmound Boulevard in the event of levee failure or overtopping, potential ground subsidence due to groundwater extraction and construction of project lakes, impacts to the visual character of Hotchkiss Tract, increased traffic and related noise and air quality impacts, impacts to plant and animal life, increased storm water runoff and impacts on local schools. 2-3 1 1 TABLE 2-1 ' SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Note: impacts are in summary form only; please refer to specific topic headings for details.) IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) 3.1 LAND USE,PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY a. The project would add 1,330 dwelling units to the The project will pay a in-lieu affordable housing fee , existing housing stock in price ranges between equal to 53,333 per residential unit. This fee should $175,000 to $400,000. The number of new units is be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for below the 2,909 new units allowed by the General the project. As an alternative to the fees, the project , Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan applicant may construct a portion or all of the policy that development projects should be at or near affordable housing units on-site. If this alternative density maximums to provide as much housing.as mitigation is selected, the location and design of the possible. The project would contribute in-lieu fees affordable housing units should be submitted to the for affordable housing of $3,333 per dwelling unit County for review and approval prior to filing a final constructed, and in-lieu fees for the County's subdivision map.(3.1-1;B) homeless fund. The project applicant may consider ' providing all,or a portion,of the project's affordable housing requirement on-site by designating and constructing affordable units as part of the project. (B) b. Because the proposed project is predominately The project marketing should be oriented toward residential, the project would result in a short-term seniors and retired people to reduce commute traffic i unavoidable impact on East County's existing from the project. . The project's impact on East Jobs/Housing imbalance(S) County's Jobs/Housing imbalance would still remain an unavoidable short-term impact. (3.1-2;5) ' c. The project would be required to pay the County's Protection Fee shall be paid for each residential unit Protection Fee as well as in-lieu contribution to the within the project to acquire development rights on ' County Homeless Trust Fund. (B) agricultural land (and open space or wetlands areas) or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. The fee shall be determined , by the County and paid upon the issuance of building permits for the project. (3.1-3) The project will pay an in-lieu contribution to the , County Homeless Trust Fund. The amount of the contribution will be determined by the County and paid,pro-rata, upon the issuance of building permits. ' (3.1-3; B) 2-4 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; ' Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) 3.2 TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION a. The addition of project traffic to the street network Road Improvements at Project Entiance-Construct a 1 would substantially change traffic volumes on Cypress new intersection at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road between the project and Highway 4. Beyond Road, and on the approaches to this intersection. this location, traffic from the project would be more Widening should extend 1,000 feet in each direction. 1 dispersed,but would still have a significant impact on To properly accommodate the proposed project traffic Highway 4 between Oakley and the State Route 4/160 as well as future traffic from other parts of the freeway. The traffic analysis assumed that portions of Specific Plan area, the intersection will have the lane Cypress Road would be widened. All other requirements shown on Figure 3.2-13. The south- intersections were calculated for capacity conditions bound approach will be widened with one more lane. without any additional roadway mitigation measures. This intersection shall be designed so that it can During the AM peak hour, all intersections would ultimately be consistent with a future extension to operate at a satisfactory LOS with the existing plus Byron Highway south of the intersection. Cypress project condition. PM peak hour traffic will also Road will cross the levee just east of the entrance to operate at satisfactory traffic conditions,assuming that the project. The vertical curvature of Cypress Lakes partial improvements are constructed on Cypress Road where it crosses the levee shall be submitted ' Road. One other intersection would be critically prior to final map approval. A 45 mph design speed impacted. At Neroly Road and Highway 4 (Main would be desirable. This project would include the Street), traffic conditions would change from LOS installation of traffic signals that would be put into ' "D" to LOS "E". Mitigations are planned for this operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans intersection as a part of the ONBAG Program, traffic warrants. This is estimated to occur when the including widening the northbound approach to project has about 500 units completed and occupied. provide two left turn lanes. This improvement would (Note: this improvement could impact cultural restore the intersection LOS to "D. The project will resources) (3.2-1) add significant traffic volumes to the roads in the immediate vicinity of the project. As a direct result Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard - of the project, Cypress Road will exceed capacity. Bethel Island Road is planned to ultimately become a These roads will require reconstruction and widening four-lane divided roadway between Cypress Road and at the time of project construction. (PS) the Bethel Island Bridge. This widening is not necessary as a result of the project, but there are interim improvements that should be accomplished. At Sandmound Boulevard, the intersection should be improved and widened,and left turn lanes should be constructed. Sandmound -Boulevard should be realigned to a right-angle intersection at Bethel Island Road. This project would also include the installation ' of traffic signals that would be put into operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants. This is not estimated to occur as a result of the project itself, but would be needed as a result of 2-5 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES. IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ' (Significance). TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact ' After Mitigation) development being completed on Bethel Island. Sandmound Boulevard should be improved along the northern boundary of the project. (3.2-2) Cypress Road Widening - Complete the implementation of the Cypress Road widening from Machado Lane to east of Knightsen Road. This ' roadway improvement should be in place before 1000 units are occupied at Cypress Lakes.It would include the installation of traffic signals at Sellers Road and Knightsen Road that would be put into operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants. The widening of Cypress Road between Knightsen Avenue and Bethel Island Road should occur before occupancy of the Lesher Landing project or any other project that adds over 25 units in this part of the Bethel Island Area. (3.2-3) Sandmound Boulevard Improvements - This project would reconstruct, at a minimum, one-half of Sandmound Boulevard from Bethel Island Road along the north border of the project. The remainder of Sandmound Boulevard improvements should be done in conjunction with other developments along Sandmound Boulevard. (3.2-4) Conformance with Measure C - The Cypress Lakes project would satisfy the requirements of Measure C. by constructing the roadway improvements listed in Table 3.2-6(A). The project may also be required to pay a regional traffic fee for Measure "C" projects. This fee has not been established and is currently being evaluated by TRANSPLAN and the CCTA.The payment of these fees will help to mitigate the regional traffic impacts-of this project.(3.2-5;NS) b. The 1,330 houses proposed would generate 10,287 Bus Transit Service-While there is no current transit vehicle trip ends per day, including 730 trips-during in the area, it can be expected that daily bus transit ' the AM peak hour and 1,036 trips during the PM service, provided by Tri-Delta Transit, would be peak hour. Trip generation for the various other provided to the Hotchkiss Tract and Bethel Island project components, including the golf course and Area when a significant amount of the development 2-6 .,1 I� TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) clubhouse, were estimated based on previous studies in the area has been built and occupied. The situation of similar facilities. (PS) should be monitored, and transit service should probably be started when about 1,000 homes have been completed in the area. This bus route could be an extension of Routes 383 and/or 384 and would follow Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road to a terminal stop on Bethel Island. (3.2-6) Participate in County TDM Program - The project would be required to comply with the County residential TDM Ordinance, the County Growth Management Program,and the Bay Area Air Quality District regulations regarding transportation. TDM 1 requirements of the County include the preparation and distribution of a TDM information program that could include the provision of maps showing available transit routes, and information on ridesharing and vanpool services to prospective home buyers. These types of measures can be expected to have only a relatively small impact on reducing peak hour trips. 1 Other studies have shown that TDM actions applied to a residential development can reduce the number of single occupant auto trips by 3-5 percent during the commute peak hours. (3.2-7; NS) 1 2-7 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact ' After Mitigation) c. The internal circulation system of the project Design level plans for the project entrance on should be modified to provide improved circulation Sandmound Boulevard should be prepared and and conformance with future development in the submitted to County Public Works Department for Bethel Island.Area (PS) review and approval prior to approval of the first phased subdivision map. The design level plans should provide for:adequate transition from the levee cross-section to grade at Sandmound Boulevard; adequate stopping distance;and adequate comer sight distance. (3.2-8) Provide a right-of-way for a future roadway connection to the property south of Cypress Lakes, and construct the road up to the edge of the levee. This property could develop into a residential neighborhood,and should desirably be connected into ' Cypress Lakes at some time in the future, especially for school trips and other internal recreational trips. However, such a roadway connection should not be the only access to this new area, and should be provided only after Bethel Island Road is extended south across Rock Slough. This road should be treated as a secondary connection,so that it will limit '. the amount of through traffic that would travel through the Cypress Lakes development. (3.2-9) Provide a road extension of Cypress Road through the project to connect to Sandmound Boulevard. Certain residents on Sandmound Boulevard have protested this connection for the reason that they expect traffic from Cypress Lakes to impact their quiet residential streets. This connection would allow for more ' convenient access for existing residents, providing a connection to the future school site,and easy access to Cypress Road through the project. (3.2-10; NS) d. There are few bicycle pathways in the Bethel Provide a major bicycle path within the project on Island area. The existing width of Cypress Road is Cypress Road between Bethel Island Road and approximately 24 feet with no sidewalks or other Sandmound Boulevard, and on Cypress Lakes Drive provisions for pedestrians. Other streets in the study through the project. This pathway should be designed have similar cross-sections. The project will increase to County standards. (3.2-11) pedestrian and bicycle traffic.(PS) 2-8 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) At such time as other roadway improvements are completed,complete other bicycle paths as required. This would include a pathway along Bethel Island Road on the west boundary of the project,a pathway along Rock Slough on the southern boundary of the project, a path along the Byron Highway Extension, and a pathway along Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east boundaries of the project. (3.2-12;NS) e. Traffic generated by Cypress Lakes will contribute Intersection of Neroly Road and SR 4 (Main St.) - to cumulative traffic, and the project would be Widen the northbound approach to provide a double required to help mitigate these impacts by paying the left turn from Neroly to SR 4. This will improve the Subregional Road Fee. Most of the traffic impacts of V/C ratio from 0.93 ("E") to 0.81 ("D"). This will the short-term cumulative traffic can be mitigated to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.The an insignificant level. However, there are two Project traffic will amount to about 10 percent of the exceptions. The following mitigation measures traffic growth that is projected at this intersection. should be addressed by the Cypress Lakes project if The project applicant should pay a fair-share the Delta Expressway is not implemented, and if the contribution equal to 10% of the cost of the problem is not mitigated by other sources.(PS) improvement_ (3.2-14) Intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4 - Widen the southbound approach to provide a double left turn lane for traffic from SR 4 to Cypress Road, and widen Cypress Road on the east leg of the ' intersection. This will improve the V/C ratio from 0.87 ("E") to 0.79 ("C"),and will reduce this impact to a.less than significant level. The need for this improvement will depend entirely on the pace of '• development and the timing of the construction of the Delta Expressway. If the Cypress Corridor development'moves quickly to implementation,prior to the completion of the Delta Expressway, this mitigation will be required. The need for this improvement will be reduced if the Laurel extension !� is completed, and the Laurel Avenue connection to the Delta Expressway is completed. Traffic from the Cypress Lakes project will amount to about 25 percent of the traffic growth that is projected at this location. The applicant should be required to pay a fair share fee equal to about 25% of the cost of this improvement. (3.2-15) 1 2-9 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) Traffic generated by the Cypress Lakes project will contribute to long-term cumulative traffic. In particular, the Cypress Lakes Project will have a cumulative impact on SR 4 in the freeway section between Bailey Road and Highway 160, and on the arterial section between Highway 160 and Cypress Road. The Cypress Lakes project will assist in mitigating these impacts by paying the subregional road fee. As a result, most of the traffic impacts of the long-term cumulative traffic appear to be mitigated to an insignificant level. (3.2-16; NS). f. Construction of the proposed project would result Contra Costa County has standard restrictions on in additional truck traffic on Cypress Road and SR4. construction activities regarding hours of operation, (PS) noise and dust control. Additional mitigations could include restrictions on heavy trucks from SR 4 during the commute peak hours. The project could normally be required to assist in maintenance of roads that could be damaged by heavy trucks. Since the major access route, Cypress Road, would be partially reconstructed by the project, this type of project condition may not be necessary. (3.2-13;NS) 3.3 AIR QUALITY a. Construction air quality impacts would be due to The dust control measures proposed as pan of the dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive project plans should be made conditions of the project dust is emitted both during construction activity and approval. (3.3-1) as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing and grading activities comprise the In addition to the dust control measure proposed by major source of construction dust emissions, but the project,all construction vehicles should be limited traffic and general disturbance of the soil also to 15 miles per hour while on the project site. The generate significant dust emissions.(PS) 15 mph limit should be posted on the site at all times during construction. (3.3-2; NS) b. The daily increase in regional emissions(Reactive Comply with the County's Transportation Demand Organic Gases and Oxides of Nitrogen (two Management Program Ordinances 92-31 by preparing precursors of ozone), associated with the project and providing TDM information to prospective home would exceed the criterion (150 lbs/day). Therefore buyers. The TDM information should contain the project is considered to have a significant effect materials describing transit,ride sharing and van pool on regional emissions.(S) services. (3.3-3) 2-10 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) ' The project should provide for transit stops along Cypress Road within the project site, along Cypress Lakes Drive, Sandmound Boulevard and Country Club Drive. (3.3-4) The proposed project design includes pedestrian/bicycle paths linking recreational and residential uses within the site (see Section 3.9). In addition to these facilities, bicycle parking areas should be provided at all recreational facilities within the project site(Golf Course Clubhouse, Beach Club and Public Ballpark). (3.3-5) While the mitigation measures discussed above would 1 reduce regional emissions,the proposed project would still result in an unavoidable impact on regional emissions. (ROG and NOx) (S) 3.4 VEGETATION AND WU_DLIFE 1 a. The project would result in the removal of Wetland Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan which is approximately 0.95 acres of the 9.18 acres of designed to replace impacted wetlands by enlarging wetlands/waters of the U.S. on the project site for the and enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. The goal development of project roads, single-family homes, of the mitigation plan is to create an additional 2.28 golf course improvements and project levees. This acres of seasonal wetlands by enlarging and includes impacts to the primary drainage ditch("main enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. Buffer areas drain")by culverting the ditch under roads and filling around wetland areas would also be provided. (3.4-1) for construction of the project levee system.Filling of '• wetlands/waters of the U.S. on the project site would Channel Enhancement Plan which would enhance and require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of widen the existing primary drainage ditch to a channel Engineers. of approximately 8 acres in size. A new north/south channel would also be created to connect to the proposed lake. The channels would be sprigged with willows and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian habitat. (3.4-2) The proposed project includes widening of the primary drainage channel ("main drain") and the creation of additional channels on the project site to improve wildlife habitat and the visual quality of the ' project. The project applicant should prepare a 2-11 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) detailed Channel Enhancement Plan based on the draft , Channel Enhancement Plan provided by the applicant. The Plan should be submitted to Contra Costa County,the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for review and approval prior to approval of the project's final subdivision maps. (3.4-3) To minimize impacts to wildlife movement along this drainage channel, road crossings should utilize clear span bridges if feasible. If culverts are to be used they should be as large as possible to minimize impacts to wildlife movement. The design of all bridges and/or culverts to be placed along the primary drainage channel("main drain")shall be submitted for review and approval to Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, Reclamation District 799, California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map. (3.4-4) The project plans include a draft Habitat Mitigation , and Monitoring Plan which proposes to replace wetlands on-site,in a ratio of 3 acres for every 1 acre , impacted (0.75 acres impacted to be replaced with 2.28 acres of new wetland) by enlarging and enhancing the existing wetlands on the project site and providing buffer areas around wetlands. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be reviewed and approved by the County, California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map. (3.4-5) Wetlands and waterways impacted by the proposed project are considered waters of the United States and therefore come under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Filling in waters of the United States requires a permit from the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project applicant is required to obtain a permit from , 2-12 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before filling of any wetlands or waters on the project site. The type of permit required will be defined by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers upon submittal of a permit application by the project applicant.In addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit,the California Department of Fish and Game may need to be notified regarding project activities in the vicinity of the main drain pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. (3.4-6) The project should pay the County Protection Fee,as required by the County General Plan, for acquiring development rights on wetland areas off-site. The Protection Fee should be paid upon the issuance of building permits for the project. (3.4-7; NS) 3.5 VISUAL QUALITY 1 a. The project would result in changing the existing The following measures are proposed by the Project visual character of the project site to one of a Applicant to address visual impacts: suburban residential community with various recreational uses. This change would substantially Landscape criteria for the proposed golf course,parks, alter the existing visual condition. This would be common areas, project levees and the channels. considered an unavoidable impact of the project. (S) Landscaping would consist primarily of low grasses and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. (3.5-1) 1 Landscape guidelines for the proposed levee system. 1 These guidelines are designed to be consistent with the landscape guidelines of the State Reclamation Board. A list of suitable plant species is provided as part of the guidelines. (3.5-2) ' A landscape strip would be provided outside the project levee to provide screening of the levee along Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. The landscape strip would be a minimum of 10 feet wide and be located sufficiently outside the levee cross- section to not hinder maintenance of the levee. The 2-13 �r TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) landscape strip should be planted with trees and shrubs to provide maximum screening. Maintenance of the landscape strip would be carried out by the homeowners'association or special district but not the public agency responsible for maintenance of the project levee. (3.5-3) Residential units will be limited to two stories not to exceed 30 feet. (3.5-4) Minimum setbacks along arterial roadways will be 200 feet, and 100 feet from the center line of the roadway to the exterior wall of any living space along collectors (Cypress Road Extension). (3.5-5) Sideyard setbacks will vary taking into account: 1) structures should not block solar access for heating and cooling;2)space between buildings shall increase ' in relation to their height; and 3) periodic view corridors to water areas should be provided. (3.5-6) Mitigation measures proposed by the project, or included as mitigation measures, would improve the visual character of the project site but would not mitigate the change in visual character to a less-than- significant degree. (S) b. Views of the project site from Bethel Island The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized Boulevard,Sandmound Road and other vantage points once the public agency to be responsible for around the project perimeter would be, partially maintaining the levees is determined. The levee blocked by a landscaped flood control levee which landscape guidelines should then be submitted to the would surround the project. The degree of impact public agency responsible for maintenance of the would be higher for residences closest to the levee. levees for review and approval prior to the installation of any landscaping on the levees. (3.5-7) A landscape maintenance district, or other funding source consisting of the property owners within the project site, shall be established for the proposed project to pay for long-term maintenance of public recreation areas within the project site. The project applicant shall submit a proposal for the landscape 2-14 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact 1 After Mitigation) maintenance district to the County for approval prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. (3.5-8; NS) 3.6 NOISE a. Existing houses along Cypress Road just west of Noise mitigation installed (soundwalls, architectural the project entrance would be exposed to a significant treatments), along Cypress Road for the project noise impact due to increased traffic by the year entrance to Sellers Road should be designed to 2000. (PS) achieve the County's 60 dB goal for residential uses. The proposed project should be required to pay 40% of the total cost of noise mitigation for houses along Cypress. This is based on the calculation that the project will contribute 4 dB to the ultimate 70 dB noise level along Cypress Road which is 10 dB over the County's 50 dB goal. The remaining 60% of the cost should be paid by the County (40%) and future development (20%). The project's prorata share of noise mitigation should be paid at the time of filing each phased final map. (3.6-1; NS) ' b. Existing residences adjacent to the site, In order to reduce construction period noise impacts particularly along Sandmound Boulevard, would be the following mitigation should be implemented: exposed to a short-term impact from construction noise. (PS) a. All general construction activity should be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays only. b. Operations of any machine or device which generates a noise level greater than 95 dB at 50 feet should be prohibited wherever feasible. C. Route heavy construction traffic along existing Cypress Road and the proposed Cypress road to minimize the impact on existing residences. No construction traffic should be routed along Bethel Island Road or Sandmound Boulevard. 2-15 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) d. Prohibit construction trucks from parking along existing Cypress Road west of the project entrance. e. Locate noisy stationary equipment, such as compressors or pumping stations away from existing residences to reduce their noise impact. (3.2-6: NS) c. Proposed housing along the extension of Cypress In order to avoid adverse noise levels at homes to be Road within the project would be exposed to a located along the extension of Cypress Road through existing and future DNL of 65 dB. This is 5 dB over the project, the project has been designed to provide the County goal for normally acceptable outdoor noise a 100 foot set-back along Cypress Road. The 100 levels.but is within conditionally acceptable noise foot set-back would be from the center line of the levels. (PS) roadway to the nearest exterior wall of each residence located along Cypress Road. The 100 foot set-back would reduce the noise level at these residences to a DNL of 60 dB which is consistent with the County's noise goals for residential uses. No additional mitigation is necessary or proposed. (3.6-3; NS) 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE ' a. The project would increase the area of The following mitigation measures are proposed as impermeable surfaces and increase storm water part of the project: runoff. The proposed channel/lake system and storm drainage network would reduce the project's drainage On-site storm drainage facilities (lake, channels and impacts. On-site storm drainage that previously was golf course detention facilities)shall be constructed to ' collected in ditches and flowed off-site to RD-799 both protect property and to provide for public safety pumps, would, for the most part,be collected on site by accommodating the 100 year storm event. (3.7-1). and terminate in the proposed channel/lake system. During storm periods when excess water accumulates Dewatering structures(discussed in the Water Quality on the site, waters from the lake would then be Section) shall be constructed at those points where pumped to ultimate disposal in Sand Mound Slough underground storm drainage pipes enter the by a pump station that would be constructed as part channel/lake system in order to facilitate the periodic of the development. (NS) flushing and cleaning of the underground pipes.(3.7-2) Drainage ditches shall be constructed along the exterior toe of the proposed levee system to catch that runoff from the exterior slope of the levees. The 2-16 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) drainage ditches shall discharge into existing drainage ditches along the perimeter of the project. (3.7-3) Maintenance of on-site storm drainage improvements within the public right-of-way, or in suitable easements, shall be performed by the County of I Contra Costa. Storm water pump station maintenance shall be performed by the public entity selected to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the perimeter levee. (3.7-4; NS) b. The 685.9 acre project site would be removed The following mitigation measures are proposed to from the FEMA flood hazard zone by construction of ensure proper construction, landscaping and a perimeter levee. Material for constructionof the maintenance of the internal levee system. levee would be obtained from the excavation of the interior channels-lake system. The levee would be The design of the project levee shall be in accordance constructed to standards adopted by FEMA for an with the standards and requirements of the Federal Urban Standard Levee. (B) Emergency Management Agency for an Urban Standard Levee. Provisions shall be designed into the project levee to allow for a future increase in height of four feet to allow for the "greenhouse effect." 1, During the design of the project levee, the crest elevation shall be increased by an amount equivalent to projected long term settlement. (3.7-5) The side slopes of the project levee shall be planted and irrigated to reduce erosion, and to provide dust control,in accordance with the limitations imposed by FEMA. (3.7-6) Adequate easements shall be granted to the maintaining authority in order to provide for maintenance and upgrading of the levee, and to prohibit encroachments onto the levee. (3.7-7) To minimize the risk of liquefaction beneath the perimeter levees, the loose clean and silty sand of depths of 10 to 15 feet shall be reworked and densified. Deep dynamic compaction and/or over excavation and compaction of soils shall be utilized to densify the soils. (3.7-8) 2-17 i 1 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized once the public agency responsible for maintaining the levees is determined. The levee landscape guidelines should then be submitted to the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levees for review and approval prior to installation of any landscaping on the levees (same as mitigation measure 3.5-7) (3.7-9) A detailed emergency evacuation plan based on the project's proposed emergency evacuation plan shall be prepared in cooperation with RD-799 and the governmental agency that ultimately accepts the internal levee system prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. The evacuation plan shall include at a minimum the following measures: • Criteria for determining when a emergency exists • Methods for notifying and evacuating area residents • Identification of agencies and individuals responsible for emergency response and public evacuation • Plans for returning evacuees to their homes after an emergency has passed. (3.7-10;NS) c. Existing soils within the project site would be The proposed groundwater monitoring plan shall be ' removed (for the lake/channels) to construct the made a condition of project approval. A final proposed levee system. The proposed project would groundwater monitoring plan shall be submitted for have a short-term impact on groundwater as a result review and approval by the County prior to filing a , of dewatering of near-surface groundwater for final subdivision map. (3.7-11; NS) excavation for the internal levees, lake,channels and installation of utilities. The localized dewatering activities would not affect adjacent properties because dewatering would occur far enough from existing residences and draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering area. In addition,the project plans include a groundwater monitoring plan. (PS) 2-18 i� TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) d. The project would not have an impact on the The project site shall continue to be a part of RD-799 condition of the existing RD-799 levee system. and shall be prohibited from seceding from this However, the project site does provide funding for district, even if removed from the flood hazard zone 1 continued maintenance of the RD-799 levee system by the proposed internal levee system,to provide the and RD-799 may ultimately be responsible for district with a continued long-term source of funding maintenance of the proposed levee system. (PS) for maintenance of the existing RD-799 levee system. (3.7-12; NS) e. Increased surface runoff from the new impervious A final maintenance plan for the Golf Course shall be surfaces and the golf course may have impacts on the submitted for review and approval by the County, water quality of the channels-lake and ultimately the prior to filing a final subdivision map. The final Delta. Urban runoff can contain substantial quantities maintenance plan shall build on the maintenance of pollutants spch as organic pesticides,heavy metals, criteria established in the project plans and identify nutrients, petroleum products, and suspended solids. standard maintenance and management practices to be `• To address this potential impact, the project plans carried out on the Golf Course. Specific maintenance include a water quality management plan and procedures shall be identified regarding the use of maintenance criteria for the golf course. However, pesticides,herbicides,and fertilizers. An emphasis of proper implementation is necessary to ensure adequate the maintenance plan should be to reduce potential water quality. (PS) leaching into local groundwater resources. The maintenance and management plan shall also outline specific irrigation practices designed to reduce water �. consumption. (3.7-13) An informational packet shall be distributed to all project residents to educate them on the use and disposal of undesirable materials such as motor oil, paints, garden pesticides and other household products. The informational packet should be distributed to project residents upon purchase of each house. (3.7-14) A street sweeping program shall be provided to reduce urban pollutant run off into the proposed lake and channels. The street sweeping may be provided by the County through its existing street sweeping program. If this is not feasible,alternative measures could include funding of the street sweeping program by the homeowner's association. (3.7-15) A final channel-lake operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to 2-19 1 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) filing a final subdivision map. The plan shall be based on the applicant's proposed lake-channel management plans utilizing plants, flushing,aeration and other techniques to maintain water quality without chemicals. (3.7-16) . The project shall.comply with all the requirements of the County's NPDES permit requirements. The project applicant shall provide the County with the appropriate documentation regarding compliance with NPDES requirements prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. (3.7-17; NS) 3.8 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS a. The project would expose new structures to the The project plans include the following mitigation potential impacts of liquefaction. Due to the measures: "Generally High" liquefaction potential on the project site and County policies, this impact would be Excavate,rework and densify the loose clean and silty considered potentially significant. (PS) sands under the levee to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) techniques could also be used. These techniques could involve dropping a heavy weight repeatedly at a given location. (3.8-1) If Deep Dynamic Compaction is used,vibration from this construction technique would be monitored along the property line closest to adjacent residences. However,vibration from DDC would not be expected to exceed safe limits beyond 150 feet from the excavation site and therefore would not affect any adjacent residences. (3.8-2) The following mitigation measures are proposed in ' addition to those measures proposed as pan of the project: The Kleinfelder report analyzed alternative approaches for mitigating liquefaction impacts. The project should be required to adhere to these approaches. 2-20 ll TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ' (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) The specific approach will depend on site-specific conditions and analysis. However, the project applicant should follow the reviewed and approved recommendation of the Kleinfelder report. A report documenting the methods used in the field to reduce liquefaction potential should be submitted to the Public Works Department and the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levee system. (3.8-5) Building plans for each structure to be constructed on the project site shall include an evaluation and recommendations to ensure satisfactory performance in the event of an earthquake and liquefaction on the project site. The building plans shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa County prior to the issuance of building permits. (3.8-8: NS) b. Construction of the project would result in grading The project plans include the following mitigation over much of the site for construction of the proposed measure: homes, golf course, lakes and other facilities. These activities would expose soils to wind and water Existing vegetated areas should be left erosion. Because the site is located in an area of undisturbed until construction of site strong winds, wind erosion could result in a improvements is actually ready to significant loss of soil without mitigation.(PS) commence. • All disturbed areas should be protected from both wind and water erosion upon the completion of grading activities. • Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction, if practical. • Temporary check dams, sediment ponds, or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils,and prevent their discharge into storm drain pipes. 2-21 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) • To the extent possible, major site development work involving earth moving and excavations should be scheduled for the dry season. • Areas used for stockpiling and staging construction equipment and materials should be located so that unchecked runoff from these areas does not enter the storm drain system. (3.8-4) The following mitigation measure is proposed in t addition to the measures proposed as part of the project: Post at the construction site the name and phone number of a designated dust control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust- producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. In addition contractors shall implement, at a minimum, the following measures: 1) Schedule earthmoving activities,as much as possible, during the early spring months when soil moisture is high. 2) Suspend earthmoving or other dust-producing activities during periods of extreme winds. 3) Provide equipment and staffing for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, should be utilized. 4) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 5) Sweep adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. 2-22 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) 6) Where possible, limit the speed of all construction vehicles to 15 miles per hour while on site. 1 7) Seed, cover or chemically treat finished grades as soon as practical after completion of activities. (3.8-7; NS) Ic. The potential for subsidence from dewatering The following measure is proposed as part of the would be short-term (only during dewatering project plans: activities)and would only occur in the immediate area of dewatering activities. Dewatering activities are Groundwater monitoring plans to provide early expected to occur during the excavation for the lake detection of changes in the groundwater level and to and channels, construction of the levee and allow adjustments in the construction techniques if installation of underground utilities. Dewatering necessary. Monitoring wells and settlement plates activities would effect the top 15 to 20 feet, which would be placed on the project site and surrounding would not impact most domestic wells which are properties to control the groundwater level. (3.8-3) generally below the depth of the dewatering activities (Bohely, 1992). The localized dewatering activities The following mitigation measure is proposed in would not cause subsidence on adjacent properties addition to those measures proposed by the project because draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering The ground settlement monitoring plan should be area. (PS) finalized and submitted to the County for review and approval prior to beginning any construction or dewatering activities. The plan shall identify the location of all monitoring wells,and provide specifics on well completion and the method and frequency of monitoring. Similarly, the plan shall identify settlement plates as well as contingency plans to control subsidence or mitigate subsidence related damage. (3.8-6; NS) 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES a.1 The project would increase fire protection service The project proposes to dedicate a site and construct demands on the fire districts by increasing the number a new fire station on the project site in lieu of fire of structures and population within the project area. protection fees as determined by the County. The site To reduce the project's impacts on fire services, the and station should meet all applicable requirements of project would include construction of a fire station the appropriate Fire District (Oakley FPD or Bethel near the project entrance at Cypress Road. This Island FPD). The fire station should be operational station would satisfy the County's standard that fire prior to the first homes on the site being occupied. If stations be located within one and one-half miles of necessary a special district fee may be augmented to 2-23 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) development,and satisfactory to the Bethel Island and provide adequate funding to fully staff the new Oakley Fire Districts for maintaining the five minute station. (3.9-1) / 1.5 mile response standard. The proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have an adverse impacts If the project is required to pay fees,the Fire District on fire protection facilities.(NS) fees shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of the issuing of building permits. (3.9-2) All building plans shall meet the applicable Uniform Building and Fire codes. Fire protection agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the projects. (3.9-3) b. The project would result in the addition of The proposed project should pay a fair-share fee equal approximately 3,247 persons population within the to the cost of providing 465 square feet of new County sheriff's service area. This would result in Sheriff Department facilities, based on the County the need for new officer positions and equipment.(PS) standard of 155 square feet per 1,000 residents. The fee should be calculated and paid at the time of issuance of building permits for the project. (3.9-4; NS) c. The project would generate approximately 665 School Impact fees shall be based on the fees in t new elementary and middle school enrollments and effect at the time of issuing building permits. (3.9-5) approximately 253 new high school enrollments. Based on the project's student generation and the School impact fees are projected to be insufficient to- local school district's school facility requirements,the cover the project's share of facilities required to serve proposed project would require. the construction of new students in the area. If no state or local funding approximately one new elementary school,30%of a is available,the applicant should work with the school new middle schools,and 20%of a new High Schools. districts to determine additional school fees to be paid The project includes a possible school site of as building permits are issued. (3.9-6) approximately 7.4 acres. This site is proposed to mitigate the project's impacts on the local school The school site should be enlarged from 7.4 acres to district. The OUESD has indicated that a 10 acre 10 acres to meet the OEUSD requirements. (3.9-7) school site would be desired.(PS) If the proposed on-site school site is determined by the OUESD to be unacceptable, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee to the OUESD for the purchase of an appropriate school site. (3.9-8; NS) i 2-24 i` TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) d. The project would include 170 acre semi-private The following mitigation measures are proposed to golf course,60 acres of channels and lake,a 1.5 acre ensure proper maintenance of park facilities and beach club, approximately 33 acres of parks, and a compliance with County policy: 1 day care facility. The project is consistent with the park land/recreation requirements of the County. (B) The project proposes to construct and dedicate the large community park to the County which would then be responsible for continued maintenance of the park. If this is unacceptable to the County, funding for maintenance of the community park should be provided through a special district. (3.9-9) The community park should be designed so that active recreational use areas are located outside the power line easement. Active uses to be located outside the easement include: baseball diamonds, soccer fields and play ground areas. Uses permitted within the easement should be passive recreation and landscape areas. (3.9-10) The project applicant shall prepare a child care needs assessment based upon the projected demographics and density of the proposed project. The needs assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Plan prior to approval of the final phase map for the portion of the project which includes the day care site. (3.9-11;NS) e. The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District CCMAD should be provided the final design plans for (CCMAD)notes that the environmental conditions in wetland mitigation areas and golf course maintenance the area indicate that the project would cause an and irrigation for review and comment prior to their increase in the level of service required from approval. (3.9-12; NS) CCMAD. Golf courses, parks and water detention basins proposed as part of the project can lead to mosquito problems year round. (PS) 3.10 UTILITIES a. Water requirements for the project would amount Implement a groundwater management plan to address to approximately 1.7 million gallons per day (mgd). water requirements for irrigating the golf course and This can be broken down into 884,150 mgd for parks and to monitor changes in the groundwater domestic use and 805,200 mgd for landscaping. The table. The groundwater management plan should also 2-25 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) project is proposing to utilize existing groundwater address the management of pesticides and measures resources for irrigation of the golf course, parks, to be taken to reduce potential impacts on wetlands, and certain levee areas. The Oakley Water groundwater resources. In,addition, the plan should District appears to be the logical provider of domestic identify what areas,and-in what sequence,water will water service to the proposed project and has be discontinued to portions of the golf course and provided a "will serve' letter to the project applicant parks in the event of water cutbacks because of confirming that water capacity is available to serve drought or substantial lowering of the water table. this project through its buildout. (PS) The plan should be approved by the County prior to filing a final subdivision map. (3.10-1) Design into the golf course the use of grasses that are drought tolerant to limit the amount of water necessary for irrigation. (3.10-2) Require all structures to confirm to the California Health and Safety Code Section 1792.3 and the Public Resources Code Section 25402 with regard to maximum flow rates through plumbing fixtures. (3.10-3) Provide homeowners with alternative landscaping opportunities such as xeriscape landscaping for builder installed front yards. (3.10-4) _ Design water distribution systems in accordance with American Water Works Association standards. (3.10- 5) Install cathodic protection where corrosive �. environments are found, and use metallic water line products. (3.10-6) Install cathodic protection where corrosive environments are found and metallic water line � products must be used. (3.10-7; NS) i b. The project proposes to obtain its domestic water The project should be required to construct,or pay a supply from the existing OWD mains located at the fee equal to, the necessary off-site water system intersection of Highway 4 and Cypress Road in improvements to serve the proposed project. The size Oakley. From that point,the project would construct and design of these facilities should meet all two separate 12" pipelines, that are periodically applicable standards and requirements of the Oakley .2-26 f TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; ' Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) interconnected,to the project site. The 12" pipelines Water District and local Fire District Standards. The would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project should be reimbursed on a proration basis for project as well as some limited additional the cost of constructing facilities which have the development within the Bethel Island area. (NS) capacity to serve future development in the Planning Area served by the facilities. The necessary off-site water facilities should be completed and operational prior to the first homes being occupied on the site. (3.10-8; NS) c. The project would result in a significant increase The project applicant would be required to construct in wastewater generated from the project site. Based all necessary sewage collection facilities on-site to on wastewater generation factors provided by the serve the project. These facilities should be built to Oakley Sanitary District, the proposed project would district standards and appropriate easements for generate approximately 360,000 gallons/day (or 0.36 district maintenance provided. The sewage collection mgd) based on 270 gallons/unit day x 1,330 units. facilities should be installed prior to the first homes The most logical provider of sewer service for the being occupied. (3.10-9) project is the Ironhouse Sanitary District because 75% of the proposed project site is located within their A hydraulic analysis of the force main should be existing service boundaries. The project applicant has conducted to determine the capacity of the existing requested that the remainder of the project site be force main and any improvements that may be annexed to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. The necessary to accommodate the proposed project. This Ironhouse Sanitary District appears to have adequate analysis should be conducted prior to approval of the capacity to serve the project and has provided a"will project's final subdivision map. The project shall pay serve" letter to the project applicant. However,there its fair share of any improvements necessary to the may be several off-site improvements necessary to force main to serve the project. The fair-share fee serve the project. (PS) shall be paid upon approval of the first phased map. (3.10-10) jThe project should be required to pay the full costs of any increase in pumping capacity or new pump station(s) necessary to serve the project. The need and cost for these improvements shall be determined by the Ironhouse Sanitary District prior to approval of the final map. (3.10-11) A reimbursement agreement shall be entered into between the project applicant and the Ironhouse Sanitary District whereby the project applicant would be reimbursed for the portion of the cost of new facilities which have the capacity to serve areas in addition to the project. The reimbursement would be 2-27 TABLE 2-1 (continued) , SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) paid out of fees paid by future developments. (3.10- . 12;NS) d. Electric service would be supplied to new The project shall include the undergrounding of all . development by PG&E. The existing transmission new electrical service lines necessary to serve the lines and substation appear to have adequate capacity project site. Electrical lines should be placed in. to provide service to the project.(NS) relatively water tight conduits according to PG & E standards. This should be completed prior to the fust houses being occupied. (3.10-13) The need to upgrade off-site electrical lines shall be , determined by PG&E prior to approval of the final map. If off-site reinforcement is necessary, the project applicant should be required to pay the project's fair-share, if any, of the reinforcement. (3.10-14;NS) e. The project would require the replacement of the Place distribution lines underground. (3.10-15) switch on Bethel Island and the extension of new telephone cables to the project site.According to PUC Install telephone cables in relatively water-tight regulations, costs of line and equipment installation conduits and vaults. (3.10-16; NS) would be borne by the developer and Pacific Bell. According to County policy,distribution lines would need to be placed underground in relatively watertight conduits and vaults, thereby avoiding visual impacts and prolonging the life of the equipment and cables.(NS) L The project includes street lighting and additional Project street lights should utilize down focused lights lighting associated with individual residential units and other features to reduce glare. The design of and recreational uses. The street lighting would be street lights should be submitted for review and installed in accordance with Contra Costa County approval to the County Public Works Department for Code(Title 9)requirements and maintained by Contra review and approval prior to approval of the final Costa County. Street lights produce "glow" which map. (3.10-17; NS) could impact adjacent residents. (PS) 2=28 i i TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) 3.11 HUMAN HEALTH a. Residents of the project could be exposed to Each residence on the project site should include in agricultural chemicals applied aerially on nearby its CC&Rs a clause consistent with disclosure agricultural lands. However, the use of agricultural currently required by the County stating that the chemicals is strictly regulated by County and State incoming property owner is aware of adjacent regulations. Chemicals applied aerially on nearby agricultural uses and the potential hazards related to properties could drift onto the project site and cause this land use. (3.11-1; NS) adverse health effects and nuisance odors for project residents. The level of exposure for project residents would vary greatly depending on the amount of chemicals used and proximity to the application.(PS) b. The project would involve the construction of The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District lakes, a golf course and other water related facilities (CCMAD) should be consulted regarding mosquito including wetland mitigation sites,drainage facilities. abatement features during the final design of any ' These facilities may provide breeding habitat for wetland mitigation sites to be created on the project mosquitos if not properly maintained.(PS) site (3.11-2) If reclaimed water is used for recreation areas, CCMAD should be consulted regarding the design and testing of alternative methods and disbursement sources.(3.11-3; NS) c. The project site is located in close proximity to Each residence within the project site should include large electrical transmission lines and natural gas drill in the CC&Rs a clause stating that the incoming easements (no active gas sites). Although some of property owner is aware of the specific human health these risks are speculative,as a result of the project's issues related to living near electrical transmission location,project.residents could be exposed to certain lines and drill sites. (3.11-4; NS) health risks.(PS) 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Because the project site is known historically to Due to the existence of subsurface cultural materials contain cultural resources,including the possibility of along the western perimeter of the CA-CCo-134 site human burials,the proposed project may result in the area and the recommendations relative to site CA- disruption of cultural resources as a result of the CCo-139 (below),it is recommended that significant grading and excavation necessary to construct various ground disturbance be avoided in an area of components of the project.(PS) approximately 11 acres (700 x 700 feet [213 x 213 meters])(see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this area (internal levee, natural gas drilling site, fire . 2-29 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) . TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) station,community park)are not expected to result in significant ground disturbance. However, all construction activity in this area should be closely monitored to preserve known resources and to determine the presence of any previously unknown subsurface resources in the CA-CCo-134 area. Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes,it is recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it ' be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (3.12- ' 1) Significant ground disturbance should be avoided in the area surrounding site CA-CCo-139, from the 0- , foot(sea level)contour to the mound apex at 6.5 feet above sea level(see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this area (community park, extension of Cypress Road are not expected to result in significant ground disturbance. However, all construction activities should be closely monitored to preserve known resources present in this area. It is understood that two private parcels of land on the mound are not included in the project proposal. These recommendations do not apply to those parcels unless they are incorporated into the project proposal at some future time. Should any subsurface disturbance occur on the mound through the removal of structures or foundations, an archaeological monitor should be present to observe soils for the presence of cultural materials. Should sterile soil (e.g.,topsoil)be placed over the site for landscaping purposes, it is recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it be necessary.to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of 2-30 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) cultural materials. (3.12-2) Construction at the fire station, which would be within the area of archaeological sensitivity for site CA-CCo-139,should be closely monitored and work stopped immediately if cultural materials are encountered. If it is determined that construction is not feasible, the project applicant shall be required to find an alternate site outside the archaeologically sensitive area. (3.12-3) . Lot No.10 in Neighborhood l should be removed or redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (3.12-4) Lot No.I l in Neighborhood 1 should be removed or redrawn in order to avoid the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (3.12-5) The area including and immediately surrounding site CA-CCo-647 should be avoided to preclude impacts to this important resource(see Appendix I-I). Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes,it is recommended that rubber- tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in rill material only. Should it be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (3.12-6) The rear lot lines of lots No.29 and 30 in Neighborhood 7 should be redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-647. (3.12-7) In the event that avoidance of the preceding cultural resource sites is not feasible, it will be necessary to develop a data recovery or"excavation plan"pursuant 2-31 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact ' After Mitigation) to the requirements of CEQA Appendix K, Part V and subject to the limitations defined in Part VI. (3.12-8) An archaeological monitor should be present when , grading, excavation, trenching and other soil disrupting activities are carried out in any of the mapped archaeologically sensitive areas as defined in Appendix H. These activities/areas include, for example, the Cypress Road extension; levee construction/ excavation/ compaction; possibly, demolition of existing homes; fire station construction; and the parking lot for the playing fields. (3.12-9) ' An archaeological monitor should be on-call when grading, excavation, trenching and other soil disrupting activities are carried out on the project site. , In the event that a prehistoric site, burial, or historic resource is encountered during construction of the project, the project engineer would be obligated to temporarily stop or relocate construction activities and notify the archaeological monitor immediately. In the event a significant prehistoric or historic resource is , identified,no further construction should be permitted in that location until a mitigation plan can be formulated and implemented. (3.12-10) In the event human remains are discovered during construction, excavations should be halted at that location. Any finds of human remains must be reported to the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office. In the event that the find is determined to be prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be notified within 24 hours to alert them of the find and to permit the designation of a Native American representative. Consultation between the archaeological consultants in charge of monitoring, Contra Costa County, and the Native . American representative would then determine the course of action to be taken with the burial in 2-32 - i� TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) question. Ideally, if removal is undertaken, time should be allowed for study of the remains and any associated grave goods prior to their return to the Native American Community for reburial at a location of their selection. (3.12-11) A report of findings and analyses of all archaeological data recovered during testing/excavation,monitoring and any mitigation procedures undertaken should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist. (3.12-12) ' Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for "protection to Native American 1 human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction". To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for _ proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. (3.12-13) It is recommended that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento be contacted regarding potential Native American concerns,values, and traditional use areas relative to the proposed project site and vicinity. There is a potential for disturbance of previously undiscovered Native American human remains during construction of the project. It would prove advantageous to have an established agreement with the NAHC and/or local Bay Miwok tribal representatives prior to the discovery of such remains,should any be discovered. A typical agreement would specify when,in the event of a discovery, Native American involvement would occur, and the treatment and ultimate disposition of ancestral remains. (3.12-14) ' The proposed intersection improvements at the project entrance and Bethel Island Road should be realigned to the north as much as possible to avoid impacting site CA-CCo-138. (3.12-15) 2-33 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) The alignment of any future extension of Bethel ' Island Road south of Cypress Road should be as far east as feasible to avoid site CA-CCo-138,taking into consideration safety factors. This may result in the ' need to move the project levee along the project's westerly boundary up to 50 feet to the east. (3.12-16; NS) 3.13 ENERGY a. An average dwelling unit could be expected to Building plans for each house should include energy consume approximately 4,869 kilowatt hours conservation features such as passive solar heating, (kwh)/year of electricity. Total energy consumption additional insulation and other features so that Title ' of the proposed homes would be approximately 6.47 24 efficiency standards(1991)will be exceeded by at million kilowatt hours/year of electricity. The project least 10%. These features shall be reviewed and has proposed to incorporate design features in the approved by the County Building Department as part project homes so that energy consumption would be of the building permit review process. reduced. The goal of the project would be to exceed the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%. 2-34 1 3. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 3.1 LAND USE, PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY EXISTING SETTING Existing Land Uses on the Project Site ' The project site is located in the East County area of Contra Costa County near the San Joaquin County line, approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley (see Figure 1-2). The project site occupies about 685.9 acres at the junction of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road in the Hotchkiss Tract. The site is bordered on the west by Bethel Island Road, on the north and east by Sandmound Boulevard, and on the south by the Prelli property. The site is located about one half mile north of Rock Slough (see Figure 1-2). Agriculture, primarily on the Dal Porto Ranch, is the predominant land use on the site. These lands have marginal agricultural productivity and are classified as "non-prime." Agricultural uses include cattle grazing and field crops. Some rural residences and accessory structures are clustered near Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road; not all of these are included within the proposed project boundaries. Other rural residences and structures are clustered in the northern portion of the site near Sandmound Boulevard. The site contains about 9 acres of wetlands/waters of the United States. The southwestern portion of the site contains three transmission line easements: a 200' Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) California-Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) easement; a 125'-wide U.S.A. tower and pole line easement; and a 350'-wide PG&E tower and pole line easement. The 125'-wide tower lines are planned to be removed. Along the site's western boundary, a Great Western Power Company pole line easement is located parallel to Bethel Island Road. Additional discussion regarding the transmission lines is contained in Section 3.12 of this EIR. ' In the 1930's Bank of America purchased Hotchkiss Tract. The bank sold off portions ' of the Hotchkiss Tract to individuals but retained surface and subsurface rights. The project applicant has been able to retain the surface rights to the project site. However, the bank has retained five areas for potential drilling sites which could be utilized for gas exploration and ' potential gas well development. These drilling sites total 10.5 acres in area and are located in various locations along the site's perimeter. While the project site is located within the Dutch Slough Gas Field, gas has never been discovered on the project site and there are no known gas resources on the project site. The drill sites on the project site do not contain wells or drills, they are currently vacant. ' A major drainage ditch crosses the site from Bethel Island Road to Sandmound Boulevard ("main drain"). This ditch is part of the RD-799 drainage system of the Hotchkiss Tract and conveys water to a pump station located near Sandmound Boulevard. 3-1 Existing Land Uses in Surroundinll Area This part of the County is predominantly rural and devoted to agricultural, recreational, and open space uses, with small amounts of commercial and industrial uses. The project area , vicinity is generally characterized as low lying delta lands of the San Joaquin River which were reclaimed through the construction of levees and de-watering following the Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of 1855. Most of these lands are at an elevation at or below mean sea , level. Hotchkiss Tract, in which the project site is located, is bordered on the west by Jersey Island Road, on the north by Dutch Slough and Bethel Island, on the south Rock Slough, and on the east by Sand Mound Slough. Of the 3,000 acres that comprise Hotchkiss Tract, a total of , about 2,867 acres are in agricultural use; about 131 acres have been developed for-residential use; and about 2 acres have been developed for commercial use. As described above, the lands in agricultural use on the project site have marginal productivity. Levees are constructed on 6.7 ' miles of its perimeter,along Little Dutch Slough, Dutch Slough, Sand Mound Slough and Rock Slough. The residences are primarily single-family homes; most are located along Sandmound Boulevard and have docking facilities on Sand Mound Slough. One multiple family housing , development is located on Sandmound Boulevard. A small commercial area is located on Bethel Island Road near the Bethel Island Bridge. The transmission line easements described above for the project site continue diagonally across Hotchkiss Tract. Hotchkiss Tract is also a part of the Dutch Slough Gas Field and has about six operating natural gas wells. However, these wells are not located in the vicinity of the , proposed project site. The Contra Costa Water District's Contra Costa Canal intake from the Central Valley Project is located near the western end of Rock Slough. Bethel Island lies immediately north of Hotchkiss Tract and Dutch Slough. The island consists of about 3,500 acres in agricultural,residential,commercial and recreational uses. About 3,215 acres are in agricultural use; about 271 acres have been developed for residential use; and ' about 14 acres have been developed for commercial use. A majority of the Bethel Island perimeter is developed with small-lot single family homes adjacent to the 11.5 miles of levees which surround the island. Most of these homes use the surrounding waterways for docking private boats. Small marinas with covered boat slips also operate commercially in these areas. and are interspersed among the private docks. A. commercial area with local and region-serving businesses lies immediately north of the bridge. Most of the land in the interior of the island is 1 fallow agricultural land, and is sparsely developed with several mobile home parks, single family homes, a small hotel and restaurant, boating facility and a golf course. Three natural gas wells are located in the western portion of the island. Bethel Island may contain about 1,537 acres of wetlands. To the north of Bethel Island lies Franks Tract, a State Recreation Area which consists ' of two submerged islands whose broken levees remain above the water level. Jersey Island is directly west of Bethel Island and is used for agriculture. Holland Tract, also an agricultural 3-2 area, lies immediately to the east of Hotchkiss Tract and Bethel Island. Other recreational uses in East County include the Antioch shoreline; a recreation facility at Big Break; Black Diamond Mines; the Contraloma area; plus various facilities operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. The nearest incorporated area is the City of Brentwood (pop. 6,800), about 15 miles southwest of Hotchkiss Tract. An application for the incorporation of the Town of Oakley was filed but has since been withdrawn. The original application included Hotchkiss Tract and the project site. The project applicant filed a request that the project site not be included within the Oakley incorporation limits and the original application was revised to exclude Hotchkiss Tract (Jochim, 1992). Currently, the Oakley Incorporation Committee is sponsoring a fund raising drive to collect money needed to update and revise the application. (Brentwood News, October 9, 1992) The State Lands Commission has indicated in their letter in response to the Notice of Preparation that portions of Hotchkiss Tract, and the project site, may contain the last natural bed of Sand Mound Slough which could be considered sovereign property of the State of California ' or property encumbered by the Public Trust. Contra Costa County Community Development Department has requested that the State Lands Commission provide a map or other evidence indicating public ownership in the Hotchkiss Tract Area. To date, the State Lands Commission ' has not provided evidence of State ownership in the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site does not abut or contain any tidal (Delta waters) or submerged lands (natural waterways). According to the title company, pertinent State Lands Commission Maps do not indicate any State ownership ' interest. (Don Davidson, 1st American Title Company) Planned Land Uses In addition to the proposed Cypress Lakes project, three development applications are ' pending for residential/recreational projects in the Hotchkiss Tract: Lesher Landing (Lesher), South River (Bones), and North State Development Company (see Figure 3.1-1). Additional discussion of these projects and their potential cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the Cypress Lakes project, is contained in Section 5.2 of this EIR. As indicated in Figure 3.1-1, the project site is located in an area which is planned for residential development in conformance with the Contra Costa County General Plan. An EIR is anticipated for at least the Lesher project. In addition to other planned projects in the Bethel Island Area, there are three planned development projects which include golf course components in the Brentwood area: A.G. Spanos Brentwood Hills Country Club, Hancock Specific Plan, and the Blackhawk/Nunn Project. In addition, Cowell Ranch,a planned development community of at least 6,000 residential units with ' businesses and commercial uses for 5,000 acres, is proposed southwest of Brentwood. The City of Brentwood is also in the process of updating its General Plan. These planned projects exhibit the significant level of planned development in the East County area. Additional discussion of 3-3 :J�SM 201 i �=: `_ • _ — __',; _0- Bethel Island, e2 coo gL-0 t" e � .:I__Grit -- •••'sio'ucti'L`�•Pumping;, _•�Aaiii a 4 • �+' �•.� � ' •` ti, Trails It Div S4te %pitent ! ir.,.. t-7 •• +� JTCHp' •SL0U H Qi GAS' FI EL + �- M QO .00 _---,z---,.j - -- Lesher Landing "=� °• ':��' x Btu 6 •a.` �. + 1 1 .�= i.•. r E, M- •1 ' Cypress Lakes � , �SiphOCS n••., ..•�;..`.. • . • tS. .�'i . • '�'`'�'Y%:.. '3ls6 ,cc.:=_ , Yip00 r I J � I 28 _ {_� ►i - - South River .•� 'I � ,J + 8M tal. - 133 / Gaunt StAL a we ough Figure 3.1-1: CYPRESS LAKES & Other Planned Projects in the COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT Bethel Island Planning Area Source: Contra Costa County Community Development 3-4 �. 1` the potential impacts of these projects in combination with the Cypress Lakes project is contained in Section 5.2 of the EIR. ' North of Cypress Road between Marsh Creek and Jersey Island Road, 1,539 acres have been designated for mixed-use development in an area referred to as the Cypress Corridor. The ' site is intended to function as a community center for Oakley. Land uses would include single family and multi-family residential (1,135 to 1,480 acres); commercial (15 to 20 acres); office (30 to 40 acres); commercial recreation (20 to 30 acres); parks and recreation (100 to 150 acres); ' and public and semi-public (25 to.35 acres). The Cypress Corridor development is also considered in the cumulative impacts analysis contained in Section 5.2 of this EIR. Existing Population and Housing Characteristics Proiect Site The site contains eight housing units consistent in character with the agricultural uses that dominate the site and its vicinity. Most residences in the vicinity are located on the east side of ' Sandmound Boulevard behind the Sand Mound Slough levee and constructed on stilts (10 feet high). Some older homes, however, are not constructed on stilts and living areas are located at ground level. These units are primarily single-family detached homes and range in size from e small "cottage-type" units to larger 2- and 3-story homes. Some are used as seasonal or vacation homes. Multi-family residences (Willow Park Marina) and a smaller trailer park (Sandy Point) are located near the corner of Sandmound Boulevard and Mariner Road. ' Surrounding Area POPULATION Roughly 164,000 people live in the East County area, with most of the population concentrated in the Pittsburg-Antioch area. The project site and vicinity are located in the "Other East County," as defined in the General Plan, where fewer than 45,000 people reside. ' The project site is located in Census Tract 3010 (see Figure 3.1-2). The 1990 U.S. Census shows a population of 3,002 in 1,308 households, for an average of 2.14 persons per ' household. Most of this population is concentrated on Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract. For comparison, the 1980 Census showed a population of 2,665 in 1,175 households, and an average 2.26 persons per household. ' HOUSING Overall, Contra Costa County increased its housing stock by 22 percent between 1980 and 1990; the East County area, however, has had an increase of 48 percent during the same period. There are approximately 58,000 households in East County, most in the Pittsburg-Antioch area. 1 3-5 1 L) % J� 7 ?JIM 'co 4b Jf on t Ic Z 71 ic, Clyn 0.4"*. < U cn NR u u 3-6 i� Much of the future growth in the County is planned for the East County area. In the unincorporated communities of Oakley, Bethel Island, and Discovery Bay and the City of Brentwood, approximately 29,000 homes are planned, resulting in a population increase of about 65,000 people. It's estimated 1,434 housing units in the Planning Area in 1989, based on available County data. Of these, 1,406 were reported in use year round, with a vacancy factor of 16.4 percent; the remainder were seasonally occupied. The year-round housing consisted of 874 single-family homes, 162 multi-family homes and 381 mobile homes. Most housing is owner occupied. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE The Countywide jobs/housing ratio is expected to reach approximately 0.74 jobs per employed resident under the General Plan. The projected jobs/housing ratio in the East County area is expected to improve as the influx of new residents creates the demand for new services, and retail and other businesses follow the growing population base. ' In 1980,employment data for Census Tract 3010 residents showed 974 employed persons, 87 unemployed persons, and 1,175 persons not participating in the labor force. These numbers ' reflect the large proportion of children and retirees living in the census tract. In general, the East County area exhibits a low jobs to housing ratio indicating substantially more housing units than jobs. This situation results in many East County residents commuting to areas such as Concord/Walnut Creek, Livermore and other East Bay employment centers. East County also contains a relatively high proportion of retired persons due to the ' relative affordability of housing in the area. The elderly population of the area may skew the jobs/housing balance to some degree and reduce the amount of job commuting. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES General Plan policies establish that the County shall provide assistance for reducing the ' cost of low-income housing and the creation of public/private partnerships for the purposes of facilitating low and moderate income housing. To obtain a wide range of housing types, mixed-use projects and innovative approaches are encouraged. Development projects should be at or near density maximums to provide as much housing as possible. Area plans shall be reviewed to identify opportunities to increase densities without disrupting the character of established areas. To the extent possible, rapid growth areas should be developed so as to ultimately provide a balance of new residential and employment opportunities (Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 6, Housing Element). 3-7 BETHEL ISLAND AREA County data indicates approximately 1,050 existing dwelling units on Bethel Island and 400 existing dwelling units on Hotchkiss Tract. The General Plan limits the gross density and ' future population of the Planning Area by allowing a maximum of 3,200 new dwelling units: A maximum of 200 new units could be built on Bethel Island (1 unit per existing parcel); a maximum of 3,000 new units (minus 153 units approved, but not yet constructed) could be built on Hotchkiss Tract. Four applications for development of 2,998 residential units on 1,814 acres in Hotchkiss ' Tract are now pending. Two additional projects involving 153 units on 39 acres have been approved for Hotchkiss Tract but have not been constructed. Based on the total acreage of Hotchkiss Tract (3,000 acres), 1,147 acres are therefore not proposed for development at this time, but could result in as many as 229 units if developed at the base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. The 153 approved units plus the 229 potential "base density" units total 382 and need to be set aside from the 3,000 units allowed by the General Plan, leaving 2,618 units theoretically available under the gross density limit for Hotchkiss Tract. The General Plan is flexible on the types of housing that may be constructed. However, ' new housing would be restricted to single-family units. New housing is expected to be in the median price range. The number of persons per household in new units is expected to increase ' and be more in conformity with the County average of 2.64 persons per household. The vacancy rate is expected to decline as development takes place. The General Plan seeks to provide employment opportunities appropriate to the rural and recreational nature of the area, with special emphasis on expanding the commercial recreational sector. Contra Costa County General Plan, 1991 The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990 - 2005 was approved in January 1991 and presents the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures necessary to guide future growth,development and the conservation of resources within the County through the year , 2005. The County's land use goals, policies and implementation measures are contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan; the County's housing policies are contained in the Housing Element. Goals,policies and implementation measures regarding population growth are , generally contained in the Growth Management Element. Specific provisions in'the General Plan provide basic direction for land use in the Bethel Island Planning Area. The County General Plan contains the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures, which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources through the year 2005. 3-8 �I 'I `i The General Plan contains nine Elements, or topic areas, which contain the County's goals, policies and implementation measures. The nine elements include: Land Use, Growth Management, Transportation and Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities/Services, Open Space, conservation, Safety, and Noise. Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan defined the general ' distribution, general location and extent of the land for housing, business, industry and open space throughout the County. The Land Use Element also sets forth the County's goals, policies and implementation measures regarding the use of lands within the County. ' The General Plan designates two land uses for the project site: Agricultural Lands (AL), covering most of the site, and Open Space (OS), covering the drainage channel traversing the site. These designations have an "Off-Island Bonus Area" overlay (see Figure 3.1-3). Agricultural Lands (AL): The Agricultural Lands designation permits 1 dwelling unit/5 acres and includes non-prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas. Some, including the project site, are included in the 100-year flood plain, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The uses that are allowed in the AL designation include all land-dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. With respect to the Off-Island Area, development under this designation, to the extent permitted beyond 1 unit/parcel, should be clustered with development rightson the undeveloped land dedicated to the County. ' Open Space (OS): This General Plan designation includes publicly owned, open space lands which are not ' designated as 'Public and Semi-Public," "Watershed," or "Parks and Recreation." Lands designated "Open Space" include, without limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources,or geologic hazards. The"Open Space"designation also includes privately owned properties for which future development rights have been deeded to a public or private agency. The most appropriate uses in "Open Space" areas involve resource management. ' Other appropriate uses are low intensity,private recreation for nearby residents. The construction of permanent structures, excluding a single-family residence on an existing legally established lot, not oriented towards recreation or resource conservation, is inconsistent with this open space designation. ' 3-9 � -'C-_'_�-�_ �v';'``�•�+tel F F A V K S PR SH SH CRT WA / T , C„�r ._ .. .,--" _ .%T A T 1 ■[C ■i A T 1 U r A1; . 1 DR _.. ... . ca Mo 5 AL OS AL PSL- Ft OR 1;0 fR �- �. 08 .i1c G`b.•. - SL os - SL vCG OS OS .. AL mo y;-M8 _ '.Mg DR M8 ... AL Project Site as: .:; ` • 26 t PS Sv c SL.. ►S �' s►+ ` u AL ' CO -- DR 4.AL , ® Off Island Bonus Area os Figure 3.1-3: CYPRESS LAKES & Contra Costa County General Plan e COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT Land Use Designations in Project Area Source: Contra Costa County ' 3-10 1� Off-Island Bonus Area: ' The Off-Island Bonus Area is identified for the Hotchkiss Tract. The base density of this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres and shall be increased through the bonus program if the applicant participates in one of the following programs: ' Recreational Projects. Residential projects which include a distinct, identifiable recreational character by including substantial recreational facilities shall be allowed a ' density of 1.0-2.9 units per net acre. Recreational amenities may include marinas or launching areas off the project site on Sand Mound or Rock Sloughs, a lake community, a sailing/boating club on a project lake, an equestrian facility, a tennis club or golf course. Purchase of Development Rights. The development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Land designation may be purchased and dedicated to the County to increase the base density up to 1/2 dwelling unit per net acre. Acquiring development rights in one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Core designation will increase the base density up to a maximum of 3 dwelling units per ' net acre. The term "net acreage" includes all land area used exclusively for residential purposes, ' and excludes streets, highways, and all other public rights-of-way. Net acreage for residential densities is assumed to constitute 75 percent of gross acreage for all uses, except for the multiple family designations, where it is assumed to comprise 80 percent. However, actual measurements used on an application may be based on analysis of the proposed development site plan. Unique environmental characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General Plan designation. All Agricultural (A) Zoning Ordinance Districts are consistent with the preceding land use ' designations. The Planned Unit District (P-1) zoning district may be found to be consistent with these land use designations under certain circumstances. ' Urban Limit Line and 65/35 Land Preservation Standard: Measure C - 1990 affirmed community support for the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and established a 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The purpose of the ULL is to: 1) ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, ' open space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can_ be designated during the term of the General Plan; and 2) facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard which requires that 65% of the County reflect non-urban uses. Properties, such as the project site, that are located inside the ULL would be governed by the land use designations contained in the General Plan. 3-11 Development of property within the ULL is-restricted by the limitations imposed by the County's Growth Management Program, as well as by other General Plan limitations. If land is developed within the ULL, a substantial portion of this land shall be retained for non-urban ' uses such as open space, parks, recreational uses and public facilities. These non-urban uses within the ULL shall be considered "non-urban" in monitoring the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and shall be applied within the ULL on a Countywide basis as it may be more or less applicable to various development projects within the ULL. Of the total land area of 219,000 acres within the ULL, about 144,000 acres are currently designated for urban use. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard requires that at least 65 percent of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture,open space,wetlands,parks,recreation,public facilities and other non-urban uses. The standard ensures that both within and outside the ULL, a ' maximum of not more than 35 percent urban development could occur in the County. Other non-urban land use designations generally considered under the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard include public/semi-public uses such as schools, public offices, highways and major flood control ' rights-of-way, and railroads. Land Use Policies: ' Land use policies which are applicable to new development including the proposed project, are listed on pages 3-43 through 3-45 of the County General Plan. In general these , policies are broken into four sub areas: Jobs/Housing Balance; Growth Management, 65/35 Land Plan and Urban Limit Line; Community Identity and Urban Design; and Residential uses. The following are specific land use policies which would apply to the proposed project: ' • New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be approved,providing growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior ' to the issuance of building permits in accordance with the growth management element. (Policy 3-5) • Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential community services or facilities including, but not limited to, roads, law enforcement. and fire protection services,schools,parks, sanitary facilities,water and floor control. (Policy 3-6) , • The location, timing and extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing (i.e. capital improvement program, assessment districts, , impact fees, and developer contributions) to prevent infrastructure, facility and service deficiencies. (Policy 3-7) , • Preservation and buffering of agricultural land should be encouraged as it is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and assuring a balance of land uses. preservation and conservation of open space, wetlands, parks, hillsides and ridgelines should be encouraged as it is crucial to preserve the continued availability of 3-12 i� unique habitats for wildlife and plants,to protect unique scenery and provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for County residents. (Policy 3-12) ' Water oriented recreation uses shall be permitted in East county provided that such development is compatible with the Delta's unique ecology. (Policy 3-45) ' The project's relationship with County Growth Management standards and criteria and the provision of essential community services are discussed in this EIR. Sections 3.9 and 3.10 of this EIR provide additional information regarding the provision of public.services and utilities to the proposed project as well as the project's relationship to the County's Growth Management policies. ' Growth Management Element Measure C - 1988 added one-half cent to the County sales tax to be used for transportation funding. In order to receive local street maintenance and improvement funds under Measure C, the County was required to develop a Growth Management Element, which includes: ' 1) traffic levels of service (LOS) standards keyed to types of land use; and 2) performance standards maintained through capital projects for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. By using the Growth Management Element to manage new development ' proposals, the County will ensure that development projects bear their appropriate share ("fair-share") of the adverse burdens and impacts they impose on public facilities and services, and that new facilities and services will be provided in a timely manner. The Growth Management Element works closely in conjunction with the Land Use Element, the ULL, and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and contains implementing programs which encourage attainment of the goals and objectives of the Conservation Element, the Public Services/Facilities Element, and the Housing Element. Improvements needed to implement the Circulation and Public Services/Facilities Elements are in pan directly tied to, and dependent upon, the implementation of the Growth Management Element. Policies of these individual General Plan Elements which are applicable to the proposed project are described in the appropriate Sections of this EIR (see Sections 3.2 Transportation/Circulation, 3.9 Public Services, 3.10 Utilities). Transportation and Circulation Element The purpose of the County's Transportation and Circulation Element is to establish transportation goals and policies and to establish specific implementation measures to assure that the transportation system of the County will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth in the Contra Costa County through the year 2005. On august 3, 1988, the county adopted the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program Ordinance ("Measure C-1988"). The Ordinance provides for a county-wide retail transaction and use tax of one half percent for a period not to exceed 20 years. The proceeds are placed in a special fund solely for a transportation, construction and planning program. The Growth Management 3-13 Program requires each jurisdiction to adopt traffic level of service standards keyed to the types of land use as well as performance standards for key public services and utilities. Contra Costa County has complied with the Growth Management Program by establishing performance ' standards for traffic, as well as other services and utilities, as specified in the Growth Management element of the Contra Costa County General Plan. Additional discussion regarding the transportation and circulation policies and guidelines ' applicable to the project is provided in Section 3.2 of this EIR. Housing Element ' The County's Housing Element presents goals, policies and other information related to ' the provision of housing for existing and future residents of the County. The purpose of the Housing Element is two-fold: 1) to present specific policies and actions for housing provision, based on the premises and policies of the residential land use component of the County General ' Plan's Land Use Element; and 2) to provide an adopted County Housing Plan that will help the County and its political subdivision to qualify for housing aids and grants (General Plan, page 6-1). ' Public Services/Facilities Element The Public Services/Facilities Element establishes the goals and policies that address vital ' infrastructure and public services that must be provided to maintain the quality of life of existing and future Contra Costa County residents. Public Services and facilities addressed in the County General Plan that would apply to the proposed project,include: water service; sewer service; drainage and flood control; public protection; fire protection; solid waste management; schools; and child care. Additional discussion regarding Public Services/Facilities policies applicable to the proposed project are contained in-Sections 3.9 and 3.10 of this EIR. Open Space Element The Open Space Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains goals, policies and implementation measures regarding scenic resources, historic and cultural resources, and parks and recreation. The project's relationship with the County's policies regarding scenic resources is discussed in Section 3.5 (Visual Quality) of this EIR. The project's conformance ' with the County's policies regarding parks and recreation are discussed in Section 3.9 of this EIR. Conservation Element , The Conservation Element of the County General Plan identifies the County's natural resources and sets forth goals and policies for their preservation and management. Topics addressed in the Conservation Element which are directly related to the proposed project include: vegetation and wildlife; agricultural resource; soil resources; and water resources. Additional ' 3-14 i t� discussion regarding specific policies from the Conservation Element applicable to the project. is contained in Section 3.8. Safety Element ' The Safety Element of the County General Plan includes map of known hazards including seismic and other geologic hazards located within the County. With respect to new development, the Safety Element sets forth policies regarding seismic, ground failure and landslide hazards. Policies from the Safety Element applicable to the proposed project are discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIR. ' Noise Element The Noise Element of the County General Plan analyzes and quantifies the current and ' projected noise levels from various sources in the county including: highways and freeways; arterial and local streets;railroads and rapid transit; industrial plants; and other stationary sources. The policies of the Noise Element are intended to mitigate noise problems in the County. Policies ' from the Noise Element applicable to the proposed project are discussed in Section 3.6 of this EIR. Policies Related To The Bethel Island Area The General Plan contains policies for the Bethel Island Area which is comprised of ' Bethel Island (on-island area) and Hotchkiss Tract (off-island area) in which the project site is located. These two areas differ with respect to soils, topographic and geographic conditions, and levee stability, and thus are given different development and planning considerations, with those for Hotchkiss Tract being the less restrictive. In addition to the Off-Island Bonus Area designation, the following Land Use Element policies are applicable to development on Hotchkiss Tract: ' The approval of new development shall be limited to 2,909 primarily recreation-oriented units in the off-island area (i.e., 3,000 additional units including the 91 units already approved, but not yet built). (Policy 3-69) ' Any internal levees must meet Army Corps of Engineers' standards. New construction must be set back from levee centerline a minimum of 100 feet unless adequate substantiation for reduction is approved by RD-799 or RIMID. New construction not ' protected by certified levees must meet FEMA standards. (Policy 3-74) • Residential development on Agricultural Lands, to the extent permitted beyond one unit per parcel in the off-island area, shall be clustered with development rights on the undeveloped land dedicated to the County. (Policy 3-79) 1 3-15 • A Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new residential unit in the Bethel Island Area . to acquire development rights on agricultural lands, open space or wetland areas, or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. Priority for the acquisition of open space and wetlands shall be given to the on-island area. Additional , funding sources shall be explored to supplement or replace the Protection Fee. (Policy 3-80) ' Delta Protection Legislation (SB 1866) Johnston The Delta Protection Act was signed by the Governor on September 24, 1992, and r becomes effective January 1, 1993. The Delta Protection Act relates to the preservation and protection of the Delta, its natural resources, agriculture, recreation opportunities, levees, ports ' and historical value. The Act, creates a 19-member Delta Protection Commission (DPC) comprised of State and local officials. By July.1, 1994, the DPC is required to adopt a long-term regional plan for the Delta Area. The regional plan controls land within the boundaries of the delta, as described in Section 1220 of the Water Code, but which are not within either the urban limit line or sphere of influence of any local government general plan ("primary zone"). The regional plan does not apply to land within the "secondary zone" which is defined as all delta, , land and water areas within the boundaries of the Delta not included in the primary zone and subject to the land use authority of local.governments. The Act does not require a local general plan in the secondary zone to conform to the regional plan. Local governments with lands in the ' primary zone must conform their general plans to the regional plan. Prior to the adoption of the regional plan, local governments may only approve development within the primary zone after making specified findings relating to the impact the development will have on the primary zone. , Development is defined to exclude agricultural related activities, levee work, and maintenance dredging and work related to ports and marinas. Zoning ' The majority of the project site is zoned A-2 (General Agriculture) which has a minimum , standard of 5 acres per parcel. A small portion of the site south of Cypress Road (southeast corner of the project site) is zoned A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) which has a minimum parcel size ' of 10 acres. IMPACTS , The following impacts discussions address the project's impacts to the existing land uses of the project site; the project's indirect effects on surrounding land uses; the impacts of other , planned land uses in surrounding areas; the project's impact on population and housing; and the project's relationship to the County General Plan. 3-16 Impacts to Existinp, Land Uses The proposed Cypress Lakes project would replace agricultural and rural residential use of the site with single-family residential and recreational uses and levees. Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 provides a breakdown of the proposed project's land uses and the acreage devoted to each. ' This change is consistent with the land use designations and goals of the Contra Costa County General Plan. The removal of the project site from agricultural production would not be considered a significant impact because the project area is designated for some urban development and the soils in the project area are not considered "prime". However, the conversion of the project site to urban and suburban uses would contribute to the incremental loss of agricultural/open space land throughout Contra Costa County. Such incremental loss has been limited through establishment of the urban limit line, the 65/35 Land Preservation standard, and the agricultural tcore areas, so that this impact is not considered to be significant or adverse. Construction of the project would also require the removal of eight of the existing ' residences and other structures located on the project site. The project applicant owns all eight residences proposed for removal. These residences are primarily located along Cypress Road east of Bethel Island Road and include the Dal Porto home and ranch located off Bethel Island Road just south of Sandmound Boulevard. Not included within the project boundaries but surrounded by the project site are three existing residences which would remain.These residences are located south of Cypress Road east of Bethel Island Road. These residences and the associated property would remain under their present ownership,but would ultimately be surrounded by the proposed project. This situation would not result in incompatible land uses because the new surrounding uses would be residential. Development of the proposed project would place residential uses in close proximity to large electrical transmission lines (WAPA and PG&E lines), potential natural gas drilling sites (five drilling easements are located on the project site), adjacent agricultural uses and downwind of industrial uses (note: industrial uses are located in the City of Antioch approximately 6 miles west of the project site). With respect to electrical transmission lines, homes are proposed ' adjacent to only the WAPA easement. The WAPA easement is 200 feet wide with the transmission lines to be located within the middle 25 feet. The PG&E line is located at the southwest corner of the project site outside the proposed internal levee system. Adequate setbacks are included in the easements. While these uses are present in adjacent and nearby areas, the proposed project would not be considered incompatible with these uses. However, projectresidents should be notified regarding the human health issues which may be related to these adjacent uses upon purchase of a home. Section 3.11 Human Health provides additional discussion of this issue. 3-17 Impacts to Existin1l Off-Site Uses , The proposed project would create a suburban residential/recreational community in an area that is primarily agricultural and rural residential in character. There are some more suburban type uses which line the existing levee system primarily along Sandmound Boulevard. The indirect effects of this change include short-term and long-term impacts. Examples of these ' impacts include increased traffic, dust, noise and vibration during each phase of construction as well as long-term impacts, such as increased local and visitor traffic, noise and air quality impacts. These impacts are discussed in great detail in their respective Sections of this EIR. The change in community character would not be considered a significant impact because the project site is within the County's Urban Limit Line and .therefore planned' for some level of development. This change is implicit in, and consistent with, the County's policies encouraging more intensive residential and recreational use of the area: The proposed project has been designed to reduce potential impacts on off-site uses by ' incorporating the following features: • The provision of substantial open space including a 170 acre golf course, 33.77 ' acres of park land, 5.6 acres of pedestrian trails and paths and 60 acres channels and lake. • Landscape buffers between residential uses and adjacent agricultural uses (i.e. ' landscaped levees). • Landscaped areas (around and inside the project), shall be similar to the existing rural setting. Vegetation would be kept low and consist predominately of grass and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. Trees would be planted ' along the project perimeter to screen the levee system from off-site locations. Landscape features of the project are discussed in Section 3.5 of this EIR. ' Impacts of Other Planned Uses in Surrounding Areas` County General Plan policies would permit similar suburban-type residential and recreational development in the remainder of Hotchkiss Tract up to the maximum allowable ' number of new dwelling units. Applications are pending at the County, for three other residential/recreation projects that, if approved, would occupy a total of 1,129 acres in Hotchkiss Tract absent an amendment to the General Plan. Their total acreage combined with that of the ' pioposed project would be 1,814 acres. However, their combined number of approximately 2,998 residential dwelling units, plus the 382 units.set aside for already approved projects and potential "base-density" units, exceeds the number of new dwelling units allowed by the County General Plan. Therefore, for all projects proposed for Hotchkiss Tract to be approved, with all the requested units, or further residential development in Hotchkiss Tract to be approved, an amendment to the Plan must be requested and granted.by the Board of Supervisors. 3-18 1 New residents and visitors to the area can be expected to patronize the existing local- and regional-serving businesses in the Planning Area. This could be a beneficial impact on these businesses. Additional commercial uses are proposed by the General Plan in Hotchkiss Tract to support this new development. A total of 39 acres of new commercial acreage would be added to the existing 2 acres of commercial area. The proposed project plus other pending projects would have a significant effect on the existing rural residential uses along Cypress Road. The developments would substantially change the predominant land use of the area. from agricultural to suburban-type residential and rrecreational uses (described in Section 3.5 Visual Quality of this report). Residents would experience an increase in traffic levels (described in Section 3.2. Traffic) and noise levels (described in Section 3.4. Noise). The conversion of non-prime agricultural land to these uses would not be considered a ' significant impact on a project level or cumulatively, and would be consistent with County General Plan policies. The project applicant would be required to pay a Protection Fee on each new residential unit which would be used by the County to acquire development rights from ' selected, important agricultural land or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. ' Impacts on Population and Housing Prosect Site HOUSING The proposed project would add 1,330 new dwelling units to the existing housing stock. The project homes are expected to range in cost from $175,000 to $400,000. The upper end of housing costs are for custom built homes which would constitute approximately 25% of the project. The number of new units is below the 2,909 new units allowed by the General Plan including a reduction to allowed base densities of one unit per five acres on properties that are not developed or/and underdeveloped. The project is consistent with the General Plan policy that ' development projects should be at or near density maximums to provide as much housing as possible. ' The proposed project would require the removal of 8 existing residences on the site, resulting in a net increase of 1,322 residential units and 3,228 persons. ' The proposed project would contribute in-lieu fees for affordable housing of$3,333 per dwelling unit constructed, and in-lieu fees for the County's homeless fund. The project applicant ' may consider providing all, or a portion, of the project's affordable housing requirements on-site by designating and constructing affordable units as part of the project. 1 3-19 1 POPULATION ' Project characteristics of the proposed project differ substantially from the existing housing and occupancy conditions. A basis for estimating population generated by the proposed ' project is provided.by the community of Discovery Bay,a water-oriented residential development about 15 miles south of the project site. 1990 U.S. Census data for Discovery Bay shows a ' population of 5,351 residents in 2,085 households, with an average of 2.57 persons per household.. Using this persons per household factor and a 5 percent vacancy rate, the proposed Cypress Lakes project would add about 3,247 persons to the population of Census Tract 3010. JOBS ' The proposed project would create jobs in its recreational uses (golf course, beach club) ' and other uses such as the child care facility, fire station and school site. Other jobs may be created for project maintenance of wetlands, levees, parks, streets and lighting. In addition, ' construction of the project would create short-term (estimated 10-years)construction jobs. Wages for these jobs would range from minimum wages to professional wages. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE ' The proposed project is predominately residential with associated recreational facilities. While the project would create a number of jobs, the majority of project residents would need to travel off the project site to work. The primary job centers which would serve the project site include the Concord/Walnut Creek area, Bishop Ranch, Hacienda Business Park, and other job ' centers in the east bay. On a long term basis, increased residences in East County will result in increased services and attract more jobs to the area, improving the long term jobs/housing balance for East County. However, in the short-term the project would contribute to East County's ' existing jobs/housing imbalance. The project applicant is proposing to market a portion of the project to retired persons which could reduce commute traffic and the environmental impacts associated with additional housing development in East County without comparable employment development in the area. Surrounding Area HOUSING 1 The proposed Cypress Lakes project, plus three other projects with applications pending at the County, would add approximately 2,998 new residential units and approximately 7,320 , additional persons to Census Tract 3,010, minus the existing units that would be removed and residents that would be displaced by the project(s) (see Table 3.1-1). ' 3-20 t !' The total number of housing units is projected to be 5,136 including the 2,909 new dwelling units authorized under the General Plan. Development under the General Plan would result in a diversity of housing stock from lower income units to high income custom homes. POPULATION ' As indicated in Table 3.1-1, the estimated population increase as a result of the proposed project and other projects in surrounding areas would total approximately 7,320 persons. The total population of the Planning Area is projected to be 11,710. This is a significant increase in the existing population of the planning area which is approximately 3,002 persons. Table 3.1-1 Development Projects Pending for Hotchkiss Tract, August 1992 Proiect Name Dwelling Units Residents* Cypress Lakes 1,330 3,247 Lesher Landing 1,079 2,634 South River 575 1,403 North State Development 14 36 Total New Units 2,998** 7,320 * Based on 2.57 persons per household and 5 percent vacancy rate. "* Exceeds number of 2,909 new dwelling units allowed under the General Plan when added ' to 398 "set-aside" units (approved but not constructed plus potential base density units) ' JOBS Total employment within the planning area is projected to be 1,114 persons. This 1 includes employment generated by the estimated 100,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 500 hotel rooms that would be allowed under the General Plan. Development under the General Plan would substantially increase the opportunity for residents to secure local employment and 1 attract employees and visitors from outside the Planning Area. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE ' Build-out of the planning area as envisioned under the County General Plan would result in the provision of needed mixed-housing at reasonable cost for Contra Costa County and the region; the provision of needed and desired recreational opportunities for the County; and the 3-21 provision of additional employment opportunities in commercial and recreational projects. , However, it is not expected that build-out of the Bethel Island planning area will result in a balance of jobs and housing in the short term. Most residents will commute to other portions of Contra Costa County in addition to other job centers in the East bay, the Bay Area and Solari t County. In the long term, more residents in East County are expected to attract more jobs to the area and improve the job/housing balance. ' Relationship to Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Element r The applicant for the proposed Cypress Lakes project has requested the rezoning of the ' 685.9-acre site from General Agricultural (A-2, 5 acre minimum parcel size and A-3, 10 acre. minimum parcel size) to Planned Unit District (P-1) to allow the uses proposed in Table 1-1. The P-1 zoning district could be considered consistent with the General Plan land use , designations of the project site, i.e., Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) and Off- Island Bonus Areas (See discussion under Zoning, below). Parks and Open Space: ' The General Plan designates the major drainage/irrigation ditch on the project site as Open ' Space. The project is proposing to enhance the ditch by widening it to approximately 50 to 100 feet wide to accommodate additional wetlands and wildlife. Consistent-with the County's Conservation Element policy, a 100' setback from the centerline of the channel would be ' provided (see Section 3.8 of this EIR). The applicant proposes the development of 33.77 acres of park land. Twenty acres will be dedicated to the County as a neighborhood park. The additional acreage is dispersed through- out the project. The neighborhood park will consist of baseball and soccer fields. This acreage exceeds the County General Plan park dedication requirements of 4 acres per 1,000 new residents. The proposed project would include a system of bicycle/pedestrian trails throughout the project site. These trails would consist of the following: 1) An east/west bicycle/pedestrian trail along the primary drainage channel on the t project site. This trail would wind through the golf course and be used by golf carts as well as bicycles and pedestrians; 2) On-street bicycle lanes along the portion of Cypress Road within the project site and along the primary north/south roadway to be constructed through the project; and, i 3-22 ' 3) A major trail, consisting of an 8-foot paved path, along the top of the proposed levee system. This trail would connect all bicycle and pedestrian paths within the project site (see Figure 3.9-4). The proposed trail system is consistent with the conceptual trail plans in the County General Plan. Additional discussion of the proposed recreational facilities and trail system is contained in Section 3.9 of this EIR. 1 Off-Island Bonus Area: The applicant's proposed residential density is consistent with the provisions of the Off-Island Bonus Area. The project's overall density of 2.21 dwelling units per net acre falls within the 1.0-2.9 dwelling units per net acre allowed by the Off-Island Bonus Area. This density of 2.21 dwelling units per net acre is based on the total acreage of the site (685.9 acres) minus public and private easements and circulation improvements (85 acres) for a net total of 600 acres. The net total includes 242 acres proposed to be used exclusively for residential purposes. The recreational component of the proposed project(semi-private golf course, beach club, lake, and enhanced channel) is consistent with the types of recreational amenities encouraged by the General Plan in order to allow the granting of a density bonus: "a sailing/boating club on ' a project lake; a lake community; a tennis club; and/or a golf course." The project also proposes additional recreational amenities such as 33.77 acres of park land and 5.6 miles of pedestrian trails and paths. The proposed project conforms to General Plan Land Use Element Policies 3-69 regarding development limited to 2,909 units, 3-74 regarding internal levees needing FEMA standards, and 3-80 regarding Protection Fees in the following manner: • The project proposes 1,330 primarily recreation-oriented units, below the limit on new development; • Proposed levees will meet FEMA standards; tEach new unit will be subject to a Protection Fee for the preservation of • agricultural land and production and wetlands. Urban Limit Line and 65/35 Land Preservation Standard: tThe proposed project is located within the established Urban Limit Line (ULL), which establishes those areas of the County which can be developed with urban uses and those which should not be to ensure compliance with the goals of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. The proposed project would further this goal by developing 365 acres (53%) of the 685.9 acre site as open space, wetlands, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses, such as the school site and major flood control rights-of-way. 3-23 Land Use Policies: ' The project generally complies with the County land use policies for the following reasons: • The project site does not contain prime agricultural soils; ' • The project would be subject to the County Protection Fee for protection of agricultural land and wetlands; ' • The project design avoids where feasible and replacing those impacted in a ratio of 3 acres to every 1 acre impacted; ' • The project would enhance the privacy ditch into a channel and provide an additional channel for wildlife habitat; ' • The project includes a 170 acre golf course and 33 acres of public and private parks. Growth Management Element: Conformance with the various Growth Management standards contained in the Growth ' Management Element of the County General Plan is discussed in the appropriate sections of this EIR (Section 3.2 Traffic and Circulation, Section 3.9 Public Services, and Section 3.10 Utilities). The proposed project's conformance with the Growth Management Element's performance ' standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control are discussed in Sections 3.9 Public Services and 3.10 Utilities. Most costs of the.development would be borne ' by the applicant through the payment of fire and school facilities fees, and water and sewer service connection fees. The project would also include the construction (or payment of the appropriate costs) of the infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project (i.e. water, sewer and drainage facilities). Various on-site maintenance requirements would be funded through the proposed Homeowners' Association or service districts. The applicant would also need to complete annexations of the site to the Oakley Water District and Contra Costa Water District, ' and annexation of a portion of the site to the Ironhouse Sanitary District so that water and sewer services could be provided to the entire site. The Oakley Water District and Ironhouse Sanitary . District have both indicated that they would be willing to serve the proposed project if annexed, ' that capacity will be available; both have provided "will serve" letters to the project applicant. In addition, conformance with the Growth Management Element, the project proposes to ' remove the site from the 100 year floodplain by constructing a FEMA certified levee system around the project (see Sections 3.7 Hydrology and 3.10 Utilities). ' 3-24 Transportation and Circulation Element Conformance with the Transportation and Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County iGeneral Plan is discussed in Section 3.2 of this EIR. In general, the proposed project would comply with the Transportation and Circulation policies of the Contra Costa County General ' Plan. Housing Element The proposed project is generally consistent with the County's Housing Element because the proposed project is generally consistent with the County's General Plan Land Use Map which ' designates the site as Off-Island Bonus Area (1.0-2.9 dwelling units/acre). The proposed project would result in the development of fewer homes on the site than can ultimately be allowed(1,330 proposed units versus approximately 1,900 units). This loss of future housing opportunity would ' not be considered a significant impact because the County has significant amounts of vacant land designated for residential development. In addition, the proposed project would contribute an "In- Lieu" affordable housing fee of$3,333 per approved residential home. Based on 1,330 units this fee would generate approximately $4,432,890 for use by the County in developing additional affordable housing. Public Services/Facilities Element The project's relationship with the policies contained in the Public Services/Facilities ' Element are discussed in Section 3.9 Public Services, of this EIR. Open Space Element ' In general, the proposed project is generally consistent with the policies contained in the Open Space Element by including 33 acres as depicted in Figure 3.9-4. In addition to developed park land, the project would include 170 acres of golf course and 61 acres of channels and lake. Conservation Element The project's relationship with the policies contained in the Conservation Element are discussed in several areas of this EIR. The project's relationship with policies regarding vegetation and wildlife, and water resources are discussed in Section 3.4 of this EIR. The project's relationship with policies regarding soil resources is discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIR. In general, the proposed project is consistent with the policies contained in the Conservation Element. The project includes preservation of much of the existing wetlands on site and will replace all wetlands impacted by the project in a ratio of 3 to 1. In addition, the existing drainage ditch will be enhanced and another channel will be constructed to improve ' wildlife habitat. ' 3-25 Safety Element The project's relationship to the applicable policies contained in the Safety Element is discussed in Section 3.7 Hydrology and Drainage and 3.8 .Soils and Geology. In general, the project is consistent with County policies regarding geotechnical.evaluations and floodplains. Noise Element ' The project's relationship to policies contained in the Noise Element is discussed in Section 3.4 Noise of this EIR. The project would be generally consistent with. the County's polices regarding noise because noise levels on the project site would be within normally acceptable levels for single family residential development (CNEL of 60 dB or less). The project ' would contribute to cumulative noise impacts along Cypress Road, but would be required to . contribute to mitigation of this potential impact. Relationship to the Delta Protection Act of 1992 ' The project site is located in the defined portion of the Delta, known as the secondary ' zone. The Delta Protection Act does not mandate local governments to conform their general plan or land use entitlement decisions to that of the regional plan for lands within the secondary zone. Thus, the General Plan will continue to be the controlling land use document for lands in , the secondary zone and thus, the project site. Relationship to Zoning ' The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from A-2 (General Agriculture, 5 acre minimum parcel size)and A-3 (Heavy Agriculture, 10 acre minimum parcel size)to P-1 (Planned Unit District). The P-1 zoning district could be found consistent with any of the General Plan designations under certain circumstances,'depending upon the specific use that is proposed. The P-1 district is intended-to allow flexibility in the relationship of various buildings, structures, lot ' sizes, and open spaces while ensuring compliance with the General Plan and County codes and standards that protect public health, safety and general welfare. MITIGATION MEASURES ' The following mitigation measures are proposed by the project applicant: ' 3.1-1 The project will pay a in-lieu affordable housing fee equal to $3,333 per residential unit. This fee should be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for the project. As an alternative to the fees, the project applicant may construct a portion or all of the affordable housing units on-site. If this alternative mitigation is selected, the location and design of the affordable units should'be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to filing final subdivision maps. , 3-26 1j i, ' 3.1-2 The project marketing should be oriented toward seniors and retired people to reduce commute traffic from the project. rWhile marketing of the proposed project toward seniors, the project would still worsen East County's Jobs/Housing balance. This impact of the project would be unavoidable in the ' short-term until additional business and jobs are attracted to the East County area. 3.1-3 A Protection Fee shall be paid for each residential unit within the project to ' acquire development rights on agricultural land(and open space or wetlands areas) or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. The fee shall be determined by the County and paid upon the issuance of building permits ' for the project. 3.1-4 The project will pay an in-lieu contribution to the County Homeless Trust Fund. 1 The amount of the contribution will be determined by the County and paid, pro- rata, upon the issuance of building permits. Additional mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the project's impact in other areas (e.g.),Transportation/Circulation (Section 3.2), Air Quality (Section 3.3), Vegetation and Wildlife (Section 3.4), Visual Quality (Section 3.5),Noise (Section 3.6),Hydrology and Drainage (Section ' 3.7), Geology, Seismicity and Soils (Section 3.8), Public Services (Section 3.9),Utilities (Section 3.10), Human Health (Section 3.11), Cultural Resources (Section 3.12), and Energy (Section 3.13). The reader is referred to these sections of the EIR for specific mitigation measures 1 applicable to the proposed project. 1 1 1 1 1 . ' 3-27 1 3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ' The following traffic analysis was prepared by Abrams Associates. EXISTING SETTING ' REGIONAL ACCESS ROUTES ' Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 4 (SR 4). In the vicinity of the project, SR 4 is a two lane roadway connecting Stockton and Oakley. Recent new projects ' have improved and widened State Route SR 4 in both Brentwood and Oakley to four lanes. To the west of Oakley, SR 4 becomes to a four-lane freeway and continues at that width through the City of Pittsburg. In future years, it is anticipated that the Delta Expressway will replace the ' existing arterial portion of SR 4 to serve through traffic. Between Willow Pass Road and Bailey Road, SR 4 climbs to a summit at Willow Pass. i This location represents a critical traffic congestion area for SR 4 between Concord and Oakley. The steep roadway grade approaching Willow Pass reduces the capacity of the roadway at the point which traffic volumes reach a maximum on the facility. This high volume-to-capacity ratio causes congestion during peak periods. This roadway will be under construction starting in 1992, and would be completed.before the project is occupied. , LOCAL ACCESS Local access to the project would be from Bethel Island Road, Cypress Road, and Sandmound Boulevard. Cypress Road connects the project site to the regional highway system (SR 4). A new traffic signal and intersection improvements have recently been completed at SR ' 4. Other local streets which could be affected by this project are Knightsen, Sellers, O'Hara, Empire and Rose Avenues, and Delta and Laurel Roads. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE There is no existing bus transit service in the Bethel Island Area. Tri Delta Transit serves eastern Contra Costa, with service primarily oriented to Antioch and Pittsburg. The nearest Tri Delta Transit bus lines are on SR 4, where there is a route from Brentwood to Central County. Existing Roadway Conditions ' The location of the project and the principal roadways that would serve the project are shown in Figure 3.2-1. The principal access to the project will be Cypress Road, which is currently a two-lane undivided roadway which extends from Bethel Island Road to Empire Avenue. Figure 3.2-1 also shows the seventeen study area intersections that have been analyzed in this EIR. The locations have been chosen in coordination with County staff, and represent all the critical intersections that could be significantly impacted by this project. 1 3-28 1 i 1� I' b x Bethel Island Gateway Rd 12 11 m Dutch Sloug ' Rd Project io s Oakley '$ Site 8 >` Oaklev Rd 7 6 5 4 3 2 :xr; -fr• o a Cypress Rd Cypress Ari ;% laurel Rd 14 l51% 16 13 + 0 «� 4 Knightsen O Delta Rd ; � NerolJRd f f Lone Tree Way v Sunset Rd a > r w s t0 � a � a � + V a` Brentwood Chestnut St 1 7 � f 1 i + a 3 4 'a a Marsh oak Rd ------ -Future Roadways a 17 • -Intersections to be studied r Cypress Lakes E1R Figure 3.2-1 ' Project Location Traffic Analysis Study Area Traffic Impact Study ' Abrams Associates 3-29 1; Cypress Road intersects with SR-4 east of Oakley at a recently improved four-leg ' intersection controlled by a traffic signal. There is an at-grade railroad crossing on Cypress Road just to the east of SH 4. The intersections on Cypress Road with Sellers and Knightsen Avenues are controlled with stop signs for the minor approaches and are marked with flashing lights. ' There are frequent driveways fronting on Cypress Road, and on the segment between Jersey Island Road and Bethel Island Road there are over 30 driveways. Cypress Road has a generally straight alignment and good pavement surface. Cypress Road is 24 feet wide with 4 -8 foot ' shoulders and a speed limit of 50 mph in the project vicinity. The speed limit on Cypress Road in the residential areas of Oakley, west of SR 4, is 25 mph. State Route 4 is one of the major east-west roads crossing the delta in this area. In the t project vicinity it is a two-lane undivided roadway which is oriented in a north-south direction to the south of Cypress Road for about four miles to Brentwood where it again turns east. Bethel Island Road is a two-lane undivided roadway extending in a north-south alignment from Bethel Island south to Cypress Road. On Bethel Island itself, between Taylor and Gateway ' Roads, Bethel Island Road has four-lanes and is 60 feet wide. North of Gateway Road, Bethel Island Road narrows to 18 feet. All intersections along this roadway are unsignalized and speed ' limits are 50 mph in the project vicinity and 25 mph on Bethel Island. Bethel Island Road has generally straight alignment and good pavement surface. Sandmound Boulevard is a two-lane undivided roadway which currently serves as a , residential collector for the various residences on this dead-end road. This roadway has narrow shoulders as it often runs parallel to waterways and fences. Sandmound Boulevard has generally ' good pavement surfaces. It has a very poorly aligned intersection with Bethel Island Road. Knightsen Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway extending from Cypress Road south ' to Sunset Road. This roadway is a likely alternative route for southbound and eastbound drivers traveling to SR 4 eastbound toward Stockton. It will also be used by some project traffic heading towards Brentwood. Knightsen Avenue has generally straight alignment and good pavement surfaces. The speed limit on Knightsen Avenue is 50 mph. Empire Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway extending from Lone Tree Way north to State Route 4, with the exception of a four-lane section between Bedford Lane and Laurel Road. This roadway is often used as a alternate route for drivers seeking to avoid congestion on State Route 4 through Oakley. Empire Avenue has numerous residential driveways fronting on ' it and good pavement surfaces. The intersection of Empire Avenue and SR 4 is controlled by a traffic signal. All other intersections along Empire Avenue are unsignalized. The speed limit on Empire Avenue is 35 mph. , Laurel Road and O'Hara and Rose Avenues are two-lane undivided roadways in the residential areas of the Town of Oakley. These roadways currently experience relatively low ' levels of traffic and are mainly residential collectors. Speed limits on these roadways are generally 25 mph.. All study intersections along these roadways are unsignalized. 3-30 ' Other roads that could be impacted are Sellers Avenue and Neroly Road. These roads are two-lanes in width and serve growing traffic volumes. Sellers Avenue connects from Cypress ' Road to SR 4.east of Brentwood, and is a north-south alternative to SR 4. Neroly Road serves sections of Oakley, and is a major connection to the SH 4 interchange. ' Existing Traffic Volume Conditions The existing traffic volumes on the roads in the vicinity of the project are shown in ' Figures 3.2-2 thru 3.2-4. This data is based on existing 1992 traffic counts at each of the seventeen study area intersections, and on link volumes derived from this data. Data comes from counts by Abrams Associates for this project, plus counts conducted by DKS Associates for the ' Oakley Traffic Study and for the East County Traffic Model. Figure 3.2-2 shows the AM traffic volumes on each of the affected streets. The existing Level of Service (LOS) at each intersection during the morning commute period is also shown. In general,existing traffic conditions during ' the AM peak period are well below capacity on all roads in the area. All intersections operate at Level of Service "C" or better. Traffic volumes on SR 4 are at capacity in the peak direction through Pittsburg and Concord. Traffic volume data and intersection capacity information are ' contained in a Technical Appendices available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. ' Figure 3.2-3 shows the existing PM peak hour traffic on the streets affected by the project. During this time period,all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS. The intersection of SR 4 (Main Street) and Neroly Road is the most critical traffic location, with an LOS of"D" (V/C ratio = 0.86). Traffic volumes are well below capacity in the vicinity of the project, but are approaching capacity at several intersections through Oakley. ' The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is shown on Figure 3.2-4. The highest traffic volumes in East Contra Costa County are on the freeway segment of SR 4 where weekday traffic can be ' up to 48,000 vehicle trips per day. In the vicinity of the project, daily traffic on Cypress Road is 6,200 vehicles per day, while through Oakley, the traffic volumes increase to 23,000 vpd near the freeway interchange. ' For this study,LOS has been calculated for the highest hourly traffic at each intersection. Traffic counts were conducted between 6:30 to 9:00 AM, and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The ' highest one hour was generally found to occur in the morning from 7:30 to 8:30 AM and in the afternoon from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. These hours correspond to the highest hourly traffic volumes on SR 4 through Oakley, although intersections located closer to Bethel Island have an earlier ' morning peak hour that may begin at 6:45 or 7:00 AM. Some commute traffic starts as early as 5:30 AM on many streets in the area. The average daily traffic volume on Cypress Road east of SR 4 is 6,900 vehicles per day. West of SR 4, average daily traffic on Cypress Road drops ' to 2,300 vehicles per day The average daily traffic on Bethel Island Road north of Cypress Road is 6,200 vehicles per day. The average daily traffic volumes were also assessed on other local streets which could be affected by the project. On Knightsen Avenue, south of Cypress Road, the average daily traffic volume is 2,100 vehicles per day. On Laurel Road, west of SR 4, ' 3-31 1 . i 1• cu d V •^ 'O ti �1 mound Slough RdSrd is Vq ao ti 0 O .o! 0 N 4}\ oZ 08 Q) M PH PuelsI lalPaH OST IP", .d OECtO OI • G � 0 of x 01 1 asa o any ua-4g8cu)l cri �1 0� to d 1 �. OL any siallaSC. �+ � y x Q � \ U \ OLE 0��� Pn[fl Poonyuasg ors $ OIL ' o any asoxl o G. �s MIT I �� —OZT N w O Qo i --� any rJvH.O OCT `ZV. Oa OL--7 T a _� OW u OL 0601"PH baja$ra o ` 1 —P� any anduig 0� Q oz9 Osrs CD \ �OT6 r♦ i. w �• r � A !C 06Itu • S va m'� v U] R: L W U 0 r.� O O 0 0 3-32 i y u y SA sy 3 Sand Maud Slough Rd 7 C7 p� V=4 OZ O OZZOtyy ;y.:�.,.,;• u:. C. x INO 0� en PH Pu¢isl iayaaH Oz��~''1 O a o �4z; 'bo a $ e� M 0 90 oOz $I x a4 ar any uas;yBnr)i in 0 w any sialla5 r O � A ' -,LIS O'OLS Pnlg Poonyuaifl Rt ti� 065 OZS Q W � 8 cn Cn any asogF=4 091 CA O 0. v, OCT ' r•1 \Q' © any UILM.O OSL � w ® N OIZ OSI .. OIC �— () it b J � a --,Vp" yv F' z Oczo `�` `09I G ' PH Xeai fl Sc fl�� V, any andusg 0L� 08£I cu m d � N a i' c V CD Q o a � oN O O •V O r.r � CU cn� E 1 ry SaidMousd Slough Rd zt4 .0 PU Puelsl laKaag ^:'� "OOZ19;s: R Kk:i> bo U) N O W N 4a `a OOT'Z a cV �1ara g ant/ua-4cj2m)j M e o� N }" OOI'I any siallaS u' x � x � A 009'6 P^l9 Poonsuaig 7, 4 � 0 0 , w U) OOL kk .' <a c any asog ,V to .-. N N any WeH.O g A Iw E9 006'£ OOL'£ " U ® g a a a L U Out 000'Z P-d xeaig S?S any anduig CDg in cn N •��� ^` o OWL .(U p F F Q O i S 4 y Vc N 0 OC z • 3-34 �� average daily traffic volumes approach 2,000 vehicles per day. Lastly, on Empire Avenue, north of Cypress Road, average daily traffic volumes are 2,400 vehicles per day. ' Summer weekend traffic onto Bethel Island can occasionally be quite heavy due to boaters and other recreational activities on the Island. The most severe congestion occurs on Bethel ' Island itself, immediately north of the Bridge, where driveway access to various commercial activities including several marinas, interferes with through traffic. However, traffic congestion due to this phenomenon occurs intermittently, and is not a recurrent condition. For this reason the weekday commute peak hour traffic conditions are the basis on which all of the necessary roadway improvements have been determined. ' Intersection Analysis and Level of Service The existing volumes and lane configurations were used to determine the existing peak ' hour conditions and level of service at each intersection. The level of service classification system is a scale with a range of A to F. Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and LOS F represents jammed or severely congested conditions. ' In Contra Costa County,the Level of Service standards that are to be applied to signalized intersections not on "Routes of Regional Significance" are as shown on Table 3.2-1. It is ' anticipated that SR 4 will be a "Route of Regional Significance", and that all other routes will be subject to Intersections which result in a Level of Service below the established standard will need to be mitigated in order to retain an acceptable LOS. The Level of Service calculation ' method is the Circular 212 Planning Method except that intersection capacity has been increased to 1800 vehicles per hour to reflect actual Contra Costa County traffic conditions. ' Table 3.2-1 County Measure "C" Level of Service Standards Land Use Type LOS V/C Ratio Standard Rural LOS "C" 0.70 to 0.74 Semi-Rural LOS "C" 0.75 to 0.79 Suburban LOS "D" 0.80 to 0.84 Urban LOS "D" 0.85 to 0.89 ' CBD LOS "E" 0.90 to 0.94 3-35 The calculation procedure for unsignalized intersections is based on the Highway Capacity , Manual'. This data is presented for both the intersection as a whole, and also for the most critical side street movement. Measure "C" has not established standards of significance for ' unsignalized intersections. As noted, intersection traffic count data were collected for the seventeen critical ' intersections that would be affected by the project. These locations were selected in coordination with Contra Costa County staff, and were selected to be consistent with the traffic impact study requirements of the Contra Costa Traffic Authority (CCTA). Intersections where less than 50 peak hour trips are predicted have not been studied, such as the road system through Knightsen. Data used in this study included traffic counts from the files of the Town of Oakley and Contra Costa County, plus new counts taken by Abrams Associates. Table 3.2-1 shows the existing , capacity conditions. Table 3.2-2 documents the principal existing traffic concerns in the area. Although traffic ' volumes are growing, the existing Level of Service is acceptable in the vicinity of the project. Traffic capacity conditions have also improved at the intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4 as a result of the recent widening and traffic signal improvements. Problems exist at the Neroly - SR 4 intersection during the PM Peak hours due to the heavy turning movements and the proximity to the freeway ramps. There are also delays and congestion problems at the Vasco Road - Marsh Creek Road four-way stop location. Future improvements are planned for both these locations independent of the projected Cypress Lakes project. Traffic Signal Warrants The need for new traffic signals at several of the unsignalized study intersections was analyzed using the Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants. The warrants, or guidelines, are based on ' consideration of minimum traffic volumes,interruption of continuous traffic,minimum pedestrian volumes, school crossings, accident experience, and a combination of these and other factors. , Based on existing traffic volume conditions, the other unsignalized study intersections do not meet the minimum volumes specified in these warrants. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ' There are few formal bicycle pathways in the Bethel Island area. Cypress Road is a ' typical example. The existing width of Cypress Road is approximately 24 feet with no sidewalks or other provisions for pedestrians. Other streets in the study have similar cross-sections. In 1 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, a publication of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C., 1985 , 3-36 ' Table 3.2-2 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY CONDITIONS' # Tl*1TERSECIION ` EXISTING COiDITidNS AMM ' 1 Bethel Island Rd. at Cypress Rd. Does Not Exist A/A A/A 2 Bethel Island Rd. at Gateway Rd. All-Way Stop A/A A/A ' 7_e_rs_e_yTsTand Rd. and Edens 3 Plains Rd. and Cypress Rd. Stop Signs on Side Streets A/A A/A 4 Knightsen Ave. at Cypress Rd. Three-Way Stop Sign A/A A/A 5 Sellers Ave. at Cypress Rd. All-Way Stop A/A A/A ' 6 SR 4 at Cypress Rd. Traffic Signal 0.27/A 0.42/A 7 SR 4 at O'Hara Ave. Stop Sign at O'Hara Ave. A/F B/F 8 SR 4 at Oakley Rd. Traffic Signal 0.35/A 0.55/A 9 SR 4 at Big Break Rd. Traffic Signal 0.40/A 0.51/A 10 SR 4 at Neroly Rd. Traffic Signal 0.61B 0.86/D 1 11 SR 4 at SR 160 NB Off-Ramp Stop Sign C/F C/F SR 4/E 1 th St. at SR 160 SB 12 On-Ramp Traffic Signal 0.33/A 0.32/A ' 13 SR 4 at Laurel Rd. Stop Signs on Laurel Rd. A/E A/D ' 14 Empire Ave. at Laurel Rd. Four-Way Stop B/C B/D 15 O'Hara Ave. at Laurel Rd. Four-Way Stop B/C B/C 16 Rose Ave. at Laurel Rd. Stop Signs ns on Rose Ave. A/A A/A 17 Marsh Creek Rd. at Vasco Rd. Four-Way Stop D/D D/D 2 For unsignalized intersections,each movement has its own level of service. The results show the overall intersection Level f ' Service,and the LOS for the most critical movement_iThe critical level generally occurs to the left tum movement from the side street. For signalized intersections,the results show the Volume/Capacity ratio and the overall intersection Level of Service. 3-37 conjunction with the traffic counts, bicycles and pedestrians at Cypress Road intersections were ' counted/observed during the days of peak period observations. Most of the bicyclists observed during the a.m. peak period were children riding to school. Very little recreational bicycle use ' was observed however, recreational bicycle traffic is expected to increase as development of the Bethel Island Area continues. Contra Costa County General Plan The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan' establishes the specific implementation measures to assure that the transportation system of the County will have ' adequate capacity to serve planned growth in the County through 2005. The proposed Cypress Lakes project is generally consistent with the land use assumptions in the General Plan, and is ' a similar size to the data used in the County's traffic forecasting model. This traffic forecast, therefore has been as the principal basis for estimating the cumulative traffic impacts of the project. ' Traffic forecasts for the Year 2005 were made using a computerized travel model, and have been reviewed for the Cypress Lakes Project. Since the model was developed, ABAG has updated the forecasts for the County with specific adjustments for the East County area. These new assumptions have been taken into account in the cumulative impact analysis. IMPACTS This section of the EIR addresses the project's travel demand and potential transportation , impacts. Cumulative traffic conditions are also addressed. The implications of the additional development that will occur in the Bethel Island Area (BIA), the Oakley-North Brentwood Area (ONBA), and the Cypress Corridor are also addressed, and discussed in relation to the proposed , project. Project Trip Generation , The trip generation characteristics of the proposed project are presented in Table 3.2-3. The trip generation rates for the residential units were obtained from ITE Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, 1991, and are consistent with rates that have been assumed for other residential projects in Contra Costa County. Based on the ITE regression equation, each single-family residential ' house is expected to generate 7.74 vehicle trip ends, or one-way trips, per unit per day. The 1,330 houses proposed would generate 10,287 vehicle trip ends per day, including 730 trips during the AM peak hour and 1,036 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Trip generation for the ' 3 Contra Costa County General Plan,1990.2005,Community Development Depanment,January 1991 , 3=38 i' Table 3.2-3 Cypress Lakes - Vehicle Trip Generation AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR " ON�k? IEIt' SIZI ; AAT IN .: AUT TOTAL . 1 UII� . TbTAL 1,330 1 Single-Family Residential Units 10,287 190 540 370 673 362 1,036 Golf Course, Driving Range, etc. -- 800 42 22 64 26 38 64 Clubhouse, Restaurant, etc. -- 550 9 2 11 221 27 50 Swim & Tennis Club -- 120 8 5 13 8 5 13 ' RV/Boat Storage Area -- 70 4 1 5 3 5 8 Day-Care Facility -- 130 14 8 22 7 1 10 17 ' Parks and Open Space -- 60 2 1 3 1 3 4 TOTALS -- 12,017 268 580 848 740 451 1,191 various other project components,including the golf course and clubhouse, were estimated based on previous Abrams Associates studies of similar facilities. The entire proposed project would generate 12,017 vehicle trip ends per day, with 848 ' trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 1,191 trips during the PM peak hour. This data reflects only vehicle trips that are external to the project. Some internal trips have been assumed for other project components, reflecting trips between the residential areas and the recreational facilities within the development. ' Cypress Lakes Trip Distribution The project as proposed would have two access points, one at the intersection of Cypress ' Road and Bethel Island Roads and another onto Sandmound Boulevard on the north side of the project. The Cypress Road intersection would be the principal point of access and would be used by about 85 of the total trips from the project. The trip distribution and traffic assignment were 1 developed based on the existing traffic patterns at the study intersections, probable locations of employment for residents of Cypress Lakes, and local experience in traffic distribution and assignment. The estimated distribution of trips generated by the proposed project onto the existing street network is shown in .Table 3.2-4. 3-39 1 TABLE 3.2-4 ' CYPRESS LAKES TRIP DISTRIBUTION NUMBER OF TRIPS. ."Vent: . roiect ... .. :Pea eak>::.;.P ealz:: Dtrectwn o#'Tran >€< ... of Trips r DT Inbound Qutbound Total XXXX :::; North to Bethel Island 4% 480 30 18 48 SR 4 to Antioch-Pitts 42% 5,050 311 189 500 Local Trips into Oakley 23% 2,760 170 104 274 , Local Trips into Brentwood 14% 1,680 104 63 167 SR 4 toward Stockton 8% 960 59 36 95 SR 160 toward Rio Vista 4% 480 30 18 48 Vasco Rd. toward I-580 5% 600 1 37 1 23 1 60 Probable employment areas for residents of the Cypress Lakes project would include Brentwood and Oakley. However, the largest portion of the jobs would be located in Antioch, Pittsburg, and parts of Central Contra Costa County. Some residents may commute to Alameda County and San Francisco. This traffic analysis has not been conducted in detail beyond SR 4 in Antioch. A more complete discussion of employment location is described in-the EIR in Section 3.1. Trip assignment has been based on estimates of the minimum travel path from the project to various destination zones. The majority of traffic that is assigned to the State Route 4 freeway is assumed to use SR 4 through Oakley. Some portion of this.traffic will also use other local streets within Oakley. i Existing Plus Proiect Traffic Impacts This scenario has been evaluated for each of the intersections on Cypress Road that are ' located in the immediate vicinity of the project. In reality, this scenario would not take place, because of other new-development occurring in Oakley-North Brentwood, and in the Cypress Corridor. The,purpose of this scenario is to determine which roadway projects are required in the Bethel Island area prior to completion of the Cypress Lakes project, and to estimate the effect of Cypress Lakes on the timing of other projects in the Bethel Island Area. 3-40 I As a result of adding the project traffic to the street network, the peak hour traffic volumes would be as shown on Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-6. Figure 3.2-5 shows the AM peak hour traffic. As noted, there would a substantial change to traffic on Cypress Road between the project and SR 4. Beyond this location, traffic from the project would be more dispersed but would still have a significant impact on SR 4 between Oakley and the 4/160 freeway. Table 3.2- ' S shows the changes in intersection capacity that would occur as a result of the existing plus project conditions. The capacity results are based on the assumption that Cypress Road would be widened. All other intersections were calculated for capacity conditions without any additional roadway mitigation measures. During the AM peak hour, all intersections would operate at a satisfactory LOS with the existing plus project condition. ' PM peak hour traffic will also operate at satisfactory traffic conditions, assuming that improvements are constructed on Cypress Road. One other intersection would be critically impacted. At Neroly Road and SR 4 (Main Street), traffic conditions would change from LOS "D" to LOS "E". This is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigations are planned for this intersection as a part of development in the Oakley/North Brentwood Area, including widening the northbound approach to provide two left turn lanes. This improvement would restore the ' intersection LOS to "D". The peak hour traffic volumes generated at the two major entrances to the project during ' the peak hours are shown on Figure 3.2-7. As noted the traffic that is generated through the Sandmound Boulevard intersection is very low, and would not cause any significant traffic impacts. At the intersection of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, however, the impacts are quite significant, and major improvements would be required, including the installation of a new traffic signal. The proposed project will add significant traffic volumes to the roads in the immediate vicinity of the project. As a direct result of the project, Cypress Road would exceed capacity within the roadway limits shown on Figure 3.2-5. These roads would require reconstruction and 1 widening at the time of project construction. These issues are discussed further under mitigation measures. Year 2000 Traffic Forecasts This scenario includes all existing development, other approved development, and other currently proposed development in the Oakley, North Brentwood and Bethel Island Areas. For areas within Contra Costa County, land use data was developed from the Current Planning Project Status Report'. This project list was obtained from County staff. For areas not in the County jurisdiction (i.e., Brentwood and Antioch), development data was obtained from previous studies and was controlled to ABAG data. The proposed developments that have been considered include the Hancock Specific Plan,Brentwood Hills Country Club,the Blackhawk-Nunn Country 4 Developed by staff of the Contra Costa County Community Development,as updated in February,1992. 3-41 a� W 3 aa� �0 "" K acu C �= 44 W 1~ V A Mound Slough Rd m o. > Sand a. aJ %s, ' !rJ �J :�;r'� O r4•{:c%k;;:'`�;l;�i b// •r:K:::".::{i'Ff \ V OE OOI if O� r•'•" '••'t:!>..i*.{' c.F/+.'� '%' � i1 ►� � '' CD PH Puelsl'1aula009I' ;:>s v OTb �`, Q C� cn -- • o Q� O0 o O � ;P.4 �p `T a N H �`ara p C a^y U.-411dlux M 0 Ov bb OZI� aAV szallas Lz+ y �•.� .� O` P^1S Poonuuaig 009pLL 4 3 i fsl y y Ln o ants asog �, Q 9=1 o w O a Ic tncz V OET b U s, 0q t. 0919 a Ems. o � 1. ` P2I xearg 8tg ` 09Z� —► any andulg On OOL 05 Ecu N OOS I r r` L I Cn O£Z ,'�``4�4 `° d O 3 O � � p V ; 'o u t o m 3 Sand Mound Slough Rd R.0 •> ori it Di .� VY4 :Y$, jf ' :`��yj.:>ri4}vim.}',':S wi`'3"]G!J` \ ^ P') 1> ........... PH PuelsI Iau7agoze—� a �1 0 + M O •.fir d � � 4a T ` aand uas�ySruxI N e OSI and SI;311a5 w U b 00 a o ' \ -A 06S O`S9 Pnlg PooNyuaig N o S ULS W i g U' � any OCT an N c� OIZ� any VJeH.0 06L OLI .. w " —� �— U OI T a —p� Lv F \ � U i -.-T o .-� eai S� PH fl fl 0£i7 any anduzg 0L► 0091 Ods t' �J `e ate o N " w 0 ,•�`�° F" 0 69 3 F O cn G: " ar O u > 03 W kn 3-43 1 � y o Y � N Cd a d d 0 t � 1 1--41, t .a, 1 N 3.44 Project, Lesher Landing, and South River Development, among others. The Cypress Corridor project on the north side of Cypress Road is not included in these traffic forecasts. The future network assumptions were the same as for the East County Subarea Model Year 2000 forecasts, which reflect all funded improvements. For unincorporated areas, this ' included all projects in the Capitol Road Improvement Program (CRIP). It does not include the Delta Expressway, nor the Laurel Road improvements This scenario used the peak hour travel demand model developed by DKS Associates using EMME12 software that was developed for the Delta Expressway EIR. The model performs trip generation using a cross-classification method with household and income data, and is consistent with the County model. The final data is contained in a recent traffic impact report' for new residential developments in the Oakley area. YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC IMPACTS The intersection traffic capacity results for this scenario are shown in Table 3.2-5. The estimated ADT on each roadway link and the resulting AM and PM peak hour Levels of Service at each intersection are shown on Figures 3.2-8 thru 3.2-10. ' The year 2000 traffic scenario requires a number of new roadway improvements in order to mitigate the impacts of traffic from new development. In general, as a result of development in the Oakley/North Brentwood area and proposed development in the Bethel Island area, the ' needed improvements can be constructed. The problem locations where significant impacts will occur are at the intersections in the vicinity of the SR 4/160 - Main Street interchange. These ' locations would be at Level of Service "F". Additional significant impacts would also occur at the intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4. 1 The Year 2000 scenario does not include the Delta Expressway and the improvements to Laurel Avenue. All of the traffic problems that are indicated in Table 3.2-5 would be mitigated once the Delta Expressway is completed. The traffic on existing SR 4 between the 4/160 I interchange and Cypress would be greatly reduced(approximately 800 vehicle trips per hour) and much of this traffic would be relocated to Laurel Road. This would reduce the LOS at Neroly and the other intersections to LOS "C" and "D", which would be acceptable traffic conditions. Similarly, once the Laurel Road extension and the new interchange with the Delta Expressway are completed, the intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4 would be mitigated. The Year 2000 scenario does not include the Byron Highway extension to Bethel Island Road. The Year 2000 scenario can operate satisfactorily without this connection. 1 ' Traffic Impact Study of Six Residential Subdivisions in Oakley,DKS Associates,April,1992;Technical Appendix showing Forecast Results and LOS Calculations 3-45 u d ' a 'v N � V SyndNtound Slough Rd 4-4 .v .44 =I . .::.::.....:::::•:.;:•. '". ea P?I PuEISI Iauaag Ooy_�n'� W a M cz t� �N a e o Q � v Qj 25 Mtn N a a `� 1ara4in ..._.. anV=64#111x M �- 1efi $� 06T aAV GlallaS u" •n Q b _ x x r4 i Ul: A �\ `OIL X065 P^ig Poonyuaig , 0F c 00£.f, !f W N� I • y U) 00 g ra r X' i. O &J g anV�i ' Ha 9=4 OLT Itt 44C OOI' oil— anV'H2O 069 w tn ® �n 8 a a ooi -a o dI \ p N Oi£I �. PHxeaig Sig -- anV aadiug —� OS£ 004 $ 089 ¢OZ—f' ao b. .. .. o � � �¢ r• as -„� 4 ° r. O 0£—P- r Q`�a E• u r 3 � W cn 04 `. O ., O O i o c I A4 V � GJ M.U-d Slwgh Rd Ose •i til' .:.: ;«:;»•->:::,,.;;;;�; .. Pil PuE[sl 1ati13a9 OZV� i v OSS' .,�. Q d M LZ—� x Lf) N N c � M o � e cJ O 4a p n ��ca pa C c ax uagllS.0 VI �, OLT —� any Wa[laS 00 � i— i Pnifl Poonuualg 7� ogs OILcz �� w 00 , CJ O any asogOLT any W2H�Oto O�� ps OSZ V t, P�4 1• Lv E OIL, M z `� `SS `ozs ' P?IE2I fl 2I fl any an uig}f �—� o 06£i 0 W m v .04 > OZS ,Q``4 H cu ;D :4 Dia v r� U Q N o �+ a Q O - o 1_d7 r A V ' O .0 U U) V 4J cn •� v . Sard Mound Slough Rd w p '��� �z7,• '.••.tis;>?'""' A PH PURSI Iagk v #:z 000'Scw I .c 00 (� CD o V O P N 4a OOL19 N >' and U-4t[Siux a M CD def' \ On'S any sulfas Cd d A OOI'£I 00vil P^Ifl Poonyaalg 4 9�4 th u' � o anyaso� c fn �y �i rr v) and pjEHA 8 2 v OOI'£ 009'5 U O C4 OOO`LT swl�M N A 8 ~ f z �� U 00VOI PH xeazg Sig n a. Ol 3 R S � 009'ZI l45 E N i ' d I � w o N 3-48 Table 3.2-5 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of ServiCe6 Comparison of Existing and Future Conditions (1) (2) (3) Exsiting Exist+Prof Year 2000 ............ ........ ............ ........... . ...... .......... ........... . ..... .. ................. . ........... ......... .. .... .................: M :,..AM. ........ .. ....... ... ..::. .: ;..c . .............P .. .. .:::::: . ................ M. 'A ..... ............ .... ex­*�:: M ........... ...... ................ ....:..:­'-: ..........P PNf ............ ]Bethel Island Rd. at Cypress I Rd. N-Sig A/A A/A 0.30/A 0.40/A 0.39/A 0.57/A Bethel Island Rd. atZateway 2 Rd. St-St A/A A/A B/C B/C B/C B/C Jersey Island Rd. and Cypress 3 Rd. St-Sig A/A A/A 0.44/A 0.50/A 0.53/B 0.67/13 4 KnighLsen Ave. at Cypress Rd. St-Sig A/A A/A 0.461A 0.54/A 0.55/A 0.69/A 5 Sellers Ave. Cypress Rd. St-Sig A/A A/A 0.611B 0.59/A 0.60/13 0.72/C 6 SR 4 at Cypress Rd. Sig-Sig 0.26/A 0.26/13 0.40/A 0.78/C 0.52/A 0.87/D 7 SR 4 at O'Hara Ave. St-Sig A/F B/F A/F B/F 0.82/1) 0.80/C 8 SR 4 at Oakley Rd. Sig-Sig 0.35/A 0.49/A 0.40/A 0.53/A 0.50/A 0.60/A 9 SR 4 at Big Break Rd. Sig-Sig 0.49/A 0.50/A 0.56/A 0.54/A 0.54/A 0.45/A 10 SR 4 at Neroly Rd. Sig-Sig 0.60/B 0.83/1) 0.68/B 0.92/E 0.77/C 0.94/E 11 SR 4 at SR 160 NB Off-Ramp St-Sig C/F C/F C/F C/F 0.93/E 1.16/F 12 SR 4 at SR 160 SB On-Ramp Sig-Sig 0.33/A 0.32/A 0.36/A 0.35/A 0.61/B 0.41/A 13 SR 4 at Laurel Rd. St-Sig A/E A/D A/E A/E 0.40/A 0.49/A 14 Empire Ave. at Laurel Rd. St-Sig A/A A/A A/A A/A 0.53/A 0.62/13 15 O'Hara Ave. at Laurel Rd. St-sig AB AB AB AB 0.32/A 0.43/A 16 Rose Ave. at Laurel Rd. St-Sig A/A A/A A/A A/A 0.17/A - 0.27/A 17 -1 Marsh Creek at Vasco Rd. St-Sig D/D D/D D/D D/D 0.74/C 0.74/C 1 s For unsignalized intersections,each movement has its own level of service. The range of Level of Service results reflects all movements at the.intersection. The critical level generally occurs to the left turn movement from the side street. 7 Mitigations are assumed for all intersections on Cypress Road. All other locations are calculated with no changes to existing conditions. Control conditions at intersections will change over time,traffic control designated as follows:N-No control,SL-Stop signs.Sig- Traffic signal 1 3-49 Cumulative Traffic Forecasts (Year 2010) This scenario is assumed to approximate the land use and development conditions that will exist in the Year 2010. For this scenario, General Plan Amendment projects have been added to the travel model database. The traffic forecast data base is consistent with the cumulative traffic analysis included in the Contra Costa County General Plan. There are several new roadway projects that are.included in the General Plan network. The proposed Delta Expressway i would be completed, with interchanges at Laurel Road and Lone Tree Way. SR 4 would be widened and improved between Bailey Road and Highway. 160. The Laurel Road extension would be completed to Cypress Road. Bethel Island Road would be extended to connect to Byron Highway. O'Hara Avenue would be extended south to Brentwood. Although the Delta Expressway is in the General Plan, construction would not be completed until Year 2005, and then only if adequate funding becomes available. Similarly, the SR 4 widening project between Bailey Road and Highway 160 would be a critical component ' of future cumulative improvements. Projected traffic forecasts will exceed the capacity of the existing four-lane freeway by the Year 2000. This section of road will be significantly impacted by cumulative traffic. The resulting ADT and the estimated PM peak hour LOS that is forecast to occur under cumulative conditions is shown on Figure 3.2-11. With this level of development, traffic problems can generally be mitigated to an acceptable Level of Service by the improvements discussed above and listed in the General Plan. This EIR has utilized traffic forecast information from the Contra Costa County General Plan EIR. The cumulative land use assumptions in this EIR are a hybrid of the ABAG regional land use model, and the list of proposed projects that has been developed by Contra Costa County based on build-out of the General Plan. The traffic forecasts in the General Plan do not include traffic projections for the full build-out of the Cypress Corridor. The cumulative traffic forecasts have been based on the Year 2010 land use scenario. The ' 2010 land use data is based on General Plan build-out that has been adjusted to be consistent with ABAG regional forecasts. To make the adjustment between ABAG regional development , assumptions and the County's list of reasonably forseable projects involved making the total land use conditions consistent with one another. Certain land use assumptions were reduced, while others have been deferred to occur beyond the year 2010 time period. The General Plan traffic model, therefore, does not include full build-out of the Cypress ' Corridor project. Since no specific Cypress Corridor project has been defined at this time, and the expected changes to the roadway network due to the Cypress Corridor have not been defined, the project at full build-out cannot be accurately modeled. However, the Cypress Corridor project will need additional roadway links into Oakley and could result in significant traffic congestion impacts if the only access were to be onto Cypress Road. 3-50 i �1 i 0 y N A r� Sand Mlwd Slough Rd yV cc ::i�.;{''•,``.';•.;'�.�::: �'`�'� -�: ;w�.4�. ItEMIi2iI..I IIOZrCQ � PU PupiSI IatPafi .r 0041LI ---- ODWL__. .. --- W ►� 000'flI00 ,[ p o [I N � ooh lata any uasag8iux M 1 o OOLV bjD any szaiiaS Lt. ' a a t 8 1 p. PAifi pooAtauazg �s W � cz PIN � N � .y. any aeogcu ~ O N 1 OOVOL w any EZEH.O M U w Q0.' oG M 000'a "" CD a o � z 1 PSo xEazg$g any aztdtug 61,000 A'o�,:N 3 N Vv E Nivo ., 't AM I 1 3-51 Full build-out of the Cypress Corridor project is currently being tested as a part of the ' latest land use scenarios for the Delta Expressway EIR. This project is currently underway, and is scheduled to be completed in January, 1992. For the most up-to-date analysis of cumulative volumes, the Delta Expressway EIR should be used. The results of the Delta Expressway EIR analysis will affect the traffic projections on Cypress Road, SR 4, and other local roads in the Oakley area under the cumulative scenario. Planned Roadway Improvements , The provision of an acceptable traffic system for this part of East County will require a large number of traffic improvements. The growth management provisions of the County General Plan call for construction of the necessary improvements by developers to mitigate traffic. impacts of each development project. Regional Transportation Projects - There are also a number of important regional transportation projects affecting East County which are currently in the planning stage. These projects are funded by Measure "C". They include the following: • SR 4: Willow Pass Grade Lowering - This project is currently being designed. ' Construction is scheduled to begin in July, 1992. • SR 4: Bailey Road-Final Design is underway, and construction is planned to start ' in 1993. • Corridor Study: SR 4 East - Project planning, traffic data forecasts have been ' completed. No financing plan nor construction schedule has yet been established. The roadway improvement projects described in Table 3.2-6. Many of these projects are needed ' in conjunction with the development of the Cypress Lakes Project and to mitigate Cypress Lakes project impacts. For each roadway project, it's description is provided along with an assessment , of the time frame of when the project would be required. This first group of road projects are those that would be required as a result of the Cypress Lakes project. The roadway and intersection improvements identified in Table 3.2-6 would require widening and acquisition of some adjacent property. However, the impacts of these road and intersection improvements would be minimal on adjacent properties. No residential or business ' displacement would occur as a result of these improvements. The intersection improvements at the project entrance and Cypress Road should be designed to avoid impacting known cultural resources located to the south of existing Cypress Road near Bethel Island Road(see Section 3.12. ' for additional details). 3-52 ' Table 3.2-6 A) Projects That Would Be Required By Cypress Lakes Itself (without any other development taking place) .. ROADWAY T1V1PR0't'EMI }vT PRQJECT.: .,:. OTHER'COl1iMENTS ' >' ::. .. PR( ;JECTS ..........TIMING :. ...: :..: 1) Construction of Cypress Rd./ When the first part Funded by Project Applicant ' Bethel Island Rd. intersection at of the Cypress the project entrance. Widening Lakes development to extend 1,000 feet in each is occupied. direction. 2) Construction of Cypress Rd. To be completed Funded by Project Applicant. from Machado Lane to 1,000 before 1,000 units The timing of this project, and feet east of Knightsen, are occupied. final design will be affected by including intersections at land use decisions and Sellers and Knightsen. development in the Cypress Corridor 3) Traffic signals at Sellers, To be installed Funded by Project Applicant. Knightsen, and Bethel Island when traffic The timing of these.projects will ' Rd. (project entrance) volumes meet be affected by other Caltrans warrants. development in the Cypress Corridor and in the BIA. 4 Intersection improvements at Traffic signal to be Funded by Project Applicant. San dmound Blvd. and Bethel installed when Timing of this improvement to Island Rd. volumes meet be affected by development on Caltrans warrants. Bethel Island.. 1 In addition to the above, there are many other projects within the Bethel Island area that iwould be needed if the Bethel Island area is built-out under the County General Plan. These projects, however, are not needed as a direct result of the Cypress Lakes project. Many of these 1 projects are not needed until more is known about the extent and timing of development on Bethel Island. Other projects relate to the planning and timing of the Lesher Landing project located to the west of Cypress Lakes. These road projects are listed below. ' 3-53 Table 3.2-6 (continued) , B) Projects Necessary for the BIA Once Other Projects in the BIA Have Been Developed ' ROADWAY IN1PRfJYMENT , :.:.. PR0JI~GTS .:: PI20JECT TIMING OTHER C4MMR TS 1) Construction of Cypress Rd. from When the first part of the. . Funded by future development. Knightsen Ave. to Bethel Island Rd. Lesher Landing development This improvement would not be is occupied. needed until the initial stages of the Lesher Landing project are , completed. 2) Construction of Bethel Island Rd. from When substantial Funded by future development. ' BI Bridge to Cypress Rd. development is completed on Bethel Island. 3) Construction of Laurel Rd. This project would not be Funded by future development. , Extension to Machado Lane, including needed until the Delta Marsh Creek Bridge and RR Expressway is completed. overcrossing. Until that time, this project ' would not be necessary. 4) Widening of Cypress Rd./SR 4 Necessary if Bethel Island Funded by future development. ' intersection. Construction of area is built- out before Delta The timing of this project would additional turn lanes. expressway is completed. also be affected by land use ' decisions and development in the Cypress Corridor. 5) Bethel Island Rd. extension to Rock Not needed until Prelli Funded by future development. Slough property is developed. To be completed before the Prelli property is occupied. 6) Bethel Island Bridge Not needed as a result of Funded by future development. Reconstruction Hotchkiss Tract development. The timing of this project would be affected by land use ' decisions and development on Bethel Island itself. _ 1 In addition to the roadway improvements specified above, several roadway improvement projects are planned in the Oakley - North Brentwood area and would be very important projects that would be affected by the Cypress Lakes project. The following table lists these projects and discusses their general relevance to the Cypress Lakes project and future development in the Bethel Island area. ' 3-54 Table 3.2.6 (continued) Q Other Roadway Improvements that are a Part of the Oakley - North Brentwood Area Plan i A . PROJECTS.:; PROJECT TIMLNG OTHER'COMMENTS Widening of SR 4 to six lanes between Not required but interim SR 160 and Empire Avenue. improvements would be required at the Neroly Rd intersection. SR 4 between Empire Avenue and Project underway, some Project is needed to accommodate ' downtown Brentwood; widen to four sections have been Cypress Lakes traffic. lanes completed. Lone Tree Way; widen to four lanes Not required by Cypress lakes project. Neroly Avenue between SR 4 and Not required by project. Interim improvements are required Oakley Road; widen to four lane at Neroly intersection Empire Avenue; widen to four lanes Not required by project. 1 Laurel Avenue west of SR 4; widen to Not required by project. This project will be required by the four lanes project and other development in 1 the BIA in conjunction with the Delta Expressway. ' O'Hara.Avenue; widen to four lanes Not required by project. Fairview Avenue; widen to four lanes Not required by project. ' Delta Expressway,a two-lane facility Not required by project. This project is required to between SR 160 and SR 4 southeast of accommodate the cumulative traffic Brentwood; forecasts - Year 2010 Laurel Road extension, a four- to Not required by project. six-lane facility between Neroly Avenue ' and Hillcrest Avenue; NOL required y project. Sunset Road extension; ' of required by project. Rose Avenue extension; Not required by project. O'Hara Avenue extension; and of requireby project. Lone Tree Way extension. ' 3-55 Phasing and Timing of Roadway Improvements ' As indicated in Table 3.2-6, all of the pieces are in place to provide a solid functioning . roadway system for development in the Bethel Island area. However, the phasing plan beyond 1 those improvements necessary for the Cypress Lakes project needs to be updated to reflect the current plans for each major development project, and the effects of the potential Cypress Corridor projects. There are several very important roadway projects that are not currently funded. These include the Delta Expressway project, and.the Route 4 improvement from Bailey Road to Route ' 160. Without these projects, the cumulative land use and development plans for Oakley, North Brentwood, and the Bethel Island area cannot be accommodated without severe traffic and congestion problems. A more complete description of the effect of these future roadways is included in the Delta Expressway EIR, which is currently being completed by Contra Costa County. ' Construction Traffic Impacts The Cypress 'Lakes development is planned to be built out over a five-year period. , Construction traffic would occur throughout this period, and would be fairly constant, with perhaps somewhat heavier traffic during the spring and summer periods. Construction traffic would consist of travel by employees and workers to the site, and truck delivery of heavy. equipment and materials. Truck traffic could impact the pavement conditions on major access roads, especially Cypress Road. Truck traffic could affect road capacity during peak hours. , It is estimated that at the time of the most intense construction activities, the traffic generated by the these activities would amount to about 1,200 to 1,500 vehicle trips per day, with about 70 to 90 vehicle trips during the commute peak hours. This amount of traffic would not cause a peak hour traffic impact. Truck traffic, however, may have a significant impact on freeway operations during peak periods. The major access road affected by construction truck , traffic would be Cypress Road, which is scheduled to be widened and improved MITIGATION MEASURES ' Based on the traffic and circulation impacts identified in the previous section, a number of mitigation measures are recommended. These measures are intended to reduce the identified ' impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures have been subdivided into the following categories: 1) Mitigation for traffic impacts where,as a result of the project, the peak hour Level of Service would decrease (worsen) to LOS "D" (V/C Ratio of 0.85)-or worse. 2) Mitigations to help to reduce the amount of peak hour traffic generation.from the project. ' 3-56 3) Mitigations to improve internal traffic circulation and parking, and to improve vehicle access to the project. 4) Mitigations to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Mitigations of Vehicle Traffic Capacity Impacts ' Roadway and traffic mitigation measures have been defined for each of the development scenarios (existing and projected, 2000 and 2010). Most of the improvements that are necessary to accommodate the proposed project would be constructed by the project applicant. These roadway improvements would allow the roadways in the area to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. For the scenario covering existing plus project traffic, the following improvements should be completed during the early stages of the project. These are shown on Figure 3.2-12. ' 3.2-1 Road Improvements at Proiect Entrance- Construct a new intersection at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, and on the approaches to this intersection. Widening should extend 1,000 feet in each direction. To properly accommodate the proposed project traffic as well as future traffic from other parts of the area, ' the intersection would have the lane requirements shown on the following Figure 3.2-13. The southbound approach would be widened with one more lane. This intersection should be designed so that it can ultimately be consistent with a future ' extension to Byron Highway south of the intersection. Cypress Road will cross the levee just east of the entrance to the project. The vertical curvature of Cypress Lakes Road where it crosses the levee needs further study. The final design of Cypress Lakes Road should be submitted prior to approval of the final subdivision map. A 45 mph design speed would be desirable. This project would include the installation of traffic signals that would be put into operation at the time that ' volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants. This is estimated to occur when the project has about 500 units completed and occupied. Note: This improvement could impact Cultural Resources (see Section 3.12). (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.2-2 Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard - Bethel Island Road is planned to ultimately become a four-lane divided roadway between Cypress Road and the Bethel Island Bridge. This widening is not necessary as a result of the project, but there are interim improvements that should be accomplished. At Sandmound Boulevard, the intersection should be improved and widened, and left tum lanes should be constructed. Sandmound Boulevard should be realigned to a right-angle intersection at Bethel Island Road. This project would also include the installation of traffic signals that would be put into operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants. This is not estimated to occur as a result of the project 3-57 O -Widen Cypress Road to Ultimate Cross-section O2 -Widen Cypress Road to Ultimate Cross-section OT -Traffic Signals to be Installed when Caltrans warrants are met , x Bethel Island ' IV Gatewa Rd , dsi SSS?: Dutch Slough RdM 1r N 1 0 Cypress Rd Laurel Rd m � L N K nightsen Project Site Figure 3.2-12 Cypress Lakes EIR Roadway Improvements Required by the Project Traffic Impact Study Abrams Associates I ,i 7 co M C d . d 8 O v I J / i VAX 1 p 1 . � Q .�?ton Y 1;h+ cn U, 1 UCeA G a 3-59 4 1 itself, but would be needed as a result of development being completed on Bethel Island. ' Sandmound Boulevard should be improved along the eastern boundary of the project. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' 3.2-3 Cypress Road Widening - Complete the implementation of the Cypress Road widening from Machado Lane to east of Knightsen Road. This roadway ' improvement should be in place before 1000 units are occupied at Cypress Lakes. It would include the installation of traffic signals at Sellers Road and Knightsen Road that would be put into operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans ' traffic warrants. The widening of Cypress Road between Knightsen Avenue and Bethel Island Road should occur before occupancy of the Lesher Landing project or other project that adds over 25 units in this part of the Bethel Island area. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.2-4 Sandmound Boulevard Improvements-This project would reconstruct Sandmound ' Boulevard from Bethel Island Road along the north border of the project. This project would be done in conjunction with other developments along Sandmound Boulevard. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County as a condition of future , development) 3.2-5 Conformation with Measure C - The Cypress Lakes project would satisfy the ' requirements of Measure C by constructing the roadway improvements listed in Table 3.2-6 (A). The project may also be required to pay a regional traffic fee for Measure "C" projects. This fee has not been established, and is currently being , evaluated by TRANSPLAN and the OCTA. The payment of these fees will help to mitigate the regional traffic impacts of this project. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' Mitigations to Reduce Peak Hour Trip Generation 3.2-6 Bus Transit Service - While there is no current transit in the area, it can be , expected that daily bus transit service, provided by Tri-Delta Transit, would be e provided to the Hotchkiss Tract and Bethel Island Area when a significant amount of the development in the area has been built and occupied. The situation should be monitored, and transit service should probably be started when about 1,000 ' homes have been completed in the area. This bus route could be an extension of Routes 383 and/or 384 and would follow Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road to a terminal stop on Bethel Island. (Responsibility: Tri-Delta Transit/Contra , Costa County) There are no current plans for this transit route because the existing population distribution in this part of the County is not sufficient to justify the service. It is expected that bus stops, and possibly bus bays, will be considered in the design plans for Cypress Road and i 3-60 1 ' Bethel Island Road. With the exception of these road improvements, the project applicant would not be responsible for contributing to this mitigation. ' 3.2-7 Participate in County TDM Program - The project would be required to comply with the County residential TDM Ordinance, the County Growth Management ' Program, and the Bay Area Air Quality District regulations regarding transportation. TDM requirements of the County include the preparation and distribution of a TDM information program that could include the provision of maps showing available transit routes,and information on ridesharing and vanpool services to prospective home buyers. These types of measures can be expected to have only a relatively small impact on reducing peak hour trips. Other studies ' have shown that TDM actions applied to a residential development can reduce the number of single occupant auto trips by 3-5 percent during the commute peak hours. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Mitigations to Improve Internal Traffic Circulation ' The following mitigations are recommended to improve the internal circulation within the Cypress Lakes Project. 3.2-8 Design level plans for the project entrance on Sandmound Boulevard should be prepared and submitted to County Public Works Department for review and ' approval prior to approval of the fust phased subdivision map. The design level plans should provide for: adequate transition from the levee cross-section to grade at Sandmound Boulevard; adequate stopping distance; and adequate corner sight distance. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.2-9 Provide a right-of-way for a future roadway connection to the property south of Cypress Lakes. This property could develop into a residential neighborhood, and should desirably be connected into Cypress Lakes at some time in the future, especially for school trips and other internal recreational trips. However, such a roadway connection should not be the only access to this new area, and should be provided only after Bethel Island Road is extended south across Rock Slough. ' This road should be treated as a secondary connection, so that it would limit the amount of through traffic that would travel through the Cypress Lakes development. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' 3.2-10 Provide a road extension of Cypress Road through the project to connect to Sandmound Boulevard. Certain residents of Sandmound Boulevard area have protested this connection for the reason that they expect traffic from Cypress Lakes to impact their quiet residential streets. In practice, this should not occur. This connection would allow for more convenient access for existing residents, 3-61 providing a connection to the future school site, and easy access to Cypress Road , through the project. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Mitigations-to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. 3.2-11 Provide a major bicycle path within the project on Cypress Road between Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard, and on Cypress Lakes Drive through the ' project. This pathway should be designed to.County standards.. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) , 3.2-12 At such time as other roadway improvements are completed, complete other bicycle paths as required. This would include a pathway along Bethel Island Road on the west boundary of the project, a pathway along Rock Slough on the southern boundary of the project, a path along the Byron Highway Extension, and a pathway along Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east boundaries of the ' project. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County as a condition on future development) Construction Impact Mitigation Measures r 3.2-13 Contra Costa County has standard restrictions on construction activities regarding ' hours of operation, noise and dust control. Additional mitigations could include restrictions on heavy trucks from SR 4 during the commute peak hours. The project could normally be required to assist in maintenance of roads that could be damaged by heavy trucks. Since the major access route, Cypress Road, would be partially reconstructed by the project, this type of.project condition may not be necessary. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures As a result of the traffic generated by this project plus traffic from other cumulative , development, there would be a number of significant traffic impacts if the identified roadway improvements are not completed in the proper timing, and in coordination with the pace of new 1 development. Each of the various traffic impact studies of the area have generally established a schedule for roadway improvements that will avoid significant traffic impacts. As a requirement of Measure C and the Growth Management Element, new development will be ' required to satisfactorily mitigate traffic impacts. The following discussion describes mitigation for both short-term and long-term cumulative impacts. , SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Traffic generated by Cypress Lakes will contribute to cumulative traffic, and the project ' will help to mitigate these impacts by paying the Subregional roadway fee. As a result of the roadway improvements identified in Table 3.2-6, most of the traffic impacts of the short-term 3-62 cumulative traffic growth can be mitigated to an insignificant level. However there are two exceptions where this may not be the case. The following mitigation measures should be ' addressed by the Cypress Lakes project if the Delta Expressway is not implemented, and if the problem is not mitigated by other sources. ' 3.2-14 Intersection of Neroly Road and SR 4 (Main St) -Widen the northbound approach to provide a double left turn from Neroly Road to SR 4. This will improve the V/C ratio from 0.93 ("E") to 0.81 ("D"). This will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The project traffic will amount to about 10 percent of the traffic growth that is projected at this location. The applicant should be required to pay a fair share fee equal to about 10 % of the cost of this improvement. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.2-15 Intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4 - Widen the southbound approach to provide a double left tum lane for traffic from SR 4 to Cypress Road, and widen Cypress Road on the east leg of the intersection. This will improve the V/C ratio from 0.87 ("E") to 0.79 ("C"), and will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The need for this improvement will depend entirely on the pace of development and the timing of the construction of the Delta Expressway. If the Cypress Corridor development moves quickly to implementation, prior to the completion of the Delta Expressway, this mitigation will be required. The need for this improvement will be reduced if the Laurel extension is completed, and the . Laurel Avenue connection to the Delta Expressway is completed. Traffic from the Cypress Lakes project will amount to about 25 percent of the traffic growth that is projected at this location. The applicant should be required to pay a fair share ' fee equal to about 25% of the cost of this improvement. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) LONG-TERM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 3.2-16 Traffic generated by the Cypress Lakes project will contribute to long-term cumulative traffic. In particular, the Cypress Lakes Project will have a cumulative impact on SR 4 in the freeway section between Bailey Road and Highway 160, and on the arterial section between Highway 160 and Cypress Road. The Cypress Lakes project will assist in mitigating these impacts by paying the subregional road fee. As a result, most of the traffic impacts of the long-term cumulative traffic appear to be mitigated to an insignificant level. (Responsibility: -Project Applicant) There are several major projects,however, where adequate financing is yet to be resolved, ' and which will be needed by 2005. These include the improvement of SR 4 from Bailey Road to SR 160, and the Delta Expressway. Based on the latest financing data presented by the OCTA,these projects have a funding shortfall of up to 500 million dollars. Contra Costa County, ' through the CCTA and the East County Transportation Planning Committee, is currently evaluating funding options, and is planning for the implementation of these projects. 1 3-63 3.3 AIR QUALITY ' The following air quality analysis of the project was prepared by Don Ballanti, certified consulting meteorologist. ' EXISTING SETTING Air Quality Standards ' The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and State Mulford-Carrell Act of 1967 established air ' quality standards for several pollutants. The federal standards have two tiers: primary standards designed to protect the public health and secondary standards intended to protect the public welfare from effects such as visibility reduction, soiling, nuisance and other forms of damage. The state and federal ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 3.3-1. Pollutant Characteristics ' The project is within the Bay Area Air Basin. Within this air basin,the state and federal air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the air basin. A discussion of the characteristics, major sources and health. , effects of these pollutants follows. OZONE ' Ozone is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the urban atmosphere. The creation of ozone is a result of complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunshine. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not released directly into the atmosphere from any sources. The major sources of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons, known as ozone precursors, are combustion sources such as ' factories and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. The health effects of ozone are eye irritation and damage to lung tissues. Ozone also damages some materials such as rubber, and may damage plants and crops. ' CARBON MONOXIDE Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the ' incomplete combustion of fuels, and its main source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Carbon monoxide's health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high , concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases,reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities. ' 3-64 i, ' Table 3.3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Federal ' Averaging Primary State Pollutant Time Standard Standard ' Ozone 1-hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm ' Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1-hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm ' Nitrogen Dioxide annual 0.05 ppm -- 1-hour 0.25 ppm Sulfur Dioxide annual 0.03 ppm -- 24-hour 0.14 ppm 0.25 ppm 1-hour -- 0.5 ppm PM-10 annual 50.0 pg/m' 30.0 pg/m' 24-hour 150.0 pg/m' 50.0 pg/m' Lead 30-day avg. -- 1.5 pg/m' 3-month avg. 1.5 pg/m' -- a Federal primary standards are designed to protect public health. The secondary standards ' are to protect the public welfare from other effects such as soiling and visibility reduction. b The state PM-10 standard is for the geometric mean of all measurements. The federal ' standard is based upon the arithmetic mean of all measurements. Notes: ppm = Parts per million -- = Not applicable pg/m' = Micrograms per cubic meter 3-65 1 SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (PM-10) ' Suspended particulate matter consists of solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols and other matter which are small enough to remain suspended in the air for a long period of time. , A portion of the suspended particulate matter in the air is due to natural sources such as wind blown dust and pollen. Man-made sources include combustion, automobiles, field burning, factories and unpaved roads. A portion of the particulate matter in urban atmospheres is also a ' result of photochemical processes. The effects of high concentrations on humans include aggravation of chronic disease and heart/lung disease symptoms. Non-health effects include reduced visibility and soiling of surfaces. , Sensitive Receptors The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as those ' facilities most likely to be used by the elderly, children, infirm, or persons with particular ' sensitivity to air pollutants. Examples are hospitals, schools and convalescent homes. There is one convalescent home located near the project site along Sandmound Boulevard. There are several residences located along roads accessing the site and near the periphery of the site on the , north and east side. In addition, many of the area residents are elderly and may be particularly sensitive to air pollutants. Current Air Ouality ' The project site is on the eastern edge of the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay , Area Air Quality Management District operates a network of air quality monitoring sites throughout the air basin. A monitoring station is located on adjacent Bethel Island. A summary of air quality data from the Bethel Island monitoring site is shown in Table 3.3-2. Data is shown ' for the years 1988-1991. Table 3.3-2 shows that the federal ambient air quality standards for most criteria pollutants are met. Concentrations of ozone and PM-10 measured at the Bethel Island site has, however, exceeded the more stringent State standards on occasion. Reizional Air Quality Planning ' The San Francisco Bay Area has been designated as a region where three-national ambient , air quality standards are being exceeded. Under the 1977 Clean Air Act, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was empowered to prepare a non-attainment plan for ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulates. ' The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 specified that the national ambient air quality standards were to be met by 1982, with provision for extension of the deadline five years to ' 1987. However, the national ambient air quality standards were not met'in the Bay Area by the end of 1987. , 3-66 1 Table 3.3-2 AIR QUALITY DATA FOR BETHEL ISLAND, 1988-1991 Pollutant Standard Year Days Exceeding Ambient Standards at Bethel Island ' Ozone Fed. I-Hour 1988 0 1989 0 ' 1990 0 1991 0 Ozone State 1-Hour 1988 7 1989 11 1990 5 ' 1991 3 Carbon Fed. 8-Hour 1988 0 Monoxide 1989 0 1990 0 1991 0 ' Nitrogen State 1-Hour 1988 0 ' Dioxide 1989 0 1990 0 1991 0 ' Sulfur Fed. 24-Hour 1988 0 Dioxide 1989 0 1990 0 1991 0 ' PM-10 State 24-Hour 1988 10 1989 7 1990 7 --------------------------- 1991 10 Sources: California Air Resources Board, California Air Ouality Data,Annual Summary,Vols. XIX-XXII, 1988-1991. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Currents, March 1992. 3-67 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require that non-attainment areas develop plans 1 and strategies that will reduce pollutants by 15% during the first 6 years, then 3% annually thereafter until the standards are met. Areas must meet the standards within 5 to 17 years, , depending on the severity of the problem. The California Clean Air Act,enacted in 1989,requires local air pollution control districts to prepare air quality attainment plans for ozone and carbon monoxide. Generally, these plans ' must provide for district-wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods. The Act also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to ' adopt indirect source regulations and transportation control measures, including measures to encourage or require the use of ride sharing, flexible work hours or other measures which reduce the number or length of vehicle trips. ' According to the Bay Area Quality Management District, Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan (CAP), Volume 1,October 1991, the area-wide plan required by the California Clean Air Act has ' recently been adopted. The Plan proposes the imposition of controls on stationary sources (factories, power plants, industrial sources, etc.) and Transportation Control Measures designed to reduce emissions from automobiles. ' The Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan forecasts continued improvement in regional air quality. An analysis of carbon monoxide trends in the Bay Area shows attainment of the standards ' throughout the air basin by the mid-1990s. However, implementation of the Plan would not provide for attainment of the State ozone standard even by the year 2000. Standards of Significance Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines establishes that a project will normally have a ' significant impact on air quality if it will "violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations". , For the purposes of this study a significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon monoxide concentration causing exceedance of the state or federal standards. ' For regional air quality a significant impact is defined as an increase in emissions of an ozone precursor, sulfur dioxide or PM-10 which would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management ' District's recommended thresholds of significance. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality and Urban Development Guidelines, 1985 (Revised 1991), the District considers increases in emissions of regional pollutant of 150 pounds per day to represent ' a significant adverse impact. 3-68 1' IMPACTS Construction Impacts Construction activities are a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non- ' waterbase paints,thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. Construction equipment would be a source of exhaust emissions during periods of construction activity. Table 3.3-3 shows emission factors for various pollutants for typical diesel ' powered construction equipment. The actual exhaust emission from construction on any given day would depend on the number, type and hours of operation of for each equipment type. ' The major construction period air quality impact of the proposed project would be dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust is emitted both during construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing and grading activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate significant dust emissions. ' Construction dust impacts are extremely variable, being dependent on.wind speed, soil type, soil moisture, the type of constmcdon activity and acreage affected by construction activity. The very fine, silty soils of the site and the strong and persistent winds typical of the area ' combine to create a high potential for wind erosion of soils. The highest potential for construction dust impacts would occur during the dry late spring, summer and early fall months ' when soils are dry. Earthmoving and grading operations are likely to be the operations generating the bulk of dust emissions. A rough estimate of uncontrolled construction PM-10 emissions is 0.6 tons per month per acre of active construction. Assuming that the average period of active construction on the 685.9-acre site is 3 months at any one location, the resulting total emission ' of PM-10 over the course of build-out would be about 785 tons if dust control measures are not implemented. ' The effects of construction activities would be increased dust fall and locally elevated levels of PM-10 downwind of construction activity. During the construction period the potential for dust nuisance would exist at homes along Sandmound Boulevard which are downwind of the project site. Construction-related air quality impacts are considered to be potentially significant unavoidable impact on a localized basis. ' To help reduce dust emissions during construction of the proposed project, the project plans include the following dust control measures: ' 3-69 • The name and phone number of a designated dust control coordinator will be posted at ' the construction site. The dust control coordinator will respond to complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. , • The contractor will implement the following measures: 1. Suspend earthmoving or other dust-producing activities during periods of high , winds; 2. Provide equipment and personnel as necessary for watering of all exposed or ' disturbed soil surfaces. An appropriate dust suppressant, added to water before application, should be utilized; ' 3. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; ' 4. Sweep adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic; , 5. Water, seed, cover or apply dust suppressants to completed cuts or graded areas as soon as grading activities cease. , Effects on Carbon Monoxide Concentrations On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing , carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations ' of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. The CALINE-4 computer simulation model was applied to four intersections and three ' curbside locations near the project site. These locations were selected as being near the heaviest concentrations of auto traffic, which should provide an estimate of the maximum carbon monoxide concentrations occurring near the project site. ' The model results were used to predict the maximum 1-and 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the 1- and 8-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal ambient air , quality standards for carbon monoxide. The CALINE-4 model out puts and the assumptions made in its use for this project are described in Appendix C. Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-5 show the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak 1-hour Y and 8-hour traffic periods in parts per million (PPM). The analysis was carried out for existing ' traffic conditions, with the addition of project traffic and under cumulative traffic conditions in the year 2005, based on the traffic analysis prepared by Abrams & Associates (see Chapter 3.2). 3-70 Table 3.3-3 EMISSION RATES FOR DIESEL-POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Type Emission Rate (pounds/hour) for. TOG CO NOx PM-10 SOx ' Scraper 0.3 1.0 3.8 0.4 0.5 Motor Grader 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 Off-Highway Truck 0.2 1.8 4.2 0.3 0.5 Roller 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 ---------------------------------------- TOG=Total Organic Gases CO= Carbon Monoxide NOx =Nitrogen Oxides PM-10=Particulate Matter, 10 micron SOx= Sulfur Oxides -------------------------------------- ' U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,Volume II: Mobile Sources, AP-42, Fourth Edition, 1985. The 1-hour values are to be compared to the federal 1-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The 8-hour values in Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-5 are to be compared to the state ' and federal standard of 9 PPM. The CALINE 4 analysis evaluated four intersection locations and three curbside locations. ' The receptor location was established at 8 meters (25 feet), from the edge of the roadway or intersection. This distance represents the location where a residential or commercial use may result in a continuous 1-hour or 8-hour exposure.Existing concentrations at the four intersections ' and three curbside locations are well below applicable state and federal 1-hour and 8-hour standards. The addition of project traffic would increase concentrations, but they would remain below the most stringent state or federal standards. Carbon monoxide concentrations would decrease in the future, despite increased traffic, due to increasingly stringent emission controls on vehicles. Although development of the proposed project would increase traffic on the local street network, it would not substantially increase carbon monoxide concentrations along local streets and would not result in violations of the carbon monoxide air quality standards. ' 3-71 Table 3.3-4 WORST CASE INTERSECTION CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS, IN PPM Intersection Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 ' 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-1-ir 1-Hr 8-1-Ir BethelIsland/Sandmound 4.6 3.2 5.4 3.2 3.7 2.6 BethelIsland/Cypress --- --- 7.0 4.9 4.8 3.2 ' BethelIsland/Gateway 4.0 2.8 4.2 2.9 4.0 2.5 Cypress/SR 4 7.5 5.2 10.3 7.2 4.7 3.3 ' Most Stringent Standard 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 ---------------------------------- Case 1 =Existing(1992) Case 2=Existing+Project (1992) ' Case 3 = Cumulative(2005) Table 3.3-5 WORST CASE CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS, IN PPM Location Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 1-Hr 8-1-Ir 1-Hr 8-1-Ir 1-1-Ir 8-Hr ' Sandmound East of Bethel Island 2.7 1.9 3.4 2.4 2.2 1.5 Bethel Island Between Sandmound 4.7 3.3 5.2 3.6 4.1 2.8 and Cypress ' Cypress Between Bethel Island 4.7 3.3 8.4 5.9 4.9 3.4 and Jersey Island Most Stringent Standard 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 --------------------------------- Case 1 =Existing(1992) r Case 2=Existing+Project (1992) Case 3 = Cumulative(2005) 3-72 1 I Table 3.3-6 PROJECT-RELATED REGIONAL EMISSIONS, IN POUNDS PER DAY r. Pollutant ROG NOx PM-10 sox 1 Auto Emissions 238.3 383.5 39.6 45.6 rResidential Emissions 151.8 30.2 10.5 1.8 Total Emissions 390.1 413.7 50.1 47.4 BAAQMD Threshold 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 -------------—------------------------- ROG=Reactive Organic Gases NOx =Nitrogen Oxides PM-10=Particulate Matter,Ten Microns SOx= Sulfur Oxides ' No sensitive receptors would be adversely affected. Therefore, the project's impact on local carbon monoxide levels is considered to be less-than-significant. ' Effects on Regional Air Quality ' The project would be an indirect source of regional emissions, in that it would generate vehicle trips. Trips to and from the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay air basin. To evaluate the emissions associated with the project the URBEMIS-3 computer program, developed by the California Air Resources Board, was utilized. The URBEMIS-3 program and the assumptions made in its uses are described in Appendix B. Project-related automobile emissions are shown in Table 3.3-6. In addition to being an indirect source,residential development can be considered an area source in that it contains a number of dispersed and intermittent sources of pollutants such as space and water heaters, household paints and solvents,fireplaces and wood stoves,lawn mowers and other equipment. The annual emission factors from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Ouality and Urban Development Guidelines, 1985, were applied to the project to estimate emissions from this source. Residential emissions are shown in Table 3.3-6. The daily increase in regional emissions associated with the project is shown in Table 3.3- 6 for Reactive Organic Gases and Oxides of Nitrogen (two precursors of ozone), Sulfur Dioxide and PM-10. Guidelines for the evaluation of project impacts issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District consider emission increases for regional pollutants to be significant if they 1 3-73 exceed 150 lbs per day. Project emissions shown. in Table 3.3-6 would exceed the criterion for ' two of the four pollutants (ROG and NOx), therefore, the project would result in a significant adverse impact on regional emissions. , The Bay Area continues to experience growth in population and vehicle use that will affect the emission of regional pollutants such as Reactive Organic Gases and Nitrogen Oxides. ' Current projections are that regional emissions of these pollutants will decrease in the future, despite cumulative growth in population and vehicle use, due to regional programs for reducing emissions that are in place or currently being considered. Continued improvement in regional air quality is projected through the year 2000, although attainment of all air quality standards throughout the entire Bay Area Air Basin is not projected by the year 2000. (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan (CAP), October, 1991.) ' MITIGATION MEASURES Construction Construction impacts have been identified as potentially significant on a local basis. ' While construction impacts are generally considered short term, the relatively long construction period for the project (10-years) would contribute to the significance of these impacts. However, the severity of construction impacts will be reduced through implementation of the dust reduction , measures proposed as part of the project plans. To ensure dust emissions are kept to a minimum during construction, the following mitigation measures should be applied: 3.3-1 The dust control measures proposed as part of the project plans should be made ' conditions of the project approval. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County) 3.3-2 In addition to the dust control measure proposed by the project, All construction vehicles should be limited to 15 miles per hour while on the project site. The 15 mph limit should be posted on the site at all times during construction. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Implementation of the above mitigation measure will reduce construction period dust ' emissions, however; the potential for dust nuisance would still remain at times along Sandmound Boulevard. Therefore, dust emissions during construction would be considered a potentially ' significant unavoidable localized impact. Mitigation For Project Related Regional Emissions ' The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce project related regional emissions by reducing traffic volumes generated by the project in compliance with the County's ' Transportation Demand Management Program for residential uses. 3-74 3.3-3 Comply with the County's Transportation Demand Management Program Ordinances 92-31 by preparing and providing TDM information to prospective .home buyers. The TDM information should contain materials describing transit, ride sharing and van pool services. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.34 The project should provide for transit stops along Cypress Road within the project site, along Cypress Lakes Drive, Sandmound Boulevard and Country Club Drive. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.3-5 The proposed project design includes pedestrian/bicycle paths linking recreational and residential uses within the site (see Section 3.9). In addition to these facilities, bicycle parking areas should be provided at all recreational facilities within the project site (Golf Course Clubhouse, Beach Club and Public Ballpark). (Responsibility: Project Applicant) The combined effect of the above mitigation measures to reduce daily trips is difficult to quantify. Due to the relative remoteness of the site, the above mitigation measures would be expected to result in a maximum trip reduction of 10% with air quality impacts associated with auto use being reduced proportionally. However, even with reductions of this magnitude the incremental impact of the proposed project on regional air quality (ROG and NOx) would remain significant and unavoidable. a a 0 0 3-75 3.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ' EXISTING SETTING Existing Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats The following information regarding existing vegetation and wildlife habitats located on ' the project site is summarized from the Special-Status Species Survey, October 1991, which was prepared by Huffman & Associates, Inc. Field surveys were conducted in May and September 1991. The Special-Status Species Survey was prepared to determine whether any sensitive, ' threatened or endangered (special-status) plants or animals inhabit the project site. The survey methods included a literature review of prior field surveys included in the Contra Costa County General Plan (1991), the BIASP (1991), the Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base, the California Native Plant Society's Inventory (1988), and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's list of candidate and federally listed plants and animals. A list of taxa potentially occurring in the study area was compiled based on the background literature reviewed (see Table 3.4-1). A vegetation map of the project site was prepared based on soil associations, unique and dominant plant species and existing land uses (see Figure 3.4-1). Field surveys of the project site were conducted on May 20, 24 and September 4, 1991 to search for special-status plants, map vegetation and characterize wildlife habitats for the potential support special-status animals. Observations of wildlife were also recorded during the field surveys. A list of plant species observed during the field surveys was compiled and is contained in Appendix C. The vegetation and wildlife habitats present on the project site can be broken into nine ' (9) separate units: 1) developed/residential; 2) non-native annual grassland; 3) non-native annual grassland/interior stabilized dune; 4) annual croplands; 5) irrigated pasture and hayfields; 6) salt- affected meadows and scalds; 7) irrigation and drainage ditches; 8) willow scrub riparian; and 9) wetland habitat. The location and existing characteristics of each of these vegetation and 1 wildlife habitats is described in the following discussion. Developed/Resi den tial This habitat type accounts for approximately 10 acres of the project site and includes 1 YP PP Y P J homes, farm shops and equipment storage areas, barns and unvegetated paddocks. Non-Native Annual Grasslands This habitat type accounts for approximately 170 acres of the project site. These areas are generally grazed by cattle during the winter and spring and left fallow in the dry summer 3-76 3 e3 axr z Esse a� E• s e Easr s s; sS ga`' � i g'@a. a a H 1"Mi a" ���� �� �.E°•�3 sF�is c� �� �2� s� �F,as ��E^ s� � 'g r' �E �s�-g� eecl� ���Ea � �=c ae �gE s� ��s �R� � � FES �E E-� ���� ��� E� � �E _ � aE "r�34 gra E�c.�' � a •� ��;a �R a •E E E or 59 's s i'e' ew a^14 " �S ar ^ C)n sE6 iR as a° a � � Pa � £� 5� "s"^ 9 ^� O°� •F e R � �@5 �� a� .g 3E 8 .r �C °a cE � 5 � r � ° W % S R by S N L p� pY g� N N x pR p4 s c9 s b E A 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 S ti Cil n H r r s E s s g c E IN P FP oil W x o0 " . 6 w E S.1 { Y'p CYPRESS LAKES&COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.CALIFORNIA _ t• y ..th�l w + •- ............. PROPERTY BOUNDARY ..... l •••+.•• PRIMARY DRAINAGE a� '•r SECONDARY DRAINAGE AFFECTED MEADOWS AND SCALDS 11ll'I SALT-AFFECTED MEADOWS AND SCALDS ;_-.- + •• .• .•• =a♦ -VALLEY SACATON GRASSLAND' IRRIGATED PASTURES AND HAYFIELDS i ! ;' f�!%�NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND 14 •lk. `��r t.;°'�• INTERIOR STABILIZED DUNE- VEGETATION AND HABITAT MAP III 11,111,1 Ili'I�; t��O q r :. SEPTEMBER 1991 LEVSUOpiAExT SCALE:1'.400' NON-NATIVE >y { N ANNUAL GRASSLAND J'r'f t,�i. r'I','lilt' /I` .f ,� �.'".� ' if� '+•� iii 1'I S/g] • ll'I�I;I�I;I�il111,1,I,I,III I;1 I;I;I;I;I�I�I;I;I�I�I�I;i I�I;1 �/., )A� • .Q. ! "�YL 11,111111 Ii III111111111111 ��.,{{, '44 �,'iii4ih'i44'�t h4h4'd144't'ih'1'144i��,;1;1'i, �'.�• {Ai 'i'+.:.,''Y.' r ,w. �1, 1;1;1i1ili��111'1i1i1 1 Illi i11,i ilililili 11 ilili i'i ilii i i,lil 1 ti L'�yJ�� •iY`:�F; ~ :T'.-. � 'i�l4hlil'i'IS'144h4'1'15 h'i 1�'�t4i 4, 1 ,:A.. ,liiiilliiii '1h1 li , �Y �'. •i^ � . tii11111 1 1, �iJ li .Ii1111 I')�il A • ': I-Mm:'i'TiM'f'e5•:'�—`ti Ililllil�li 9�,Ir r '1, I I,11,1 ;1 �.� i—�ii7a'f-= -•--�_ '�'1' 'i;i 4•. rqt,';' ,Y.•'f�-A t (' 1 `'i I'ItI'iil j;I 4s � f'• Ilk —.r---^. III .• • �I;1 ,..� C v IN � 9UAROWINO QWL 'yt,ui :.?L# NAD1104 i NON-NATIV2 ANNUAL !±ww!{ItM�tlj ti;f;..'•;: Til ASSLAND �?-. 9'�' Vit'- t•`i•• Gid a ,..i`�i;�':;it'•'.x•, a` ;,'}�f. � i . + !lit4..{• Y' .•.�e- ,.tip .;i Figure 3.4-1: CYPRESS LAKES & Vegetation and Habitat Map COUNTRY CLUP PROJECT Source: Huffman and Associates 3-78 1 , ' months. Some areas are largely barren of vegetation where cattle congregate for supplemental feeding. The dominant vegetation includes ripgut brome Bromus diandrus), barley ordeum ' le orium , russian thistle Salsola kali and saltgrass. Most of the annual grasslands are growing on sandy substrate. The southwestern segment ' of the project site contains Sacramento clay soil which may be appropriate habitat for caper- fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum). However, this plant was not observed during the field surveys. Cattle grazing and other land use activities probably do not favor the ' presences of this species. The plant currently has no known populations and may no longer exist in the wild. ' During the field surveys black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beeche i , red fox ul es , and burrowing owls S eot to cunicularia) were observed in the annual grassland. Previous reports of black-shouldered kite Elanus ' caeruleus foraging within the Bethel Island planning area could have been made on the project site. The grassland and irrigated pasture could support prey species for kites as well as short- cared owl Asio flammeus , golden eagle (Aguila chrysaetos), and prairie falcon alco ' mexicanus). The intensity of grazing and other activities on the project site probably limits nesting sites for short-eared owls but it is possible that owls forage on the property in the late fall and winter. Golden eagles and prairie falcons are observed in the delta region during late ' fall and winter foraging in agricultural fields. It is possible that these species may use the property as winter foraging ground. ' The northern brown skink Eumecesilg berti placerencis) which uses a variety of habitats including grasslands, is included in Contra Costa County's list of important animals but is not currently considered a species of special concern by the Department of Fish and Game. The ' northern brown skink was not observed during the field surveys. Non-Native Annual Grassland/Interior Stabilized Dunes This habitat type is found on high sandy hills which in the historic delta landscape were above the tidal action and supported a mosaic of active dune and shrub-dominated upland plant ' community. This habitat type has declined in the delta region due to agricultural and urban expansion. Within the project site, the dune habitat has been significantly degraded to the point ' where the dunes support a continuation of the annual grassland with a few characteristic herbs such as gilia Gilia capitata and croton Croton califomica) and shrub lupine (Lupinus albifrons which set the areas apart from the rest of the non-native grassland. Remnants of the interior dune .' habitat account for approximately 12 acres of the project site. Neither the Antioch Dunes wallflower Ervsimum capitatum var. angustifolium) nor ' Antioch evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii which are special status plants associated with this habitat type were present during the field surveys. 1 3-79 1 t 1 The interior dune habitat may provide habitat for the California legless lizard Anniella ' ulcra , California black legless lizard Anniellaup ]cra ±g10 and the Coast horned lizard (Phyeynosoma coronatum)which are animals of special concern. However,none of these animals ' was observed during the field surveys. Several special-status insects are known to be associated with the interior stabilized dune ' habitat. Three of these species once thought to inhabit the Antioch dunes are no longer thought to exist there due to rapid growth in the area. These species include the Antioch Dunes anthicid Anthicus antiochensis), the San Joaquin dune beetle Coelis gracilis and the shieldback katydid ' Neduba extincta . Other special-status species which are known to be associated with interior stabilized dune habitat and could be present on the project site include the Antioch sphecid wasp (Philanthus nasalis , Antioch multillid ant-wasp (Mvrmosula pacifica , the yellow-banded ' andrenid bee . Perdita hirticeps luteocincta), sphecid wasps ucerceris rufice s , Antioch cophuran robberfly Co Kura hurdi , Antioch efferian robberfly Efferia antiochi , and the Sacramento anticid Anthicus sacramento). However, based on habitat dissimilarities; land use ' and degree of disturbance in the dune soils present on the project site, the probability that these insects occur on the project site is low. Annual Croplands ' This habitat type accounts for approximately 115 acres of the project site. These areas ' were cultivated and left fallow for the summer before the field surveys. The vegetative character. of this habitat.is predominately weedy including bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis , common sunflower (Helianthus annus), heliotrope (Heliotropium currasavicum), and bermuda grass ' C nodon dact lon . During the winter and spring the annual cropland habitat may provide foraging ground ' for small mammals and birds of prey.as discussed above under annual grassland. Irrigated Pasture and Hayfields This habitat type accounts for approximately 275 acres of the project site. These areas are used for cattle and horse grazing and are periodically cut for hay. The irrigated pastures have ' been planted with bird's foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus), tall fesuce Festuca arundinacea and creeping rye El mus triticoides . A small portion of the vegetative cover consisted of saltgrass Distichlis s icata and curly dock Rumex cris us . Because cattle were removed from several ' of the pastures a dense growth of yellow star thistle Centaurea solstitialis and cocklebur Xanthium strumarium) was present. No special-status plants were observed in the irrigated ' pastureland. Animals typically present in this habitat type include rodents and seed eating birds. The Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum ssp. perpallidus) is a species included on the County's list of special animals which utilizes pastures and grassland similar to that present on the project site. However, the project site is located beyond the eastern edge of the species' ' 3-80 'i r 1� ' known range and therefore, the probability of finding the sparrow on the project site is considered low. ' Salt-Affected Meadows and Scalds ' This habitat type accounts for approximately 40 acres of the project site. Vegetation associated with this habitat is tolerant of highly saline or alkaline soils in low lying areas which were tidally inundated and supported marshes prior to construction of the levees. -Most of the ' salt-affected areas have less vegetative cover than surrounding grasslands. The dominant vegetation includes five-horned smotherweed Bassia hyssopifolia), henfat (Atriplex Patula , pickleweed Salicornia vir inica , alkali heath Frankenia grandifolia), and whitetop Le idium ' katifolium . Approximately 4.12 acres of this habitat has a sufficient duration of near-surface water to qualify as wetlands. Some of the seasonal wetlands in this alkaline habitat support foxtail barley Hordeum 'ubatum , purple sand spurry (Spergularia rubra) and brassbuttons ' (Cotula coronopifolia). One plant species of special concern, the saltmarsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis , could occur around the borders of the salt-affected wetlands on the project site. However, this plant was not found during the field surveys. Valley sacaton grassland is a natural community on alkaline soil that is declining in the state and is tracked by the Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base. The ' salt-affected or alkaline meadows on the project site are not good representatives of valley sacaton grassland. The dominant plants are weedy species tolerant of grazing rather than native flora. The northern salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris haliocoetes) is the special-status animal most likely to occur in salt-affected habitats. However, the vegetation ' present on the project site is not characteristic of the typical habitat for the northern salt marsh harvest mouse. In addition, the seasonal wetlands present on the project site are not extensive nor are they adjacent to higher quality tidal habitats. The eastern most known population of the ' salt marsh harvest mouse is 17 miles west of the project site (C.N.D.D.B. Element Occurrence Records). ' Irrigation and Drainage Ditches Irrigation and drainage ditches account for approximately 38,000 linear feet of the project ' site. The ditch system consists of a main drain which runs from west to east across the northern portion of the project site. Several connecting ditches carry water to individual pastures or drain ' the annual cropland. The main drain is considered a regulated water and the secondary ditches are not considered a regulated water or wetland. ' Vegetation in the ditches is dense but discontinuous consisting of cattail (Typha latifolia , bulrush Scrius californicus , nettle Urtica urens , poison hemlock Conium maculatum), soft rush Juncus effusis , and giant reed (Phra�mites australis . Special-status plants in eastern ' Contra Costa County which may be associated with the drainage ditch habitat include Suisun 3-81 aster Aster chilensis var. lentus , Bolander's water hemlock Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi , , Suisun thistle Cirsium hydrophyllum var. hydrophylum), Marsh gum plant Grindelia humilis , California hibiscus Hibiscus californicus), Delta tule pea (Lathyms 'e sonii ssp. 'e sonii , ' Mason's lilaeopsis Lilaeo sis masonii and slough thistle Cirsium crassecaule). However, none of these plants were observed during the field surveys. The drainage and irrigation ditches on the project site support the greatest number and ' diversity of wildlife species of the habitats present. Waterfowl observed in the ditches include cinnamon teal Anus cvanoptera), and mallards Anus platyrhynchos). Red-winged blackbirds ' A elaius phoeniceus) were observed nesting in the dense brush while ring-necked pheasants Phasianus colchicus used the dense vegetation along the ditches for cover. Northern harrier Circus c annus was observed foraging along the main drain. Other animals observed include , coyote (Canus latrans , red fox, black-tailed weasel Mustela frenata , and California ground squirrels. Tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor , skunk (Mephitis sp.) and opossum (Didelphis vir iniana were observed in dried, ditch bottom mud. Aquatic animals such as crawfish ' (Pacifastacus sp.),pond turtles Clemm s marmota , bullfrogs Rana catesbeniana) and minnows were also found in the main drain where water is present throughout the year. Animals of special concern which could inhabit the irrigation ditches on the project site ' include giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi i as)and California red-legged frog Rana aurora dra toni . However, the giant garter snake probably doesn't inhabit the main drain because the ' ditch is relatively small and is periodically cleared out. Red-legged frogs may have occurred in the project area in historic times, but they were not observed during the field surveys. River otter Lutra canadensis) may explore the main drain during winter months when the water level is ' high. However, due to the fluctuating water level in the irrigation ditches, the limited food base, and that no otters were seen during the field surveys, a resident population of otters is unlikely. Turtles observed in the main drain could have been southwestern pond turtles Clemm s marmota , marmorata) which are considered species of special concern by the State Department of Fish and Game and a candidate, category 2 species, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Willow Scrub Riparian ' Willow scrub riparian vegetation is located on the south-eastern portion of the project site where several drains come together and accounts for approximately 2.1 acres of the project site. Typical vegetation types include arroyo and black willows Salix lasiolepis and S. lasiandra , cattail, bulrush, lizards tail (Anemopsis califomica , creeping wild rye E] mus triticoides , and t cottonwood trees Po ulus fremontii . This habitat provides water, cover and a source of food for several wildlife species. A ' pair of great horned owls Bubo virginianus) utilize the willow scrub riparian vegetation for roosting during daylight hours. Special-status animals which may utilize the willow scrub riparian habitat include long- eared owl Asio otus and the salt marsh yellowthroat Geothl is trichas sinousa . The presence , 3-82 ,1 ' of salt marsh yellowthroat on the project site would be at the westernmost fringe of this subspecies range. While it is possible that yellowthroats may be attracted to the willows on the project site, the small size of this area would not represent prime nesting or foraging habitat. ' Wetland Habitat ' A wetlands "Delineation Report" for the proposed project site has been prepared by Huffman & Associates, Inc. and is contained in Appendix D of this EIR. The purpose of this report was to delineate and map the extent of all "waters of the United States" including ' wetlands, located on the project site, that would be subject to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Filling in waters of the United States' ("waters") requires a permit from ' the Department of the Army,U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers has confirmed the findings of this report in a letter dated September 27, 1991 (see Appendix D). ' Field surveys of the project site were conducted on June 18 and 19, 1991 to identify and map waters including wetlands present on the project site. The vegetation and wildlife characteristics of the wetlands present on the site are described above under "Salt-Affected ' Meadows and Scalds", and "Willow Scrub Riparian". Figure 3.4-2 depicts the location of wetlands located on the project site. Seasonal ' wetlands (prefix SW) are present on approximately 6.52 acres of the project site. Seasonal wetlands SW-1 through SW-9 are salt affected meadows and scalds, while SW-10 is willow scrub. Other regulated waters include the main drain ditch (indicated as CH-1) which is ' approximately 20 feet wide and traverses the northern portion of the project site. This ditch is a remnant historic natural drainage channel that has been channelized for irrigation use. This ditch totals 2.66 acres. ' The project site once contained additional wetland areas prior to construction of the existing levees and reclamation of Hotchkiss Tract. Since the turn of the century agricultural ' practices have been conducted on most of Hotchkiss Tract. This agricultural activity has resulted in most of the wetland habitat and characteristics of the area being significantly altered or destroyed. However, wetland habitat and wetland characteristics are still present in some low ' lying locations which were not suitable for agricultural production. For this reason much of the project site does not exhibit wetland characteristics even though the soils in the area may exhibit wetland hydrologic characteristics. As discussed above, only 9.18 acres of the project site contains wetland or waters of the United States as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers' criteria. ' Other Special-Status Species The list of special-status plants and animals potentially occurring in eastern Contra Costa ' County includes several taxa that rely on habitats that are not present on the project site. For example, five of the.plant species n ium racemosum, Gratiola heterosepala, Lasthenia ' conjugens, Neostapfia colusana, and Plaaiobothrvs h striculus and one animal (Ambvstoma tigrinum californiense) are found in vernal pools or seasonally saturated swales which do not 3-83 ����� Y •�,t �' o '"r'•m• , to .+,1 v:�v VA' rsk'�"},• ? '°"•"•'7U `�Cy eoutE qp ,'� ? I' A i1 c t r w ••� ,. t.M ,) �_ y'� M{+ ' •riZ♦: 'i" kyr . - �'!"'• �-+' mi "t �I � '�!'• sl"ti_r'�1 � 1 "i,(1;, w ` �+`+�� { ����ri ,,�,•�' $�.In � t�a. S�i ^�!� i� .�• �.�; t l�,.�. _*.� �L �_ Y J.• i,4y 1 u'`�,,,!O,R�,'• v 3. ', ti;\ ... ;1 t'. '' J �; {' ;;•,7L'.lu. G -y, 'V '�0.^��T�FE�t �G"i.t�. OURK1 4rx 1 �e {t .t ii S 1 w,! tYJ'i SW—2"r O.\ k. + '•.; ,B .are '":rl t. .SSI, d ,t t �y. i t \ 1 J'w: � t� � �'•' >F f'F 1i > ��',hiyy. '. { tir'Y 1 pp aaM ' r t ' ,�:MK �""+w..�K� ~ y,� T �0.l Y�•��* -. �,y .� r•TR 1 •r �, 1'1f' ' t`�,��y` F , ,�r� t4'�t � �;s ° 1 J���yy Y� Ipt� (d ii l4 la!C\aj P,3 1N r hi:Y XY�a°i+, t"f �R °i' r 7r IG A� t M i'a'y a Y hy.. SR's.. +*• ;d'�� Sv •t ri 0.� 'is�l V � �,�1``�i�� '��,�tr 1� h ia;}� ��4&t � 0.�r r r +y �N'1io �. ':���le`{y� 4 f X11 t ��yt �4 t`tr/ ��,$' "�i g��r�".1 t�•c �sqi. r t .1. 1 vq '. ��k� ,�.Y y1� ��I�S��1'�'��'t � Jiy '^tS :. s�wr�` "��+�' �; t •'r5 � ....c• yla �, 3'I ,t,ul{re VA '� r 11,i�k I�."� '4tt1y;^r.. A .'`!� ♦ r } � i' 't. �.r.. �•` y a. � t:. .�":.nn. t '"may",. r l��ld (�,1 e f� }� + � 1 r�.. i n:.� �1 V..jwpr+u r.mi Ml.� 4 '. � M`� A �•� � I '1 .bM s ,xi:�t tl '.•}`' �'i 1� A t �°Y\1D•a '� 's � .i nt r,1: � j� R,. �l..� P 4'r. � ��v• Y�q! �std c r ;� �- rc ysi,(.`M�` 4�1 r6�'t`�0�` i. 0 1 i ;� ° � t�y p.,��° .�A;;„+7e1�T"A r4ji” �'.:N�.'1•. _ '• . 3 \!! i S?� ti , qC4'''`h t v 1 aw_,� A •� - 1� 4na�, v'. ♦ r�� ��y4�i��d�� a t'` ° � {"�,�� y,a 'i'�r�\elsy(II�. \ It i w •, _ Figure 3.4. the Project Site 2 y Location of Wetland Areas on Source:Huffman& Associates,Inc, yax L occur on the project site. Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii is also not present on the project site. ' Two of the special-status insects, elderberry longhorn beetles (Desmocerus california dimo ha and Lange's metalmark (Apodemia mormolangei), rely on specific host plants which are not present on the project site (elderberry bushes and buckwheat). Other special-status animal species such as California black rail aterallus 'amaicensis ' coturniculus) and California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus are not present.on the project site due to the small, patchy and inpersistent habitat present on the project site. The Suisun song sparrow Melos iza melodia maxillaris is also not thought to be present on the ' project site because its distribution is well known and restricted to unmanaged wetlands in the Suisun area. ' Contra Costa Countv General Plan 1991 - Vegetation and Wildlife Policies The Contra Costa County General Plan defines the most significant ecological resources ' of the County into three separate categories: 1) areas containing rare, threatened or endangered species; 2) unique natural areas; and 3) wetlands and marshes. These three categories overlap somewhat because many times unique natural areas also contain habitat for rare, threatened and ' endangered animal or plant species. The Contra Costa County General Plan identifies several significant ecological areas in the project vicinity. These include: Bethel Island Wetlands which are located along the north portion of Bethel Island, ' supports approximately 741.5 acres of seasonal and permanent wetlands. Another approximately 940 acres of ruderal wetland/upland are found within the Bethel Island planning area. These have high value as biological habitat and are considered critical ' natural resources by the U.S..Army Corps of Engineers and other resource agencies. Franks Tract is a flooded, formerly levee-encircled, delta island located northeast of the ' project site. This area contains freshwater marsh and riparian woodland habitats on borders, and delta aquatic habitat with good spawning area for fish (striped bass, largemouth bass, white catfish, other). The area also contains possible habitat for giant ' garter snake. Sand Mound Slough is located east of the project site and contains examples of habitat found on the tule islands in the central and southern Delta, This area contains tules, bulrushes,common reed, rushes and other marsh vegetation as well as riparian vegetation ' which provides valuable habitat for wintering ducks and other waterfowl. The Contra Costa County General Plan contains specific Policies for the protection of native vegetation and wildlife within the County. Several of these policies pertain to 1 3-85 development on proposed project site and are listed below. Consistency with these policies is discussed in the Impacts section. • Significant trees,natural vegetation,and wildlife populations generally shall be preserved. , (Policy 8-6) • Important wildlife habitats which would be disturbed by major development shall be , preserved and corridors for wildlife migrations between undeveloped lands shall be retained. (Policy 8-7) ' • Areas determined to contain significant ecological resources,particularly those containing endangered species, shall be maintained in their natural state and carefully regulated to ' the maximum legal extent. Acquisition of the most ecologically sensitive properties within the County by appropriate public agencies shall be encouraged. (Policy 8-9) • The County shall utilize performance criteria and standards which seek to regulate uses in and adjacent to significant ecological resource areas. (Policy 8-11) • Natural woodlands shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible in the course of ' land development. (Policy 8-12) The ecological value of wetland areas,especially the salt marshes and tidelands of the bay ' and delta, shall be recognized. Existing wetlands in the County shall be identified and regulated. Restoration of degraded wetland areas shall be encouraged and supported whenever possible. (Policy 8-17) • The filling and dredging of lagoons, estuaries,and bays which eliminate marshes and mud flats shall be allowed only for water-oriented projects which will provide substantial public benefits and for which there are not reasonable alternatives, consistent with State , and federal laws. (Policy 8-18) • Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl management shall be considered the appropriate land use for marshes and tidelands, with recreation being allowed as a secondary use in limited ' locations, consistent with the marshland and tideland preservation policies of the General Plan. (Policy 8-20) ' • The planting of native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife, and ' ensure that a maximum number and variety of well-adapted plants are sustained in urban areas. (Policy 8-21) • The County shall strive to identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas which are ' adjacent to wetlands and are critical to the survival and nesting of wetland species. (Policy 8-24) ' 3-86 • The County shall protect marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors from effects of potential industrial spills. (Policy 8-25) ' Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and protected. (Policy 8-27) •' Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and protected. (Policy 8-28) ' The above list does not represent all policies in the Contra Costa County General Plan which pertain to vegetation and wildlife but rather only a select few which are pertinent to development on the proposed project site. The Contra Costa County General Plan also sets forth the following "Implementation Measures" regarding wetland areas: • Update and maintain detailed maps of the significant ecological resource-areas and use them in the environmental review process to determine potential impacts upon these resources. (8-d) • Prior to the approval of discretionary permits involving parcels within a significant ecological resource area,the County shall require a biotic resource evaluation based upon field reconnaissance performed at the appropriate time of the year to determine the ' presence or absence of rare, threatened or endangered species of plants or animals. Such evaluation will consider the potential for significant impact on these resources, and measures proposed to mitigate such impacts, where feasible, or indicate why mitigation is not feasible. (8-e) • Prepare a list of standard mitigation measures from which the County could select appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of projects in or adjacent to significant ecological resource areas. (84) ' Require the environmental impact analysis of all significant grassland sites proposed for development to include an early spring site reconnaissance to determine the presence of vernal pools and rare species associated with vernal pools, and document the use of any ' seasonal wetlands by bird species. A general observation of such sites during the dry portion of the year shall be deemed insufficient for environmental review. Significant grasslands include generally parcels of more than 40 acres which are located in as area tdominated by native or introduced grass species. (8-g) • A setback from the edge of any wetland area may be required for any new structure. The ' breadth of any such setback shall be determined by the County after environmental review examining (a) the size and habitat value of the potentially affected wetland, and (b) potential impacts on the wetland, and adjacent uplands, arising out of the development 3-87 1 i -- 1 and operation of the new structure. Unless environmental review indicates that greater ' or lesser protection is necessary or adequate, setbacks generally will be between 50 and 100 feet in breadth. Expansion of other modifications of non-habitable agricultural-related structures existing as of 1990.shall be exempt from this setback requirement. Parcels ' 1 which would be rendered un-buildable by application of this standard shall be exempt.. (8-k) The County is also working on a Wetlands Protection Ordinance (Draft December 14, ' 1992), which identifies the County's goals regarding the protection and replacement of impacted wetlands within the County. The draft ordinance identifies that avoidance of wetland areas by ' development is preferred. However, if wetlands will be impacted that compensatory mitigation should be provided. The draft ordinance calls for a Restoration Plan to be prepared when ' wetlands will be impacted. The Restoration Plan should provide for in-kind mitigation, rather than out-of-kind whenever possible;mitigation monitoring fees to ensure continued management and restoration; and replacement ratios up to 3:1 but no less than 1:1. ' IMPACTS Direct On-Site Impacts to Existing Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat ' The proposed project would result in grading and excavation activities on the majority of ' the 685.9 acre project site for the development of 1,330 residential units, golf course, lakes and channels and other associated facilities. The project would avoid impacting most wetland areas on the site. For this reason the majority of the existing grassland, stabilized dunes, cropland, pastures and salt-affected meadows and scalds would be removed and replaced with urban and suburban uses. The impacts of the proposed project on each of the habitat types present on the project site are discussed in detail below. ' Developed/Residential Developed/residential uses are located in the northern portion of the project site. This , habitat type accounts for approximately 10 acres of the project site. No special status species were present during the field survey or are known to inhabit such areas. ' Development of the proposed project would remove the existing developed/residential uses on the site and replace it with single family residences and the proposed golf course. Since no ' special-status plant or animal species are known to inhabitant or utilize this area, this impact is not considered significant. ' Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland habitat covers approximately'l 70 acres of the project site both north of Cypress Road and south of Cypress Road in the southwest corner of the project site. The non-native annual grassland habitat provides foraging and cover habitat for black-tailed , 3-88 i I i I '� ' jackrabbit, California ground squirrel, red fox, and burrowing owls; and could support prey species for kites, short-eared owl, golden eagle and prairie falcon. ' The proposed project would result in removing approximately 170 acres of non-native grassland and replacing it with single family residences and recreational uses. North of Cypress. Road the non-native annual grassland habitat would be developed with single-family residences, 1 several golf course holes, a driving range and the golf course clubhouse. In the southwest corner ' of the project site,the non-native annual grassland habitat would be developed with single-family residences, a project lake and a park. Removal of this habitat would not affect any special-status plant species; however, removal of this habitat may affect several species of special concern . , which may utilize this habitat for foraging. Development of the project site would contribute to a incremental loss of foraging habitat in the County and region for the special-status species which may utilize the site. However, abundant similar habitat is present in the vicinity of the ' project area outside the Urban Limit Line which would not be developed. In addition, delta habitat, which is considered superior to the habitat on the project site for supporting special-status species, would remain undeveloped. ' Non-Native Annual Grassland/Interior Stabilized Dunes ' The non-native annual grassland/interior stabilized dune habitat is scattered throughout the non-native annual grassland located north of Cypress Road on the project site. As stated previously this habitat is highly degraded and shows little native characteristics. This habitat type ' accounts for approximately 12 acres of the project site and is known to provide habitat for several special-status plants, insects and animals. However, none of these species was observed or is thought to be present on the project site due to the degraded nature of this habitat. ' The proposed project would result in removal of the 12 acres of non-native annual grassland interior stabilized dunes for development of the proposed golf course. However, this ' habitat is highly degraded and no special-status species were observed during field surveys and are not thought to be present on the project site. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. ' Annual Crop Land ' The vegetative character of the annual croplands is primarily weedy. This habitat may provide foraging ground for small mammals and several birds of prey which are considered species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. Development of the proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 115 acres of annual croplands present on the project site for development of urban and recreational. uses. This change would not affect any special-status plants but could indirectly affect several birds of prey, considered to be species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game, by removing foraging habitat. While the loss of foraging habitat by itself would not 3-89 i be considered significant impact of the project,loss of this habitat would contribute incrementally ' I� to the cumulative loss of foraging habitat in the County and region for special-status birds of prey. However, the County has established an Urban Limit Line outside of which no , Idevelopment is allowed (approximately 65% of the County). The areas outside the Urban Limit Line will provide long-term.foraging habitat and limit the cumulative loss of habitat in the County and region. 1 Irrigated Pasture and Hayfields The irrigated pasture and hayfields on the project site account for approximately 275 acres of the project site. These areas are primarily located adjacent to and north of Cypress Road and in the northern corner of the project site near the intersection of Bethel Island Road and Sand ' Mound Road. This portion of the project site would be developed primarily with single-family residences and portions of the proposed golf course. The irrigated pasture and hayfields do not contain any special-status plant species or provide significant habitat for any known special-status 1 animals, birds or insects because of the relatively intensive agricultural use of these areas. Therefore, the conversion of this habitat to urban uses is not considered significant. Salt-Affected Meadows and Scalds ' I This habitat type accounts for approximately 40 acres of the project site and is located ' north of Cypress Road and scattered primarily within the non-native grassland and in the irrigated pastures. Salt-affected meadows and scalds north of the main drain would be developed with single-family residences and portions of the proposed golf course. The salt-affected scalds , located on the eastern side of the project site, in the irrigated pasture area, are located within the proposed wetland mitigation area and would not be affected by development of the project site. ' Approximately 4.12 acres of this habitat has sufficient duration of near-surface water to qualify ' as wetlands. The majority of this habitat which qualifies as wetlands (3.8 acres) would be preserved and incorporated into either the design of the proposed golf course or the wetlands ' mitigation area (see discussion of Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans below). iFigure 3.4-3 depicts the location of wetland areas impacted by the proposed project. The project would impact 0.32 acres of salt-affected meadows and scalds which qualify as wetland areas 1 (SW-2 through SW-6 and SW-9). Development of salt-affected meadow and scald habitat would not affect any known plant oz animal species of special concern associated with this habitat type. The project's impact on this habitat would be less-than-significant with implementation of the project's Wetland'Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Irrigation and Drainage Ditches I Approximately 38,000 linear feet of irrigation and drainage ditches are present on the project site. The majority of this habitat is contained in the main drain which traverses the nortiem portion of the project site. The main drain is considered "waters" of the United States ' II 3-90 I1 1 u � G aNi rG y u G yap. 0 \ J T' 1-10 _ _ D ovs /cl \ / I � i m j \ I \ cr t-4 1pk i \ /. 1 ' by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and supports a variety of plant and animal species. The main drain would be impacted in several locations by road crossings, levee construction and golf ' course construction. Approximately 0.20 acres of the main drain would be impacted by the project in the form of culverting the main drain underneath road crossings and filling at the project's eastern and western boundaries for the project levees. Figure 3.4-3 depicts the location ' of the portions of the main drain impacted by the proposed project. Placing the main drain in a culvert in two locations for road crossings could result in ' impacts to plant and animals of special concern. The main drain provides important vegetative cover and may provide habitat for various special-status plant species even though none were found during field surveys. In addition, the main drain supports the greatest number and ' diversity of wildlife species of the habitats present on the project site. Several special-status species may utilize the main drain including the southwestern pond turtle and river otter. The proposed project would result in the removal of most secondary drainage ditches present on the site. However, these secondary drainage ditches do not meet the criteria to be considered a regulated water or wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers. Willow Scrub Riparian ' Willow scrub riparian vegetation accounts for approximately 2.1 acres of the project site located along the sites southeastern boundary where several drains come together. This habitat is potential habitat for several special-status animals including long-eared owl and salt marsh ' yellowthroat. However, these species were not observed during field visits to the site. In addition, this habitat is considered wetlands due to its hydrologic condition and plant species. ' The proposed project would affect 0.43 acres of this habitat (SW-10) through the construction of the project levee. The remainder of this habitat is not proposed for development and would be preserved in its present state. A minimum 50-foot wide buffer to be maintained ' as much as possible in a natural state is also proposed to surround this habitat to further protect this area from development. The project's impact to this wetland area would be minimal but would be mitigated through replacement and enhancement of other wetland on site (see Wetland Habitat discussion below). The project's proposed Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. ' Wetland Habitat ' The project site contains approximately 6.52 acres of seasonal wetlands and 2.66 acres of waters of the United States associated with the main drain, for a total of 9.18 acres of waters/wetlands on the project site. The amount of waters/wetlands on the project site has been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a letter dated September 27, 1991 (see Appendix E). Of the 6.52 acres of-seasonal wetlands on the project site, the proposed project would avoid approximately 5.77 acres of wetlands and impact 0.75 acres. The location of seasonal wetland areas impacted is depicted in Figure 3.4-3. The small wetland areas, located north of Cypress Road in the center of the top portion of the project, will be avoided and preserved. 3-92 i 1 The wetland area located south of Cypress Road, along the easterly boundary of the project ' would be minimally impacted. The largest of the wetland areas located north of Cypress Road along the easterly boundary (SW-7 and SW-8), will be avoided and preserved as part of the ' project. i I Of the 2.66 acres of waters of the United States on the project site, the proposed project ' would avoid 2.46 acres and impact 0.20 acres. The location of waters of the United States i impacted by the project are depicted on Figure 3.4-3. Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ' As indicated above, the proposed project would impact approximately 0.95 acres of ' ► waters/wetlands for development of the project levee, homes and other amenities. The project plans include a Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see Appendix D) which is designed to replace impacted wetlands by enlarging and enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. ' The goal of the mitigation plan is to create an additional 2.28 acres of seasonal wetlands by enlarging and enhancing the existing wetland located north of Cypress Road along the easterly boundary of the project site (SW-7 and SW-8). The wetlands in this area are presently two ' separate wetlands. The additional acreage would be created in the middle of these two areas, making the area one contiguous wetland. The wetland mitigation area is depicted in the draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan contained in Appendix D. The draft Mitigation and ' ► Monitoring Plan discusses the method of mitigation and monitoring techniques. This plan was prepared consistent with the guidelines prepared by the Corps on habitat mitigation and monitoring. The applicant proposes to submit a final plan to the Army Corps of Engineers for ' review and approval prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. In addition to the creation of new wetland areas, the project design would includes buffer ' areas around the wetland areas. The buffers would range in width from 50 to 100 feet in width depending on adjacent activities. The buffer areas would be planted with transitional vegetation progressing from wetland plant species next to wetland areas to more upland vegetative species ' near the outer edge of the buffer zone. The buffer areas are intended to protect the wetland areas i from human activities and nearby urban activities. ' Channel Enhancement Plan The project site contains a drainage ditch (approximately 2.66 acres), which runs west to ' i east across the northern portion of the site. The project plans call for the enhancement of this I drainage ditch into a channel of approximately 8.0 acres in size. A new channel is also proposed in the north/south direction and would connect to the proposed lake. This second channel would , be approximately 11 acres is size. The channels are proposed to provide additional riparian habitat and visual interest to the project. The banks of the channels would be sprigged with ' willow and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian cover. The cuttings would be randomly ► i 3-93 ' ' placed at an average of 50 feet in groupings of 3. Voluntary willows and cottonwoods are also expected to sprout along the channel banks. ' The proposed channels would provide greater area for wildlife species than presently exists on the project site, such as the great horned owl and pond turtles. There are other species that were not observed during the field surveys that are likely to inhabit the channels. These ' species may include the giant garter snake, California red-legged frog and river otter. These species are not presently on the site because the existing channel is too small and the water level ' fluctuates. The proposed channels would be designed so that water levels would not fluctuate. Human activity around the channels would be limited. No human contact (boating, swimming) would be allowed in the channels to maintain acceptable water quality. The project ' also proposes a pedestrian trail along much of the east/west channel which would provide the opportunity for wildlife observation. Informational signage could be used to warn trail users of the sensitive habitat and provide educational information about the habitat and wildlife species present. ' Impact on Special-Status Species No special-status plants, animals or insects were observed on the project site during field surveys conducted in May and September 1991. In general, the habitat present on the project site does not represent important habitat for special-status plant, animal and insect species occurring in East Contra Costa County. One exception is the primary drainage ditch ("main drain") which runs through the project site. This drainage ditch may provide habitat for various special-status plant and animal species, however, none were observed during field surveys. Special-status species which may utilize this ditch include the southwestern pond turtle and the ' river otter. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on special-status plants, animals and insects because: 1) The project site does not contain important habitat areas; and 2) The primary drainage ditch would be enhanced as part of the project to provide additional wildlife habit (see discussion of Channel Enhancement Plan above). Additional mitigation may ' be necessary for roadway crossings of the channel to avoid the movement of wildlife along the channel. Indirect Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats The existing vegetation and wildlife habitats on the project site are characterized as primarily agricultural in nature. Due to continued disturbance and human activity, the project site exhibits less species diversity and habitat quality than native delta lowland habitat. As discussed previously, the project site does not contain any special-status plants. However, the project site may provide foraging habitat and cover for several bird species of special concern. Development of the project site would not in and of itself be considered a significant loss of foraging habitat for.the special-status birds of prey because the site is somewhat degraded by 3-94. 1 agricultural activities and does not represent the loss of the last piece of rural agricultural land ' in the project vicinity. While foreseeable development on neighboring properties may result in additional loss of foraging habitat for special-status birds (see Cumulative Impacts discussion, Section 5.2), there will remain abundant habitat-in surrounding areas which is not available for , development as-a result of zoning or other land use restrictions, including the County Urban Limit Line. This includes much of the delta area located to the north and east of the project site which contains significantly better quality wildlife habitat than the project site. ' While there is substantial wildlife habitat in surrounding areas to support local vegetation and wildlife species so that development of the project site would not be considered a significant ' reduction in local or regional habitat; the proposed project could affect the quality of adjacent habitat, primarily the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, through the creation of additional urban ' pressures on these areas (see Section 5.2 Cumulative Impacts.) The proposed project would I increase human activity adjacent to the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta in the form of additional boating, fishing and other recreational activities on delta waterways. While the project's , contribution to the total number of people using the delta would be insignificant, the project would contribute incrementally to the increasing pressures on the delta and impacts on delta wildlife and wildlife habitats. However, such pressures have been substantially limited in Contra 1 Costa County through establishment of the Urban Limit Line and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Conformance with County Vegetation and Wildlife Polices ' IAs identified in the setting section, Contra Costa County has numerous policies, ' Iimplementation measures and a draft ordinance which address the preservation and maintenance of the County's vegetative an wildlife resources. Many of these policies are similar in their intent. The following discussion identifies how the proposed project generally relates to the ' County's policies regarding preservation,maintenance and replacement of the County's vegetative and wildlife resources. . The proposed project would not directly affect significant ecological areas identified on 1 the Contra Costa County General Plan in the project vicinity. The Bethel Island Wetlands are located along the northern portion of Bethel Island approximately 3 miles from the project site. , Franks Tract is also located sufficiently north of the project site not to be affected by the `proposed project. Sand Mound Slough is located near the eastern boundary of the project site across Sand Mound Road and the existing levee system.. The proposed project would not have a significant effect on Sand Mound Slough because no breach of the existing levee is proposed and most of the mainland side of the existing levee between the project site and Sand Mound Slough has been developed with single-family residences and businesses. IThe proposed project addresses the vegetation and wildlife policies and wetland standards of the Contra Costa County General Plan in the following ways: , 3-95 I • The project would not involve filling or dredging of lagoons, estuaries or bays. • Recreational,rather than residential uses are proposed adjacent to wetland areas to reduce ' urban impacts. ' The main drain and wetland areas present on the project site would, for the most part, be preserved. These areas represent the most significant natural vegetation, important wildlife habitats, the only natural woodlands on the project site, and have been identified as possibly being utilized by animal species of special-concern. • Seasonal wetland in grassland areas have been identified (9.18 acres) and would be, for the most part, avoided and preserved (8.23 acres avoided, 0.95 acres impacted). • Waters/Wetland areas on the project site have been mapped and would be, for the most part, preserved in their present state. The project design also includes replacement of wetlands impacted by the project through enhancement of the habitat associated with the main drain. Buffers around wetland areas (minimum 50 feet) would also be provided to 1 protect these areas and provide additional upland habitat. • The project would provide buffer areas (minimum 50 feet) around wetland areas present on the project site to protect their natural characteristics. MITIGATION MEASURES The project plans include the following mitigation measures: 3.4-1 Wetland Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan which is designed to replace impacted wetlands by enlarging and enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. The goal of the mitigation plan is to create an additional 2.28 acres of seasonal ' wetlands by enlarging and enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. Buffer areas around wetland areas would also be provided. 3.4-2 Channel Enhancement Plan which would enhance and widen the existing primary drainage ditch to a channel of approximately 8 acres in size. A new north/south channel would also be created to connect to the proposed lake. The channels ' would be sprigged with willows and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian habitat. Additional Mitigation Measures Irrigation and Drainage Ditches The proposed project would result in direct impacts to the primary drainage channel ("main drain") through the construction of project roadways and project levees. Impacts would 3-96 primarily be in the form of placing the main drain in a culvert and filling portions of the channel in the areas impacted. The project includes a Channel Enhancement Plan to mitigate project impacts to the main drain. The following mitigation measure is proposed to further reduce the ' impacts of proposed roadway crossings of the main drain to a less-than-significant level: 3.4-3 The proposed project includes widening of the primary drainage channel ("main drain") and the creation of additional channels on the project site to improve ' wildlife habitat and the visual quality of the project. The project applicant should prepare a detailed Channel Enhancement Plan based on the draft Channel Enhancement Plan provided by the applicant. The Plan should be submitted to , Contra Costa County, the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for review and approval prior to approval of the ' project's final subdivision maps. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/California Department of Fish and Game/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Contra Costa County) 1 , 3.4-4 To minimize impacts to wildlife movement along this drainage channel, road crossings should utilize clear span bridges if feasible. If culverts are to be used ' they should be as large as possible to minimize impacts to wildlife movement. The design of all bridges and/or culverts to be placed along the primary drainage channel ("main drain") shall be submitted for review and approval to Contra Costa ' County Department of Public Works, Reclamation District 799, California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa ' County/Reclamation District 799/California Department of Fish and Game/U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) Implementation of the project's Channel Enhancement Plan and the mitigation measures ' described above would reduce the project's impact on the irrigation and drainage ditches to a less-than-significant level. IWetlands Habitat The proposed project would result in approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands being filled ' for development of the proposed project. Filling of wetlands on the project site may adversely ' affect special-status plants and animals. The project includes a Wetland Habitat and Mitigation Plan intended to replace wetlands impacted by project construction, on-site and in a ratio of 3 acres to every 1 acre impacted. The following mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that the project's plans are implemented and successful so that the project's impacts on wetland areas is reduced to a less-than-significant level: 3.4-5 The project plans include a draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan which ' proposes to replace wetlands on-site, in a ratio of 3 acres for every 1 acre impacted (0.75 acres impacted to be replaced with 2.28 acres of new wetland) by ' 3-97 ' 11 1 enlarging and enhancing the existing wetlands on the project site and providing buffer areas around wetlands. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be reviewed and approved by the County, California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County/California Department of Fish and Game/U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) 3.4-6 Wetlands and waterways impacted by the proposed project are considered waters ' of the United States and therefore come under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Filling in waters of the United States requires a permit from the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project ' applicant is required to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before filling of any wetlands or waters on the project site. The type of permit required will be defined by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers upon submittal of a permit application by the project applicant. In addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, the California Department of Fish and Game may need to be notified regarding project activities in the vicinity of the main drain pursuant to ' Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) (Note: application for, and issuance of CDFG and Corps permits is conducted after ' completion of the environmental review process per state and federal regulations) 3.4-7 The project should pay the County Protection Fee, as required by the County General Plan, for acquiring development rights on wetland areas off-site. The Protection Fee should be paid upon the issuance of building permits for the project. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the project's potential impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States to a less-than-significant level. 3-98 3.5 VISUAL QUALITY , EXISTING SETTING ' Regional Landscape and Scenic Resources The project site is located in northeastern Contra Costa County adjacent to the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. Significant scenic resources located in the area include the delta waterways and islands, low lying agricultural fields and scattered orchards, and flood control levees along delta waterways. ' On clear days, Mount Diablo and the Diablo range are visible to the west. These mountains provide a significant backdrop to the rural views from many vantage points in the project area and vicinity. As discussed in Section 3.1 under existing land uses, the Hotchkiss Tract primarily ' consists of low-lying agricultural lands with a few scattered orchards and residences (see Figure 3.5-1). These land uses provide a rural visual character with many opportunities for long ' distance views. Drainage ditches which traverse the area are often filled with cattails and other wetland vegetation providing a break in the relatively continuous agricultural views. In addition, different agricultural practices (e.g. orchards, row crops, cattle grazing, irrigated pastures) add ' a "patchwork" visual character to.this rural area. Residences in this area often times continue this rural theme with ranch-style architecture and associated barns (see Figure 3.5-1). The large flood control levees which line the delta waterways provide another unique visual image to the project area and vicinity. In the project vicinity these levees are lined with homes on the landward side. Many of these homes are constructed with living spaces either at ' or above the top of the levees, often three and four stories tall. In other areas, the landward side of the levee is undeveloped and grasses grow on the levee slopes. Visual Character of the Proiect Site The visual character of the project site is rural/agricultural. The project site is ' predominantly flat. The visual character of the project site can be divided into four basic types: 1) areas with short grasses used as range land for cattle grazing; 2) irrigated pasture for horses; 3) irrigated areas used for the cultivation of row crops; and 4) areas where residences and farm , structures (barns, equipment storage, etc.) are located. These uses provide a relatively constant visual image over most of the project site (see Figure 3.5-1). However, the different agricultural ' practices create a "patchwork", or mosaic, pattern to the land. In addition, several drainage ditches traverse the project site breaking up the relatively constant agricultural view. Several rural residential structures and associated barns and other buildings are located on the project site. These structures break-up the agricultural/rural visual image, but would not be considered significant visual features due to their age and condition (see Figure 3.5-1). ' 3-99 ,I ,o to 00 1000 so 00 to to 00 err► ♦ ♦ 10 A 110 ,100 m n� q� O � �a � fl• o E m .i G a t I ,G r S s `M 0 G i G ? 6 Orn n � n� F n .l! Other man-made visual features located on the project site include the 3 large power lines which traverse the southwestern corner of the project site. The power lines are visible from most ' vantage points on the project site and break-up the continuity of the views to the west toward Mount Diablo and the Diablo range. Another electrical transmission line is currently under construction in'the area. Existing Views from Local Roadways and Vantage Points Existing views from Bethel Island Road to the east are across the agricultural uses on the project site and the existing residential uses which line the flood control levee along Sandmound Boulevard. ! Existing views to the west from Sandmound Boulevard are of wide expanses of agricultural uses including those on the project site. Mount Diablo and the Diablo range are visible in the distance. However, because of the distance from the project site to Mount Diablo, often times smoke and haze obscure the mountains making them less visible (see Figure 3.5-2). The delta waterways and their associated visual resources are not visible from the local roadways and vantage points because of the flood control levees. The Delta areas are only visible from the top of the existing levees and the Bethel Island Road bridge (see Figure 3.5-3). ! Visual Resource Policies ' The Open Space Element of the General Plan contains specific goals, policies and implementation measures for the protection of scenic resources within the County. The General Plan identifies the delta system adjacent to the project site as a major scenic resource. ' The following Scenic Resource Goals and Policies from the General Plan would pertain ' to development on the project site. This list does not represent a complete list of the Goals and Policies, but only those which specifically pertain to development on the project site. Consistency with these policies is discussed in the Impacts section (see page 3-104). • To preserve and protect areas of identified high scenic value, where practical, and in accordance with the Land Use Element map. (Goal 9-D) ! To preserve the scenic qualities of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River/Delta shoreline. (Goal 9-F) ' In order to conserve the scenic beauty of the County, developers shall generally be required to restore the natural contours and vegetation of the land after grading and other land disturbance. Public and private projects shall be designed to minimize damages to significant trees and other visual landmarks. (Policy 9-12) 3-101 ! 00 00 00 00 .00 !0 00 `♦ vo Lj ht ry� c { G � h � t G a'4 n tT' s y W� o � - tqp n G C A ti a ocP O � ro a- ;. rt a A �? A t Y G �L ._ F } '':� i�'s.gy`��".,�,r'{�r�^+�{,q:.x,� �'s',�•+�yi-�i...Lr V ti 4 s *�'fi^'•aa�:�S i�"`y'�"�+; � r NN. �t.F .••.-`-, i• rt• �i" .:4r'•i?�:Y rtjy Ey.'�7". ��. ""^`—""--�,-., �„�4'�C`1n r y�.+,F�'^+G e�.1 a•rs�'q .,� .. +c#� a ��7ff.4 t �. .Sy �}- + ~ 111 �f } } � _,� 'r+i 2nd •"�1�V3 L",�.�"ik - ,.S L"S� ) ��q�•�yL, �f 1;�`.y r u,L .�� -v k Ili •� .��� w:,.;:c.r-,w;�.. �`�.�..,. . r.�� � r it r t � �•.tD£c.��`��: r�.r -''�� r,��,.� -y'�r,�.q h {� '"�� i k S` d r 3� ���t'��'R- .o r`�t1�`y.. _'1'�J- �rt 1a-a✓��+ !1 d"'-a_5• j�r y,��v^� Sh s ��,����•rM"ter t !�� � �L ,.;. y'"'.u.rY �•�t>�.yt`mak^4 _i y`,1,'Jy.7 �ti{•f �r,�.�f�,�.,�`�'�'� w'�' ,,- ,3`a.'.`+pr tL�, �"a � r k-a- f tp y f »l WP ��p.u..q''���y.P.' �` a -y 5^.,�r�;{P&. ,�.�Ki�'�5'7y)r � S:u�s j ,1.._• � �;�� S dt J �'�-c M� {{t''}' ��`�y,'.ysf h. r a14. X„r,*_ �' `f.�' � � .+5" �{,� t.�`•r; } t �• '�§,�,L t"`�% t•" ,� ,i' �+'nr,'yf«h q❖y. 'x atm'- {� y .- To' ��1Y'lb, tlti� �E � '� '`c r {'rz+3: A _ ����� 1. .tea t t r r • Providing public facilities for outdoor recreation should remain an important land use ' objective in the County, as a method of promoting high scenic quality, for air quality maintenance, and to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities of all residents. -(Policy 9-13) • Any new development shall be encouraged to generally conform with natural contours to , avoid excessive grading. (Policy 9-21) • The appearance of the County shall be improved by eliminating negative features such as non-conforming signs and overhead power lines, and by encouraging aesthetically designed facilities with adequate setbacks and landscaping. (Policy 9-24) • Maintenance .of scenic waterways of the County shall be ensured through public ' protection of the.marshes and riparian vegetation along the shorelines and delta levees, as otherwise specified in this plan. (Policy 9-25) ' Design Guidelines Proposed by the Project Applicant The project applicant is proposing the following design guidelines for the project site: • Residential units will be limited to two stories not to exceed 30 feet. ' • Minimum setbacks along arterial roadways will be 200 feet, and 100 feet from the center line of the roadway to the exterior wall of any living space along collectors (Cypress ' Road Extension). • Sideyard setbacks will vary taking into account: 1) structures should not block solar ' access for heating and.cooling; 2) space between buildings shall increase in relation to their height; and 3) periodic view corridors to water areas should be provided. IMPACTS Impacts to Re6onal Landscape and Scenic Resources ' The San Joaquin-Sacramento delta waterways are identified as significant scenic resources. ' Projects which breach delta levees or include marinas or other water dependant components could result in significant visual impacts to local delta waterways. The proposed project does not involve breaching of delta levees or the development of other delta related facilities (e.g., , marinas,docks,etc.) and therefore would not directly affect the existing visual quality of adjacent delta waterways. The project would alter a portion of the Hotchkiss Tract by replacing 685.9 acres of t agricultural land with urban-type uses. (see Impacts to Visual Character of Project Site below). While the proposed project would not directly affect the visual character of adjacent areas on ' 3-104 ' Hotchkiss Tract, it would contribute to cumulative impacts on the overall visual character of Hotchkiss Tract. ' Impacts to Visual Character of the Project Site The proposed project would result in changing the existingcharacter of the project site to one of a suburban residential community with various recreational uses. This change would alter the existing visual condition, however, this change in uses was taken into consideration in ' the County General Plan by designating this site for some level of urban development. Different portions of the site would exhibit different visual characteristics. The southern ' portion of the site would be visually oriented toward the man-made lake, while the northern portion of the site would be visually oriented toward the golf course. ' The project design would include considerable amounts of landscaped areas including the golf course, parks, common areas, the project levees and along the channels. The project application includes landscape criteria which are designed to be in keeping with the existing ' vegetative character of the area. Landscaped areas would consist primarily of low grasses and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. Tree massing would occur where screening is necessary around recreation areas, the project entrance and along the neighborhood park. The ' landscape criteria includes a list of plant materials. These plant materials were selected based on their ability to thrive in the existing soils on the project site. The landscape criteria is contained in Appendix D. While the project would contain open space/recreational areas, landscaping and other features to improve the visual character of the project, the development of the site with 1,300 ' homes, project levee and other features, would significantly change the existing visual character of the site. This would be considered an unavoidable impact of the project. ' Impacts to Views From Local Roads and Vantage Points Views of the project site from Bethel Island Road, Sandmound Boulevard and other ' vantage points around the project perimeter would be blocked by a flood control levee which would surround the project. The flood control levee would be approximately10 feet above sea ' level. The actual height of the levee relative to the ground would vary. The width of the proposed levee would be approximately 100 feet at its base. ' Views to the west from existing homes along Sandmound Boulevard would be obstructed by the levee and proposed project. The degree of impact would vary with distance, and would be highest for residences closest to the levee. The roof lines of some homes may be visible from ' perimeter roadway and vantage points. The project plans include landscape guidelines for the project levees. These guidelines are contained in Appendix D, and are designed to be consistent with the landscape guidelines of 3-105 the State Reclamation Board. The project levee-guidelines address the planting of trees, shrubs ' and ground covers on the project levees as well as irrigation and maintenance. A list of suitable plant species is also provided in the guidelines. The project levee landscape guidelines are ' designed to improve the aesthetics of the levee by providing color and texture to the levee slopes. Landscaping of the project levee would provide improved aesthetics from adjacent properties as well as from inside the project. ' In addition to the project levee landscape guidelines, the project landscape criteria discussed above, also includes the provision of additional landscaping around the outside of the ' project levee such as along Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. Additional landscaping outside the project levee would provide additional screening of the levee particularly for residents adjacent to the project site along Sandmound Boulevard. Landscaping in these areas should consist of trees and shrubs to provide adequate screening. The landscaping.should be located sufficiently outside the levee cross-section as to not be affected by levee maintenance activities. ' Even with landscaping of the levee and outside the levee, the view for residences located across from the project site along Sandmound Boulevard would change significantly with the ' proposed project. Landscaping would provide some improvement and soften the appearance of the levee. However, the resulting change in view with the project would be unavoidable. ' Conformance with Visual Resource Policies General Plan Policies 9-12, 9-13, 9-21, 9-24 and 9-25, apply to the project site and the project is consistent with these policies for the following reasons: • The project site is relatively flat and the proposed project would avoid excessive grading ' and changes to the project site's topography. Visual landmarks such as wetland areas and the willow scrub habitat on the project site would be retained in the project design. (consistent with Policy 9-12) • The project would include significant recreational amenities including an 18-hole golf , course and lakes to provide scenic quality and enhance outdoor recreational opportunities. (consistent with Policy 9-13) • The project's design includes setbacks from Bethel Island Road, undergrounding of utility ' lines, and landscaping throughout the project to improve the visual appearance of the project. (consistent with Policy 9-24) ' • The project does not involve breaching of the delta levee system or other associated water-related development which could adversely affect delta resources. (consistent with ' Policy 9-25) 3-106 ' 1 ' The final contours of the site will have a low visual profile that is consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area. Grading would be held to the minimum amount necessary to construct the levee system and other project features. (consistent with Policy 9-21) MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project includes the following mitigation measures for visual impacts: 3.5-1 Landscape criteria for the proposed golf course, parks, common areas, project levees and the channels. Landscaping would consist primarily of low grasses and ' wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. 3.5-2 Landscape guidelines for the proposed levee system. These guidelines are designed to be consistent with the landscape guidelines of the State Reclamation Board. A list of suitable plant species is provided as part of the guidelines. ' 3.5-3 A landscape strip would be provided outside the project levee to provide screening of the levee along Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. The landscape strip would be a minimum of 10 feet wide and be located sufficiently outside the ' levee cross-section to not hinder maintenance of the levee. The landscape strip should be planted with trees and shrubs to provide maximum screening. Maintenance of the landscape strip would be carried out by the homeowners' iassociation or special district but not the public agency responsible for maintenance of the project levee. 3.5-4 Residential units will be limited to two stories not to exceed 30 feet. ' 3.5-5 Minimum setbacks along arterial roadways will be 200 feet, and 100 feet from the center line of the roadway to the exterior wall of any living space along collectors (Cypress Road Extension). ' 3.5-6 Sideyard setbacks will vary taking into account: 1) structures should not block solar access for heating and cooling; 2) space between buildings shall increase in ' relation to their height; and 3) periodic view corridors to water areas should be provided. Additional Mitigation for Impacts to Views From Local Roadways and Vantage Points The following mitigation measure are proposed to ensure adequate landscaping is provided: 3.5-7 The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized once the public agency to be responsible for maintaining the levees is determined. The levee landscape 3-107 1 guidelines should then- be submitted to the public agency responsible for 1 maintenance of the levees for review and approval prior to the installation of any landscaping on the levees. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) While the mitigation measures described above and proposed as part of the project would reduce the visual impacts of the project levees, the impact of the project levee on views from ' adjacent vantage points would be unavoidable. Additional Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that landscaping installed as part of the project will be adequately maintained. 3.5-8 A landscape maintenance district, or other funding source consisting of the property owners within the project site, shall be established for the proposed 1 project to pay for long-term maintenance of public recreation areas within the project site. The project applicant shall submit a proposal for the landscape maintenance district to the County for approval prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) . 1 i 1 - 1 i 1 1 1 3-108 1. l n a ' 3.6 NOISE EXISTING SETTING Existing Noise Environment The major noise source affecting the project site is vehicular traffic on Bethel Island Road. Traffic on Cypress Road and Sandmound Boulevard also contribute to the noise environment,but to a lesser extent. The noise from vehicles drops off significantly with distance tfrom the roadway. Consequently, the central and eastern portions of the site are relatively quiet and dominated by noise from birds, occasional aircraft flyovers, and wind in the vegetation. ' To quantify the existing noise environment, one continuous 24-hour measurement and three short-term measurements were made throughout the project site. The 24-hour noise measurement was taken to monitor noise level fluctuations throughout the day, such as peak traffic commute periods to provide an accurate overall picture of the existing noise levels in the project vicinity. Figure 3.6-1 shows the location of the noise measurements. The 24-hour measurement was made along Bethel Island Road near the project's western boundary. The existing day/night average sound level (DNL)' is 73 Db, approximately 30 feet east of Bethel Island Road. The existing noise level is significantly lower along Sandmound Boulevard. The noise level at these locations is a DNL of 48 dB. The existing noise level at the interior of the project site is also a DNL of 48 dB. In order to determine the DNL at locations 1, 3 and 4 as depicted on Figure 3.6-1, the short-term 15-minute measurements were correlated with the 24- hour noise level measurement taken at location 2. Based on this comparison the DNL at locations 1, 3 and 4 was determined. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the results of the noise measurement program. ' The noise measurement program was conducted during the weekday because it is typically noisier than weekends. Although there may be a significant amount of recreational traffic on the weekends, it is unlikely that the 24-hour noise level (DNL) during the weekend would be higher than the DNL during the weekday. Acoustical Criteria Acoustical criteria are contained in the Contra Costa County Noise Element. The Contra Costa Noise Element contains goals,policies and implementation measures. According to Policy 11.1, new projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise standards established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in the Noise Element. Figure 3.6-2 is ' a reproduction of the County's table showing land use compatibility for community noise environments. The County's goal for "Normally Acceptable" outdoor noise levels in residential ' Day-Night Average Sound Level(DNL)--A descriptor established by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency to describe the average day-night level with a penalty applied to noise occurring during the nighttime hours(10:00 pm-7:00 am)to account for the increased sensitivity of people during sleeping hours. 3-109 i� I 61 gyp' I 1 `\ 1 I , � 1 1 \ I I •t J 1 ��t�•1� 1 1r `I I J CLUBHOUSE t a ®i 17 SITE 10\ PRACTICE a !�1 1 1 PAIR WAY = 11 In1 ,z I / 16 ' 7 1 z ' 13 I lan I 1 n \ 14 15 °� 3 I 1 I � 1 I 1 II . . I --- -- - - -_•_-_.� ----------------- ' CYPRESS LAKES AND Figure 3.6-1: COUNTRY CLUB Noise Measurement Locations ' PROJECT Source: Charles M Salter Associates 3-110 • IJ i1I areas is a DNL of 60 Db and for "Conditionally Acceptable" noise levels the County goal is a DNL of 70 dB. The interior goal is a DNL of 45 dB. Although the Contra Costa County Noise Element contains absolute noise level goals for determining land use compatibility, it is helpful to discuss the change in noise level when ' determining the impact of a project. For purposes of this analysis, a change in the DNL of 3 dB or less is considered barely perceptible and not a significant impact. A change of 4 to 5 dB is considered noticeable,.but only significant if the land use compatibility category changes from Table 3.6-1 Summary of Noise Measurements Cypress Lakes and Country Club 26-27 May 1992 A-Weighted Noise Levels (dB) Site Location Date/Time Lw Lto Lso L90 DNL 1 Between 4486 and 4508 Sandmound 25 May 1992 44 43 39 36 48* Blvd. 1:16-1:31 pm 30 feet east of roadway centerline End of Cypress Road 5-1/2 Feet above roadway elevation 2 30 feet east of Bethel Island Rd. 26 May 1992 72 77 67 44 -- roadway centerline 2:00=2:15 pm 1 1/2 mile south of Sandmound Blvd. 26-27 May 1992 71 75 63 42 75 11 feet above roadway elevation 3:00 pm 3 35 feet north of 2901 Cypress Rd. 26 May 1992 64 68 56 44 67* home facade 2:00-2:15 pm 50 feet south of Cypress Rd. roadway centerline 525 feet west of Bethel Island Rd. 5-1/2 feet above site elevation 4 feet above roadway elevation 4 Cypress Road Between Bethel 27 May 1992 46 49 41 39 48* Island Rd. and Sandmound Blvd. 4:36-4:46 pm Ambient measurement with no traffic 5412 feet above roadway elevation ' *Estimate based on simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise measurement location. 1 ' 3-111 Figure 3.6-2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS ' COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn OR CNEL,dB ' I 55 60 65 70 75 60 ............................... ................................ RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL-MULTI FAMILY Elm TRANSIENT LODGING- , MOTELS,HOTELS SCHOOLS LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT ------------------------ HALLS,AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA,OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES RIDING STABLES,WATER RECREATION,CEMETARIES OFFICE BUILDINGS BUSINESS =:>[ COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE F7 I I NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory,based upon the New construction or development should assumption that any buildings involved are of normal generally be discouraged.If new construction or conventional construction,without any special noise development does proceed,a detailed analysis insulation requirements. of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features ® included in the design. I CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE MM I New construction or development should be CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise New construction or development clearly should reduction requirements is made and needed noise not be undertaken. insulation features included in the design. I - - 1 3-112 �� "normally acceptable" to "conditionally acceptable," or "conditionally acceptable" to "normally unacceptable." A 6 dB change or more is considered significant regardless of the land use compatibility category. This change in noise level criterion is the threshold of significance for existing housing. IMPACTS Compatibility of Project with Future Noise Environment iThe proposed project would increase traffic noise on Cypress Road, Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. The proposed levee around the project perimeter wouid block noise ' from those off-site roadways, thereby reducing the noise levels on the project site to generally acceptable levels. One exception would be along the extension of Cypress.Road through the project site. Noise levels along this portion of the roadway would be considered conditionally acceptable for residential uses. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the change in noise levels along Cypress Road. As depicted in Table 3.6-2, the future noise level along the portion of Cypress Road within the project site would be 65 dB at approximately 40 feet, which is the typical building setback from the center line of a roadway. This situation would be 5 dB above the County's goal for normally acceptable outdoor noise levels but would be within "conditionally acceptable" noise levels. To avoid this potentially significant impact, the proposed project has incorporated an increased setback from the center line of Cypress Road within the project site. The proposed project design provides for a 100 foot setback from the center line of Cypress Road to the exterior walls of all residential uses located along Cypress Road. This setback would provide sufficient noise reduction so that noise levels would be within the "normally acceptable" range. ' Impacts of the Protect on Adjacent Land Uses Traffic Noise Existing residential land uses are located along Cypress Road, Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. Along Cypress Road, most of these residential uses are exposed to existing noise levels considered"conditionally acceptable" (see Table 3.6-1). Traffic noise levels 1 will increase by approximately four decibels along Cypress Road due to the project. The 4 dB increase would not be considered in and of itself a significant adverse impact of the project because the housing is already exposed to "conditionally acceptable" noise levels. However, the project would add to the already high noise levels along Cypress Road. By the year 2000, traffic noise could increase an additional 2 dB as a result of other approved and pending projects, for a total of 6 dB (DNL of 70 dB). A DNL of 70 dB under cumulative development would be on the border line of normally unacceptable and would be considered adverse on the existing residential uses along Cypress Road. 3-113 1 i i Table 3.6.2: Noise Levels at Project Site and Off-Site Residences for Various Scenarios DNL (DB) i Existing+ Approved+ Existing+ , Existing+ Pending Cumulative Roadway/Link Existing Project (2000) (2010) . Cypress Rd./Highway 4 to Bethel Island Road 64 68(+4 dB)2 70(+6 dB)2 69(+5)2 (typical nearest off-site residential are 80 ft. south of roadway centerline) Cypress Rd./Bethel Island Rd. to Sandmound Blvd. 48 65 65(+0 dB)2 65(+0 dB)2 (typical nearest off-sits residential would be 40 ft. from roadway centerline) Sandmound Blvd./Project entrance to Cypress Road 48 48(+0 dB)' 48(+0 dB)' 48(+0 dB)' (typical nearest off-site residential are 45 ft. from roadway centerline) ' Expected noise level change compared to existing scenario 2 Expected noise level change compared to existing+project scenario ' Noise levels along Bethel Island Road would increase 1 dB due to the project and by an additional 4 dB by the year 2000. There is currently one commercialfresidential land use across the site along Bethel Island Road. A 4 dB increase would not be considered a significant impact since the noise levels will remain in the "conditionally acceptable" range for the existing land use. Noise levels along Sandmound Boulevard would not increase as a result of the project , because minimal traffic from the project would use Sandmound Boulevard. Most traffic would exit the project site via the Cypress Road/Bethel Island Intersection. From a noise perspective, traffic volumes for cumulative growth (year 2010) in the area ' would not be significantly different than year 2000 traffic. According to the traffic volume information for the cumulative growth scenario, average daily traffic volumes along all three main roadways (Bethel Island, Sandmound, Cypress) would change by 20 percent or less when compared to the year 2000 traffic volumes. A 20 percent change corresponds to a change in noise levels of less than 1 dB along these roadways. Consequently, the additional growth between 2000 and 2010 would not create a significant incremental impact relative to the cumulative noise level in the year 2000. 3-114 Activity Noise Noise from general day-to-day activities at the proposed project would include people talking in backyards,people using the golf course, and possibly barking dogs. These sounds may have the potential to impact adjacent existing residences. However,this impact would only occur on-site. No off-site impacts would be expected to occur from these sources because the proposed levee would block most of these noises. Use of the levee trail may result in existing homes along Sandmound Boulevard near the southeast side of the site being exposed to increased noise levels as a result of activity on the levee trail. The noise level of the human voice during a conversation is 65 decibels at three feet. When existing residents along Sandmound Boulevard are in their outdoor use areas, voices from people using the new levee trail may be audible. Noise from the levee trail, however, would not increase the existing DNL at the homes along Sandmound. Noise from other activities on the levee trail, such,as dogs, would also not be considered a significant impact. 1 Construction Noise Construction of the site would occur in several phases. The first phase site preparation typically involves grading and paving. Equipment used during this phase would be heavy trucks, backhoes and other grading equipment. These typically generate maximum noise levels of 85 ' to 90 dB at 50 feet. Maximum noise levels at the nearest existing residential receptors along Sandmound Boulevard, and those properties surrounded by the site, could reach 85 to 90 dB when these equipment are operating near the property line. Typically, however, the equipment 1 would be in excess of several hundred feet from the these locations and noise levels would be much lower. The second phase includes foundation work. Noise levels during this phase would ' be similar to Phase I. The third phase is construction of the buildings. During framing, maximum noise levels ranged from 80 to 85 dB at 50 feet. Noise levels would be loudest when activities are occurring nearest Sandmound Boulevard and around the homes surrounded by the project. Due to the relatively low existing noise levels on and along the east side of the project site, construction noise would be clearly audible and considered a significant short-term impact. MITIGATION MEASURES ' The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential noise impacts of the project to acceptable levels. ' Cyoress Road Off-Site Existing residences along Cypress Road are exposed to "conditionally acceptable" noise levels (64 dB). The proposed project would add an additional 4 dB (68 dB) to the existing condition with other development by the year 2000 adding an additional 2 dB (70 dB), for a total ' of 10 dB over the County 60 dB goal for residential uses. Since the existing noise levels along ' 3-115 - 1 Cypress Road are above the County standard, the proposed project should not be required to fully mitigate this pre-existing condition. However, the project, plus other development on the Bethel Island Area will contribute to this adverse impact and should be required to mitigate their fair share as follows: 3.6-1 Noise mitigation installed (soundwalls, architectural treatments), along Cypress Road for the project entrance to Sellers Road should be designed to achieve the I County's 60 dB goal for residential uses. The proposed project should be required to pay 40% of the total cost of noise mitigation for houses along Cypress. This is based on the calculation that the project will contribute 4 dB to the ultimate 70 dB noise level along Cypress Road which is 10 dB over the County's 50 dB goal. The remaining 60% of the cost should be paid by the County (40%) and future I development (20%). The project's prorata share of noise mitigation should be paid at the time of filing each phased final map. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County/Project Applicant) Construction Noise In order to reduce construction period noise impacts the following mitigation should be , implemented: , 3.6-2 a. All general construction activity should be limited to the hours of 7:30 Ia.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays only. b. Operations of an machine or device which generates a noise level eater , P Y g greater than 95 dB at 50 feet should be prohibited wherever feasible. IC. Route heavy construction traffic along existing Cypress Road and the Iproposed Cypress road to minimize the impact on existing residences. No construction traffic should be routed along Bethel Island Road or Sandmound Boulevard. d. Prohibit construction trucks from parking along existing Cypress Road ' west of the project entrance. e. Locate noisy stationary equipment, such as compressors or pumping ' stations away from existing residences to reduce their noise impact. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) , While the above mitigation will reduce construction period noise, there would still be some times during construction of the project that noise levels would result in temporary, short- ' term, adverse .impacts on adjacent residences. This temporary, short-term impact would be unavoidable. 3-116 i Cvpress Road On-Site 3.6-3 In order to avoid adverse noise levels at homes to be located along the extension of Cypress Road through the project, the project has been designed to provide a 100 foot set-back along Cypress Road. The 100 foot set-back would be from the center line of the roadway to the nearest exterior wall of each residence located along Cypress Road. The 100 foot set-back would reduce the noise level at these residences to a DNL of 60 dB which is consistent with the County's noise goals ' for residential uses. No additional mitigation is necessary or proposed. 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 3-117 i 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE ' EXISTING SETTING The following discussions regarding the existing drainage, levee and water quality characteristics of the project site and surrounding areas is summarized from a number of ' published and unpublished sources including: Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lakes Proiect, Kleinfelder, Inc., August 1992, and Informational Report for the Proposed Levee System, Bohley/Maley Associates, 1992. These reports are contained in Appendix E. , Independent technical review was provided by Bohley/Maley Associates. Drainage PROJECT SITE The project site is essentially flat ranging from almost ten feet below to 24 feet above mean sea level in one small localized area. The soils underlying the project site are composed I of a sandy-silt with some areas exhibiting minor amounts of clay. The soils are generally loose ' in the upper 15 feet and become.medium dense to dense with greater depth. Groundwater elevations vary with the seasons -- the depth becoming greater during late summer due to no ' rainfall and withdrawal of groundwater for irrigation purposes. Existing drainage is presently handled by drainage ditches that traverse the project site ' and eventually lead to Reclamation District 799 (RD-799) pumps located along Sand Mound Slough and Dutch Slough (see Figure 3.7-1). These pumps lift the waters over either the Sand Mound or Dutch Slough levees to ultimate disposal into the waters of the Delta. In general, the storm drainage system within the Hotchkiss Tract area is adequate to carry present flows, . however, some localized flooding does occur in low areas (near some pump stations), and along Sandmound Boulevard during storm periods. The site is characterized as a "Zone A22" flood area under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),Flood Insurance Rate Map. This characterization recognizes that ' the project area is susceptible to inundation to a depth of seven feet above mean sea level from either floodwater or high tides overtopping the RD-799 levee system. Under the present regulations of the County of Contra Costa, development of the project site cannot occur without provision of adequate protection from inundation as well as the establishment of an internal drainage system. Reclamation District 799 Reclamation District 799 is responsible for maintenance and operation of flood control and drainage systems on Hotchkiss Tract. This includes maintenance of the 6.7 miles of existing levees. Several major channels traversing the area cant' water from tributary ditches in a generally northerly direction to four pump stations and two adjacent to Dutch Slough, and two 1 I 3-118 ' I �c Franks Tract ' Franks Tract o u r O t o � / Pump Station- B hel island • • Jersey Island \\ N. •o Lake ` �,\\\• cetta/ej I • .:r--SaNy L �1 ". .R Le. t �..✓•%oVc a r oA * S► Detr•a,....r► Pltmp Statim Pum Dvtc�Sfov�.ResO k �/� Statlpr[ Pump Station; ~ Rent Itw t•� -`✓ ' `=•= " Holland Trac[ Project Pump Station :.. Area c'..Road \, ^ .� tio — .�w Pump Stati Figure 3.7-1: CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY Existing Drainage Facilities in the Project Area CLUB PROJECT 3-119 1 adjacent to Sand Mound Slough (See Figure 3.7-1) In general, the storm drainage system capacity in the area is adequate to carry present flows, however, some localized flooding occurs in low areas during storm periods. Reclamation District 799 has a current budget of $156,000, of which the budget for Iengineering is $25,000. Assessments are based on the reclamation benefit provided to the land, not on County property tax valuation. The District's current assessment .rolls are based on benefits provided to several large agricultural parcels and smaller residential lot parcels along Dutch and Sand Mound Sloughs. (Reclamation District 799, Mar. 11, 1992) Adopted Policies Regarding Storm Drainage The Public Services/Facilities, Growth Management and Conservation Elements of the General Plan contain adopted goals, policies and implementation measures to protect the public from the hazards of flooding and to provide a surface water drainage system for projected growth in the County. These Elements of the General Plan overlap to a great extent, and all need to be consulted for a full understanding of County policies regarding flood control, waterways and riparian areas. The following excerpts list only those goals, policies and implementation , measures which are most specifically relevant to the proposed project. Consistency of the project with these goals, policies and implementation measures is discussed in the Impacts section (see page 3-127). • To employ alternative drainage systems improvements which rely on increased retention capacity to lessen or eliminate the need for structural modifications to watercourses, whenever economically possible. (Goal 7-Q) • To enhance opportunities for public accessibility and recreational use of creeks, streams, drainage channels and other drainage system improvements. (Goal 7-R) • To ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs related to increased runoff created by the development. (Goal 7-T) • To support the concept that existing development pays the cost of building and maintaining drainage improvements required to serve existing developed areas.- (Goal 7-U) • Land use plans and zoning shall be the primary means for floodplain management in preference to structural improvements, where possible. (Policy 7-40) • Alternative drainage system improvements such as floodplains, leveed floodways, bypass channels and culverts, and detention basins, shall be incorporated into new flood control plans and existing plans as they are revised. (Policy 7-41) 3-120 'I f • Aesthetic, environmental and recreational benefits shall be taken into full consideration when determining the costs and benefits of alternative drainage system improvements. (Policy 7-42) • New development should be required to finance its legal share of the full costs of ' drainage improvements necessary to accommodate projected peak flows due to the project. Reimbursement from subsequent developments which benefit from the added capacity may be provided. (Policy 7-45) ' On-site water control shall be required of major new developments so that no significant increase in peak flows occurs compared to the site's pre-development condition, unless ' the Planning Agency determines that off-site measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts expected from the development or the project is implementing an adopted drainage plan. (Policy 7-46) • Regional detention basins shall be favored over smaller, on-site detention basins. (Policy 7-47) • Open bypass channels, detention basins and all drainage facility rights of way which are provided at different locations in order to supplement existing natural creeks should be developed as an asset to the development, e.g., as a secondary recreation use. (Policy 7-49) • Public access to watercourses shall be required of major new developments when liability, security and maintenance issues can be satisfactorily resolved. (Policy 7-51) ' Detention basins shall be designed for multiple uses such as parks and play fields when not used for holding water, if liability and maintenance issues can be satisfactorily resolved. (Policy 7-52) • All residential and non-residential uses proposed in areas of special flood hazards, as ' shown on FEMA maps, shall conform to the requirements of County Floodplain management applied to all ordinances, approved entitlement (land use permits, tentative, final and parcel maps, development plan permits, and variances) and ministerial permits (building and grading permits). (Policy 7-57) • Create benefit assessment districts to pay for drainage maintenance activities resulting ' from new developments that require maintenance above the County standard maintenance activities. (Implementation Measure 7-ad) ' Encourage public fee ownership of all open, government maintained drainage facilities to ensure that the adjacent developing properties contain sufficient usable area to meet the specified land use and to provide for secondary use as recreational and visual resources. (Implementation Measure 7-ag) 3-121 I • Protect. natural channels that are not to be maintained by government by requiring ' dedicated development rights; protect storm drain pipes by requiring drainage easements; and seek to secure open government-maintained facilities by fee title land rights. (Implementation Measure 7-ah) • Encourage integrated pest and weed management methods which reduce or eliminate the ' use of pesticides and herbicides for watercourse maintenance. (Implementation Measure 7-al) The Conservation Element sets forth the following selected goals and policies. Consistency of the project with these goals and policies is discussed in the Impacts section (see page 3-127). To employ alternative drainage system improvements which rely on increased retention capacity to lessen or eliminate the need for structural modifications to watercourses, whenever economically possible. (Goal 8-W) • To enhance opportunities for public accessibility and recreational use of creeks, streams, , drainage channels and other drainage system improvements. (Goal 8-X) • Riparian habitat shall be protected by providing for channel cross-sections adequate to carry 100-year flows, as per policies contained in the Public Facilities/Services Element. If it is not possible to provide a channel cross section sufficient to carry the 100-year flow, then detention basins should be developed. (Policy 8-82) • On-site water control shall be required of major new developments so that no increase in peak flows occurs relative to the site's pre-development condition, unless the Planning , Agency determines that off-site measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts. (Policy 8-87) Existing Levee The project area is located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is partially ' encompassed by a levee system maintained by Reclamation Distract 799. These levees were built in the early 1900's to protect RD-799 properties from tidal action and from storm runoff within , the Delta. The District has the responsibility for protecting approximately 3,000 acres and is operated under the provisions of Section 50000 of the Water Code of the State of California. In addition to levee maintenance, the Reclamation District also provides pumping services for the disposal of stormwaters and excess irrigation water that collects behind the levees. With a 1991- 1992 fiscal year budget of$156,000, the resources of the District are limited. Monies for general District maintenance and pumping are generated by assessments on lands within the District on the basis of the benefits received by each individual property owner. 1 3-122 I ,I I The average elevation of RD-799 is on the order of three feet below sea level with the landward properties,which include the project area,being surrounded by approximately six miles e of levees and four miles (which includes Contra Costa Canal) of higher ground. The project area contains both the highest and lowest points within the District, those being 24 feet above sea level and ten feet below sea level respectively. The levee system of the District currently does ' not meet the standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in regard to either the Short Term Hazard Mitigation Plan Levee (HMP) or the Urban Standard Levee. In order for existing development to maintain eligibility for federal funds for a declared disaster, RD-799 levees must comply with the HMP design standard level. Additionally, in order to comply with the Federal Flood Insurance Program and County policy, all new development within the existing flood plain must be protected by an Urban Standard Levee or have the habitable floor of all structures at ten feet, or greater, above mean sea level. For purposes of the Federal Flood Insurance Program, FEMA will only recognize those levee systems that meet, and continue to meet,minimum design,operation, and maintenance standards that are consistent with the level of protection required. The existing levees within RD-799 generally have crest elevations and side slopes that are neither consistent with the stated standards of the District nor comply with the requirements of FEMA for an Urban Standard Levee. This existing situation could result in overtopping and/or levee breaching as a result of high tides, earthquakes, heavy rains, low tides and dry conditions, lack of maintenance and damage by vectors. Levee breaching usually occurs as a result of vector damage which occurs in non-urban areas due to poor maintenance. To date, seismic activity alone has not caused a levee breach in the Delta area. In addition, no ' overtopping or breaching has occurred on the Hotchkiss Tract. Additionally,encroachments onto the existing RD-799 levees by adjacent property owners make it extremely difficult for RD-799 to increase the physical proportions of the levees to increase their stability and reliability. This ' situation has resulted in the Hotchkiss Tract being exposed to potential flood hazards. A study was initiated in December, 1988 by both the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District and RD-799 to survey and enumerate levee encroachments within their respective areas of,jurisdiction. The Phase I report entitled, "Encroachment Study, Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract", was made available in March 1990 and indicates that, at a minimum, ten private structures within RD-799 presently encroach within the future Urban Standard Levee cross section. The Phase II portion of the study, dated April 1992, identifies the specific location on the present levee where it does not meet the HMP levee height standards. It also shows the approximately 13,000 linear feet of existing levees that do not meet the height requirements of the Urban Standard Levee. ' It has been estimated that a cost of$2,000,000 per mile of levee would be required,to bring the existing levees in RD-799 to the FEMA Urban Standard Levee level of protection. Current estimates of the cost to upgrade the existing levee total approximately $10,000,000(Ron Heinzen, Kleinfelder). This is a very preliminary estimate made without a detailed engineering and construction cost review. At this time due to recent state and federal budget cuts there are no funds available to assist in levee rehabilitation. All rehabilitation costs would need to come 3-123 1 from currently assessed property owners and future development within the district. In order to ' arrive at a more precise cost,extensive geotechnical and civil engineering must be accomplished. It is likely that the actual cost of repairs will be much higher once more information is gathered. , Reports prepared by RD-799 to date, are a start in that direction, but are primarily for identifying encroachments on the existing levees and not for performing soils borings to identify soils related problems. The time it could take to compile a report and to design corrective measures for the , existing RD-799 levees, so that the report and design could be used to apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA, could take on the order of 2-3 years. A formal submittal to FEMA for a CLOMR for earthen levees includes, as a minimum, the following: ' • Evidence of sufficient freeboard. • Proof that all drainage structures penetrating the levee are fitted with closure devices. • Demonstration that no appreciable erosion of the embankment will occur during the 100-year flood. • Evaluation of the stability of the levee embankment and foundation. , I • Engineering analysis of freeboard loss due to settlement. • A levee design consistent with FEMA standards. The most extensive, costlyand difficult submittals to prepare would be the evaluation of , P P the stability of the levee embankment and foundation and evidence of sufficient freeboard. The evaluation would include extensive soils borings and other methods to determine levee stability. The urban side of the levee has been built up and many of the existing structures, improvements, residences and yards would be disturbed or removed to conduct this evaluation. Evidence of , sufficient freeboard would include an identifiable source of an adequate amount of engineered fill and material. Many different sources may be necessary to gather a sufficient amount of material and fill. , In a very preliminary estimate,all permits and performance of work necessary to upgrade the RD-799 levees would take on the order of seven to ten years at an estimated low cost of $20,000,000 (Bohley/Maley Associates, 1992). Extensive environmental review (such as environmental impact report or environmental impact statement) would also need to occur. However, simply addressing the approximately six miles of RD-799 existing levees would not , remove the project site from the flood-plain. For example, the Contra Costa Canal (which is approximately 3 miles south of the project site) does not meet FEMA standards either. The side slopes or banks of the Contra Costa Canal would likely permit the flow of floodwaters in the event the levees adjacent to the project site fail. 3-124 I I The corrective measures would also have to address how to alleviate potential flooding that could occur from the south and west as well as disposal of the 100 year rainfall event that would occur within RD-799 itself. Additionally, in order to obtain a levee certified by FEMA to allow the removal of lands from the flood hazard zone, there can be no encroachments on the levees. This would require the condemnation and removal of existing structures and improvements on the levees within the District. At the present time, there is controversy over the"greenhouse effect," scientific theory that global warming may cause melting of the polar ice caps which could result in a rise in sea level within the next century. Some experts theorize that long term climatological changes are due to result in substantial melting of the polar ice caps. The Bay Conservation and- Development. ' Commission (BCDC) indicates that the amount of rise may be from 2 to 8 feet in the next 100 year period. There is considerable uncertainty, however, in the magnitude and rate of this change, and simply picking a specific sea level rise in this range would be speculative. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests a middle of the range estimate increase of four feet. The effects of such a change should be considered in flood control planning. ' Ground Subsidence Ground subsidence is a widespread problem throughout the Delta. Prior to construction of the existing levee system in the area, the Delta was near sea level. Today, much of the Delta is below sea level as a result of various factors including natural gas and groundwater withdrawal as well as, oxidation of organic materials in the soil (such as peat soils), wind erosion, ' agricultural practices, and general consolidation following the lowering of the groundwater table (USGS, 1991). The preliminary soils report for the project area indicates that there are nominal peat soils within the proposed limits of the new levees (see Section 3.8 of this EIR). However, ' because the project site and Hotchkiss Tract is on the edge of the delta, ground subsidence has not been as significant as in other areas of the Delta. Contra Costa County General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan, Safety Element, sets forth the County's policies regarding flood hazards. The County's flood hazard policies most applicable to the proposed project include the following. Consistency of the project with these policies is discussed in the Impacts section below. • The areas designated on Figure 10-8 shall be considered inappropriate for conventional ' urban development due to unmitigated flood hazards as defined by FEMA. Applications for development at urban or suburban densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life shall demonstrate appropriate solutions or be denied. (Policy 10-33) • In mainland areas along the rivers and bays affected by water backing up into the watercourse,it shall be demonstrated prior to development that adequate protection exists ' either through levee protection or change of elevation. (Policy 10-35) 3-125 I • Flood-proofing of structures shall be required in any area subject to flooding; this shall ' occur both adjacent to watercourses as well as in the Delta or along the waterfront. I (Policy 10-38) • Buildings in urban development near the shoreline and in flood-prone areas shall be protected from flood dangers, including consideration of rising sea levels caused by the , greenhouse effect. (Policy 10-41) • Habitable areas of structures near the shore line and in flood-prone areas shall be cited above the highest water level expected during the life of the project,or shall be protected ' for the expected life of the project by levees of an adequate design. (Policy 10-42) • Right-of-way for levees protecting inland areas from tidal flooding shall be sufficiently . ' wide on the upland side to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height. (Policy 10-43) • In accordance with the following policies, the General Plan shall not permit a substantial non-agricultural, residential population to be subjected to increased flood hazard due to , subsidence. (Policy 10-47) • Low density development of lands subject to subsidence shall take into account and fully mitigate the potential impacts of flooding based on the best currently available techniques. (Policy 10-48) • Any development approvals for areas subject to subsidence shall include conditions which , account for the need to support Delta reclamation and irrigation districts, and to _ strengthen weak and low levees prior to development. (Policy 10-49) , • In order to protect lives and property,intensive urban and suburban development shall not be permitted in reclaimed areas-unless flood protection in such areas is constructed, at a minimum, to the standards of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Levees protecting these areas shall meet the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ' (Policy 10-51) • The potential effects of dam or levee failure are so substantial that geologic and ' engineering investigation shall be warranted as a prerequisite for authorizing public and private construction of either public facilities or private development in affected areas. (Policy 10-55) Dam and levee failure as well as potential inundation from tsunamis and seiche shall be ' I I • a significant consideration of the appropriateness of land use proposals. (Policy 10-56) ' Dams and levees should be designed to withstand the forces of anticipated (design) earthquakes at their locations. (Policy 10-57) ' I 3-126 li f, Water Quality The project site lies within the vicinity of three sloughs that are part of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. Approximately 1,600 feet to the north lies Dutch Slough while one-half mile south lies Rock Slough. Sand Mound Slough parallels the eastern side of the property and is approximately 300 feet to the east. The present agricultural use of the property takes irrigation water from Dutch Slough through an existing channel traversing properties to the northwest. Dutch Slough salinities have been elevated on a number of occasions; the most recent significant event was during the 1976-77 drought. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources keep records of salinity measurements in Dutch Slough,and have documented high salinity intrusion there and else where in the Delta(Arthur Jensen,Contra Costa Water District). Stormwater and excess irrigation runoff utilizes the same channel that trends toward Dutch ' Slough as well as an existing channel that essentially bisects the property in an east-west direction and another channel that parallels the southerly boundary of the property. Both of the latter channels discharge into Sand Mound Slough by means of pumps that are maintained by RD-799. Sand Mound Slough is connected to Dutch Slough on the north but has been diked off from Rock Slough on the south in order to maintain a higher level of water quality in Rock Slough. Rock slough is the main feeder for water to the Contra Costa Canal which is the ' domestic water source for the Contra Costa Water District. The dike at the Sandmound/Rock Slough junction is a hydraulic structure with one-way tide gates. these gates are designed to prevent salt water intrusion from Sand Mound Slough into Rock Slough, while enabling tidal flushing of Sand Mound Slough. A number of respondents to the Notice of Preparation stated that the existing water quality of Sand Mound Slough is of concern. IMPACTS The following discussions regarding the proposed project's impacts on drainage, levees I and water quality is summarized from published and unpublished sources with technical assistance from Bohley/Maley Associates. Drainage ' On-Site Impacts The proposed project would comprise approximately 1,330 residential units coupled with ' a golf course and water oriented amenities. The water amenities would consist of linear channels traversing the length of the project and ending in a lake. This channel/lake system, consisting of approximately 60 surface acres, would act as a retention basin that would retain peak stormwater flows (see Figure 3.7-2). Certain areas of the golf course would also provide additional short term stormwater detention capabilities for those storms that produce runoff in excess of that able to be contained by the channels/lake. 3-127 ,-SANpM 1 ' I CHANNELS/LAKE l I .........:". II p I I C) I I o II • 1 II �� J � coI ' I ' > LEVEE ' i i m (TYP.) � i 7:3- 0 o Q ' o \\ co . . 1 PUMP i FORCE Q ' STATION MAIN �C VIP I I ;:. :,;..;;.:. " 3 OUTLET I I I - 1 STRUCTURE ::::i;:':r,':+.:azo„ 1 ..iii.. .. II 1 II \� -------------------J i ____________---_____ ------� Figure 3.7-2: ' CYPRESS LAKES & Proposed Drainage Facilities COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT 3-128 Source: Bohley/Maley Associates The proposed water surface of the channels/lake would be held at approximately the elevation of the existing groundwater table. Drainage from the proposed development would be collected in underground pipes and transmitted to either the channels or the lake. De-watering structures would be constructed where the underground pipes enter either the channels or the lake in order to facilitate the cleaning of the pipes (see the Water Quality section, page 3-139). Although the proposed project would increase the area of impermeable surfaces at the project site, the project's proposed channel/lake system and a comprehensive storm drainage ' network would accommodate the project's increase in runoff and reduce the amount of runoff off-site. On-site storm drainage that previously was collected in ditches and flowed off-site to RD-799 pumps, would, for the most part, be collected on site and terminate in the proposed channel/lake system. This would result in an overall reduction in the amount of stormwater from the project site entering RD-799 drainage facilities. The proposed golf course would also include some storm drainage detention capacity. During storm periods when excess water accumulates in the channels and lake, waters from the lake would then be pumped to ultimate disposal in Sand Mound Slough by a pump station that would be constructed as part of the development. The pump station is intended to be built in the southeast portion of the project, and would be capable of providing the requisite protection from flooding from the 100 year storm event, and have emergency power capabilities built into the station. ' Impacts to Reclamation District 799 Both the peak and long term flows to the existing RD-799 pumps serving the project area would be reduced because all drainage originating within the project area levees would flow into the channel-lake system and be pumped to Sand Mound Slough by the project pump station. That portion of the rainfall that falls on the exterior slopes of the proposed levee system would ' continue to be directed to the existing RD-799 pumps by providing a toe ditch along the exterior of the proposed levee system. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an overall reduction in the current drainage impacts of the site on RD-799 facilities. ' Relationship to the Contra Costa County General Plan ' The proposed project is consistent with the following County goals and policies regarding storm drainage as presented previously under Existing Setting in this section: • The proposed drainage facilities are adequate to mitigate the increased stormwater runoff that would be generated by the project and would reduce the current amount of runoff from the project site that would enter RD-799 drainage facilities. (consistent with Goal 7-T, 7-U, Policy 7-45) • The project would provide on-site water control through the construction of a lake and ' channels to provide o.n-site detention facilities. (consistent with Policy 7-46, 7-47, 8-87) 3-129 1 i t • The proposed lake and channels which would act as detention facilities would be open ' to the public and provide multiple use. (consistent with Goal 7-Q,7-R, 8-W, 8-X; Policy 7-41, 7-42, 7-49, 7-51, 7-52: measure lag) • The project proposes to create a maintenance district made up of the property owners to fund the maintenance of the storm drainage facilities, if the facilities are not dedicated to ' the County. (consistent with mitigation measures lad, lag and 7ah) • To ensure that the system would provide adequate flood control and drainage facilities, , all new conveyances would meet RD-799 criteria. (consistent with mitigation measures B-25, 30 and 31) • Maintenance of the lake and channels will avoid the use of pesticides and herbicides ' through the implementation of alternative water quality management practices. (consistent with implementation measure 7-al) (see Water Quality discussion below) ' • The proposed lake and channels would be designed to accommodate the 100-years storm event within their cross-section. (consistent with Policy 8-82). ' Policy 7-57 is not applicable since the project site will be removed from a special flood , hazard area by the construction of an internal levee system. The project would also be consistent with the County's growth management requirements , that all projects finance the full cost of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. Internal Levee ' The Bethel Island Planning Area is located in a designated floodplain. The County , General Plan preclude substantial residential development until the project area is removed from the floodplain. The General Plan permits the construction of internal levees to accomplish this requirement. The project site is proposed to be removed from the floodplain through the ' construction of an internal levee (see Figure 3.7-3). Material for the construction of the levee would be obtained from the excavation of the interior lake and channel. Rock will not be utilized for the levee and is not required by FEMA for an urban levee such as that proposed. Rock is ' generally placed on the exterior slope of the water side of a levee to protect it from erosion. The proposed levee will be built on dry ground and not adjacent to any waterway. The internal levee would be constructed to FEMA standards for an Urban Standard Levee. FEMA is the agency responsible for approving the proposed internal levee. FEMA approval is necessary before the site can be removed from the flood zone. Once an application for removal , of the property from the flood hazard zone is received by FEMA, it is passed onto its local engineer for review. The engineer uses the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its review. The standards vary according to each proposed levee. In defining the applicable I 3-130 ' I I '- I BETHEL ISLAND iDUTCH SLOUGH o { a 0 Ix o J V In � m PROJECT ? SITE a HOLLANC ' CYPRESS ROAD c TRAC- I z c PROJECT LEVEE ` RECLAMATION DISTR!CT NO. _ ' BOUNDARY PROJECT LOCATION ' '10 SCALE PROPERTY 1 3:, HEIGW OF IEVEE VARIES DEPENDING ON IX.GROUND ELEVATIONS. i = I MAX �.I7t ' TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION NO SCALE ' Figure 3.7-3: CYPRESS LAKES & Proposed Levee System COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT ' Source: Bohley/Maley Associates 3-131 i standards, the levee type, location and any other unique characteristics it may entail are taken into ' I account. Generally, the standards require the following: , 1. Freeboard - Must demonstrate adequate freeboard. ' 2. Closures - Evidence that demonstrates that all drainage structures that may penetrate the levee are fitted with closure devices that are structural parts of the , levee during operation and designed according to sound engineering practice. 3. Erosion Protection-An engineering analysis that demonstrates that no appreciable ' erosion of the levee embankment can be expected during the 100-year flood. 4. Stability - An engineered analysis that evaluates the stability of the levee ' embankment and foundation. 5. Settlement-An engineering analysis that assesses the potential for,and magnitude , of, losses of freeboard that may result from settlement of the levee and that demonstrates that the minimum required freeboard will be maintained. ' 6. Operations and Maintenance - A formal operations and maintenance plan. FEMA requirements for an Urban Standard Levee are also outlined in the Informational , Report prepared by Bohley/Maley Associates contained in Appendix E. In order to comply with the above standards and other standards that may be applied due ' to the unique characteristics of the proposed internal levee, the following issues will need to be addressed with FEMA: crest top elevation and potential settlement, potential changes in ' groundwater flow, seismic resistance, and operations and maintenance. ICrest Elevation and Potential Settlement The project proposes to construct its perimeter levee to a crest elevation of+10.2 which is the stated ultimate elevation of levees within RD-799 and is 0.2 feet higher than the FEMA ' required levee. This would afford a 3.2 foot freeboard from the accepted 100 year flood elevation of+7.0 feet above mean sea level. To accommodate the possible effects of global warming and a consequent rise in the , ocean levels and possible soil subsidence(settlement),the proposed perimeter levee system would be setback twenty feet from the project boundaries to allow for future construction of an ' additional four feet of levee height. 3-132 o Il The additional four feet would be achieved by adding material to the outside of the levee in sufficient quantity so that an additional four feet would be provided in levee height. No change to the interior side of the levee would be necessary to raise the levee height four feet. To raise the levee four feet would reduce the 20 feet of setback provided between the levee and - project boundary. The toe-ditch at the base of the levee to catch storm runoff would need to be relocated to the base of the raised levee. A new levee, by virtue of its weight, may settle the underlying soils during the construction process. If settlement occurs, the levee would be raised to the required crest elevation. Consolidation to the underlying soils of the levees are expected to be on the order of 1 to 4 inches. (Kleinfelder, 1992) This consolidation would primarily occur with the lateral limits of the levees and would decrease with depth. The consolidation would occur during initial levee construction but would ' not have any effect on adjacent structures given the distance that existing structures are from the proposed location of the new levee. Groundwater The proposed project would have a short-term (3 to 6-months), localized impact on ' groundwater during excavation activities for the levee, channels and lake. The areas affected would be those immediately under and adjacent to areas where excavation would occur (internal levee, channels and lake). Subsurface waters would be dewatered during excavation of these areas. The project proposes to install a dewatering trench on the project side of the proposed levee. The depth of this trench will depend on ground surface and the depth of groundwater but is not expected to be more than 20 feet deep. Therefore, dewatering activities would only affect groundwater within the top 20 feet. Dewatering activities for the project would not impact domestic wells around the project site because these wells are generally deeper than 20 feet. The localized dewatering activities would also not affect adjacent properties because the dewatering would occur far enough from existing residences and any draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering area. To confirm that dewatering activities would not have an impact on groundwater levels in the vicinity of adjacent residences, ' the project includes the following monitoring program: • Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed on an approximate 200 foot spacing, as close to existing residences as possible. It is preferred that the monitoring wells be locked and located east of Sandmound Boulevard, close to the residences. ' The monitoring wells will be monitoring daily for one-week prior to beginning construction to establish a trend and tidal affect on groundwater levels. ' Should the monitoring wells indicate a drop in the groundwater level of 3 to 4 feet adjacent to any residence during dewatering, then water will be discharged into the dewatering ditch to stabilize the groundwater level. 3-133 I I Once dewatering activities are concluded, the groundwater would rise to natural ' groundwater level. The construction of the new internal levee system would have minimal impact on groundwater. Consolidation may occur under the weight of the new levee material. This consolidation would have a minimal effect on near surface groundwater transmissivity by ' reducing the permeability of the soils directly under the levee (to a depth of approximately 20 feet). This effect would not be considered significant and would not affect deep groundwater resources which are at a depth of approximately 200 feet (Bohley/Maley Associates, 1992). The consolidation would only occur during construction of the levee and, possibly, for one or two years thereafter. Seismic Resistance Damage to levees from earthquakes is a function of a number of interrelated factors which ' include the earthquake magnitude, its acceleration, the duration of shaking, local ground conditions, and the configuration and orientation of the levee itself. Section 3.8 of this EIR identifies the Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) and the Maximum Credible Earthquake , (MCE) for the project site and states that the site is located in an area with a high potential for liquefaction. FEMA would require that the effects of seismicity on the proposed levee be a part of the data that they would review to determine compliance with their standards. To date, there ' has not been a circumstance where a levee breach has been caused by seismic activity alone in the surrounding delta area. To minimize potential damage to the proposed levee system from earthquake activity, ' construction of the levees would involve reworking and densifying the loose, clean and silty ' I' sands under the levee which are generally encountered to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. This construction technique would minimize the potential for liquefaction beneath the perimeter levee in the event of an earthquake. ' Maintenance For a levee to be recognized by FEMA as providing required protection to an area, the ' levee must be maintained in accordance with an officially adopted maintenance plan. All maintenance activities must be under the jurisdiction of a Federal or State agency, an agency ' created by Federal or State law, or an agency of a community participating in the Federal Flood Insurance Program that must assume ultimate responsibility for maintenance. This plan must document the formal procedure that ensures that the stability, height, and overall integrity of the ' levee and its associated structures and systems are maintained. At a minimum, maintenance plans shall specify the maintenance activities to be performed, the frequency of their performance, and the person by name or title responsible for their performance. The most local , agency that could provide maintenance of the internal levee system would be RD-799, since it is already involved in levee maintenance and repair and is an "...agency created by ... State law...". However, since there would be maintenance requirements for other non-levee related ' 3-134 ' 1. i I' works (stormwater pump station,lake water quality,common area landscaping,street lights,etc.), it appears prudent to combine the project. This can be done under the auspices of one "agency" which could be a Maintenance District formed under Section 5820 of the Streets and Highways Code with boundaries the same as the project itself. The project can remain within RD-799 for internal and external/perimeter levee maintenance and repair purposes. ' Impact on Existing Levee and Residents The proposed project will not have an impact on the condition of the existing RD-799 levee since the project site is not located adjacent to that levee. The internal levee will remove approximately 689 acres from the approximately 3,000 acres within RD-799. If the existing. levee fails, the project area will be protected by the proposed internal levee. The proposed levee and project site would provide those individuals outside of the project who would remain in the flood plain with a closer evacuation opportunity than presently exists. ' A failure of the existing levee which may cause major flooding is speculative and impacts of such an event cannot be fully quantified. The Informational Report contained in Appendix F, analyzes a possible scenario of a RD-799 levee breach with the proposed project levee in place. A levee failure caused by overtopping or a breach could result from a number of factors: high tide, earthquakes, heavy rains, lack of maintenance, and damage by rodents and small ' animals. Levee failure can also occur during low tides and dry conditions. A breach will also vary in size. A small breach caused by animals is likely to allow an insignificant amount of water through the levee. Such a breach is generally detected early and repaired in a short amount ' of time, minimizing the flood potential. A breach caused by heavy and consistent rainfall may result in a greater potential for flooding. However, this type of scenario is likely to permit adequate time to re-support the levee if a breach is suspected. The levee could be supported with sandbags, rip-rap or built up to add protection. A poorly maintained levee subject to heavy and consistent rainfall and/or a serious earthquake, that experiences a breach is also likely to experience erosion beginning at the breach. In this situation, the breach would be more difficult to address due to the degree and rate of erosion. The most common cause of a levee breach on a non-urban levee is due to lack of ' maintenance and damage by rodents and small animals. The existing levee is properly and regularly maintained by RD-799 and thus, is not subject to the most common cause of levee failure. A serious levee breach of the existing levee that would put the existing residents at risk of a serious flood is unlikely because the existing levee is properly maintained. Hotchkiss Tract ' is part of the mainland but is protected by levees on all sides, including the northerly levee along Dutch Slough, the easterly levee along Sand Mound Slough, the southerly levee along Rock ' Slough, the westerly levee along Little Dutch Slough and the Contra Costa Water District Canal. These levees separate Hotchkiss Tract from water in sloughs that vary from 200-300 feet in width and are not large masses of water. To date, no overtopping or breaching has occurred on Hotchkiss Tract. (Hienzen, 1992) 3-135 i � 1 Presently, there is approximately 14,754 acre feet of floodwater storage volume below 1 elevation +7 in RD-799 given its 3,000 acre extent and an average elevation of 3 feet below mean sea level. With the project in place, there would be a reduction-of approximately 3,382 ' acre feet of volume. As discussed in the Informational Report in Appendix E, in the event of a levee breach or failure of the existing RD-799 levee directly across from the project site along Sandmound ' Boulevard, the proposed project and levee system would alter the direction of flow of flood waters and the amount of time necessary to flood the area within RD-799. It is important to note ' that flood waters would gravitate to the lowest point in the area which is along Sandmound Boulevard, producing a flood depth of 5 feet, if mean sea level is assumed to be the equilibrium point between tidal cycles (Bohley/Maley Associates, 1992). The flood depth would not increase ' as a result of the project. According to the Informational Report in Appendix E, removal of the project site from ' the floodplain would increase the rate by which the rest of the floodplain would be flooded in the event of a levee breach. This is because removal of the project site would reduce the amount of water necessary to flood the remaining portion of the floodplain. In an attempt to quantify ' this reduction in time, the Information Report calculated the time it would take to flood RD-799 with and without the project. This analysis indicates that the initial flooding of areas between - -5 and -7 feet would occur 64% faster with the project. The project would have less of an ' impact on the rate at which those areas between 0 and -5 feet would flood (37% faster). Areas above 0 feet and less than +7 feet would flood only 18% faster with the project. Another way to look at the project's impact is that given the breach parameters modeled, it would take 1.4 ' days to flood RD-799 from elevation -7 to elevation -5 under current conditions. With the project, this time frame would be reduced to 0.9 days (64% reduction). The resultant maximum depth would be 2 feet. Extending the analogy of flooding to mean sea level (0 feet), the ' representative times are 4.4 days without the project and 3.2 days with the project (37% reduction) with a resultant maximum depth of seven feet. (Bohley/Maley Associates) ' The protect levee would parallel the existing substandard RD-799 levee for approximately 2,500 feet along Sand Mound Slough. In the event of a levee failure along Sand Mound Slough, ' the lands in•RD-799 would act as "overflow land" for flood waters which would rise and fall with the corresponding tidal cycles. Flood waters would not stop flowing if they reached the project levee. Instead, the project levee would divert waters heading westerly into a northerly and southerly direction. The diverted waters would then reach.the north and south ends of the project levee and spread out into the remaining areas of RD-799. The flow rate of the water is not easily quantifiable, since it is dependent on many variables such as the degree of the levee breach or overtopping, the possibility of erosion, the level of wave action, and the height of the ' tide. However, the Informational Report in Appendix E attempts to quantify the flow rate and depth assuming certain characteristics of the levee breach. Levee overtopping and breaching , could be effectively eliminated if RD-799 upgrades their levees to a full Urban Standard Levee configuration. (Bohley/Maley Associates, 1992) 3-136 ' 1In the event of a major levee failure and flooding creating the need for evacuation, residents along Sandmound Blvd. are currently provided with only one reasonable egress route (Sandmound Boulevard) for evacuation, provided it is not inundated. The project, with its proposed improvements to Cypress Road would provide another more direct and faster route for evacuation. The project would provide an immediately available (within 300 feet) location to escape from a levee breach. In the event of a major flood, the project would provide a fire station, many locations for possible heliports, potable water, and substantial staging areas (golf course and parks).. The project applicant proposes the evacuation routes on Figure 3.7-4 for residents in areas adjacent to the proposed project. The project applicant proposes to develop a more detailed emergency evacuation plan in cooperation with RD-799 for residents in areas adjacent to the proposed project. The evacuation plan will include, at a minimum: ' Criteria for determining when an emergency exists. • Methods for notifying and evacuating residents. ' Identification of agencies and individuals responsible for emergency response and public evacuation. • Plans for returning evacuees to their homes after the emergency has passed. ' Alternative Levee Confi-gurations/Imnrovements ' The Reclamation District and others have proposed different levee configuration and levee improvement alternatives to remove project site and Hotchkiss Tract from the 100 year flood plain. Three of these alternatives are outlined below. ' Fix the entire existing levee: This alternative would take the entire district out of the 100 year flood plain; however, the financial burden, the construction impacts on existing residences and the inability to upgrade the levee in a reasonable period of time makes this option infeasible. (also discussed on page 3-123) ' Quadrant system: This alternative includes dividing the district into four sections incorporating the new internal levees with the existing levees. The reason this alternative has been rejected is similar to the proposal for fixing the entire existing levee. The quadrant that ' includes the Cypress Lakes project would require improvements to the Sandmound levee. This particular portion of the levee is urbanized and has many encroachments. This levee portion would require extensive stability work,width and height improvements. This proposal would not be feasible from a timing, construction and financial perspective. Alter the internal levee layout: This alternative would involve pulling the new internal ' levee near Sandmound to the west further from the existing levee. This would not change the affects of the internal levee system in regards to flood water diversion. If a portion of the Sandmound levee broke, the effect of the new internal levee system 200+/- feet away would not ' be any less of an impact if moved further away. Breaks usually begin with small leaks eroding into larger holes. A break is highly unlikely to become bigger than 50 feet. This size of breach ' would loose energy very quickly. 3-137 r �����I.►1111111 111� .� IIIIIU� y ►.►' l 110;'. IO�,� i �i 111�1NhIII��i 1MEE I P-M�1 i 1111ls It �j♦jam♦♦Qi♦ ♦ ♦i♦���� I � ��� �p� ii♦�♦i I�IIAIIIii Iunur����;II f� Relationship To Contra Costa County General Plan The Flood Hazard Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan sets forth many ' policies which are applicable to the proposed project. These policies primarily address the need for projects to adequately demonstrate that the existing flood hazard within the project area can be mitigated to an acceptable level. The proposed project is consistent with these policies for the following reasons: • The project would include a internal levee around the entire project site which would meet FEMA standards enabling the site to be removed from the Flood Hazard area. • The proposed levee would be constructed in such a way as to allow for increasing its ' height if necessary. • The Delta area is not subject to tsunami (wind generated) and seiche (earthquake ' generated)waves. Tsunami waves entering into San Francisco Bay are attenuated by 50% at the head of the Carquinez Strait. Seiches occur in narrow deep bodies of still water which are not present in the Delta. Therefore,the possibility of tsunami and seiche waves are remote. ' Water Quality The project proposes to construct a series of interconnecting channels and a lake. All storm drainage facilities within the project would terminate at either one of the channels or the lake itself. Because of the elevations of the site, the proposed underground storm drain system would be a "wet".system meaning that water would be standing in most of the storm drain pipes ' at all times. In order to allow for the periodic cleaning of the storm drain pipes, the project proposes to construct de-watering structures at the points where the pipes enter either the channels or the lake. These de-watering structures consist of a slide gate that can be lowered, ' and a chamber upstream of the gate which can be used as a sump to pump water from the storm drain pipes. As each storm drain pipe system is de-watered, the pipes themselves can be flushed with the flushing water either being discharged into the channel/lake system or discharged into a water truck to be disposed of off site. Therefore, the proposed storm drainage system would have minimal impacts on groundwater quality. ' The proposed lake and channels would be filled with existing near-surface groundwater. As discussed previously, excavation for the lake and channels would require dewatering of the near-surface groundwater. Upon completion of excavation activities, dewatering would stop and ' the lake and channels would fill up as the near-surface groundwater migrated back into the project site. No additional pumping of groundwater is proposed to maintain the water level of the lake and channels. Excess water, as a result of stormwater runoff into the lake and channels, would be pumped off the project site into Sand Mound Slough. 3-139 r The existing drainage ditch traversing the site would no longer drain to the RD-799 pump ' station that pumps drainage waters to Sand Mound Slough. The ditch would be integrated into the lake/channel system which would result in a reduction of silts and agricultural contaminants ' that currently are pumped to Sand Mound Slough. The obstruction to the ditch by construction + of the levee would occur in the first phase of construction with the levee slopes being hydro seeded to prevent erosion. All runoff within the levees would be retained on site using the lake/channels as necessary for retention. ' The project also proposes a closed water circulation plan. Water circulation would be achieved by a system utilizing a pump located in the stormwater pump station. This pump would r continuously circulate water to the furthest extremities of each of the channels, and some of the underground storm drains, to the extent that all the water within the channel/lake system would ' be pumped at least once every two weeks during the non-rainfall months (May to October). During storm periods,the main stormwater pumps would be used to discharge excess stormwater into Sand Mound Slough through a force main and outlet structure located on the bank of the ' slough. Increased surface runoff from the new impervious surfaces may have impacts on the water ' quality of the channels and lake and ultimately the Delta. Urban runoff can contain substantial quantities of pollutants such as organic pesticides, heavy metals, nutrients, petroleum products, and suspended solids. Among the sources of these contaminants are street debris, chemicals in ' general use, airborne urban particulate matter, and various synthetic materials. Another impact to the proposed channel/lake system is the growth of aquatic plants. Some of the more noxious plants are widgeon grass and the water hyacinth which, if left to grow r unrestricted, could produce substantial negative aesthetic impacts, as well as clog pumps. To address potential contamination and aquatic plant growth in the lake and channels,the r project plans include a water quality management plan which includes the following components: • The side slopes of the lake will be 3 or 4 to 1, to limit plant growth, but shallow enough r to avoid slope failure. • The lake depth will be approximately 17 feet with a plateau in the middle of the lake to r provide an area for plants conducive to filtering metals and other unwanted materials to grow lodea densa,.Totamogtas pectinatus • Pods of another plant species (Ceratophyllum denersum), will be suspended throughout the lake and channels to further filter the water and improve water quality. The pods , would be removed and replaced no less than two times a year. • To control unwanted aquatic plant growth and algae a system of hydraulic flushing and ' aeration will be utilized. Herbicides and pesticides would not be utilized. r 3-140 I • I ri 1 A program to identify unwanted macrophytes early-and control them will be implemented. • Mosquito populations will be controlled by planting fish in the lakes rather than the application of chemicals. • Floating petroleum products will be removed through the utilization of mechanical built-in skimmers. Figure 3.7-5 depicts the typical cross-section of the lake showing the proposed plateau and ' pods. The proposed golf course could result in a significant source of undesirable nutrients and ' biocides which could enter the lake and channel systems through the project's drainage system. To address this potential impact on lake and channel water quality the project golf course maintenance criteria which includes the following: • Irrigation management strategies to minimize runoff from the golf course. rUse of slow-release fertilizers which are less likely to enter ground and surface water. • Pesticide and herbicide use shall only be used as part of an integrated pest management or vegetation manipulation plan. ' Irrigation shall be limited after application of fertilizers and biocides to reduce leaching of chemicals into groundwater or transport in runoff to surface water bodies. ' Avoid the application of fertilizers and biocides before the onset of the rainy season to reduce the risk of leaching. ' Implementation of a comprehensive golf course and the lake water quality management plans as described above would mitigate potential adverse contamination and aquatic plant growth in the lake and channels. The project's stormwater drainage plan also includes the pumping of excess runoff off the project site and into Sand Mound Slough. As described above, the water quality of the lake and channels would be monitored and maintained to acceptable levels. Pumping of this water into Sand Mound Slough would provide a beneficial impact on the water quality of Sand Mound Slough as long as the water quality of the lake and channels is properly maintained. To ensure that stoimwater discharged from the project site into Sand Mound Slough is of acceptable quality, the project would be required to meet the requirements of the County's ' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under the requirements of the NPDES permit requirements, the project would be required to incorporate measures to improve ' stormwater quality such as the proposed golf course maintenance and water quality plans. 3-141 i i� Z r a W ' I N ' W LJ m 0 r a ' Q r 0 Q r Figure 3.7-5: r CYPRESS LAKES & Typical Lake Cross—Section COUNTRY CLUB — Water Quality Control PROJECT Source: Chartered Land and Cattle 3-142 r: ' In addition, the County would periodically monitor stormwater discharge for pollutant levels. If pollutant levels exceed established criteria the County would report the violations to the State Water Quality Control Board who could impose additional measures to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. MITIGATION MEASURES Drainage The proposed project includes numerous measures to mitigate the project's drainage impacts, such as: ' 3.7-1 On-site storm drainage facilities (lake, channels and golf course detention facilities) shall be constructed to both protect property and to provide for public ' safety by accommodating the 100 year storm event. 3.7-2 Dewatering structures(discussed in the Water Quality section)shall be constructed at those points where underground storm drainage pipes enter the channel/lake system in order to facilitate the periodic flushing and cleaning of the underground pipes. 3.7-3 Drainage ditches shall be constructed along the exterior toe of the proposed levee system to catch that runoff from the exterior slope of the levees. The drainage ditches shall discharge into existing drainage ditches along the perimeter of the project. ' 3.7-4 Maintenance of on-site storm drainage improvements within the public right-of- way, or in suitable easements, shall be performed by the County of Contra Costa. Stormwater pump station maintenance shall be performed by the public entity ' selected to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the perimeter levee. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the project's impact to a less- than-significant level. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. Levees The following measures are proposed as part of the project to reduce potential impacts associated with construction of the internal levee system and therefore are the responsibility of the project applicant. All plans and activities related to construction and maintenance of the internal levee system should be reviewed and approved by FEMA and RD-799: 3.7-5 The design of the project levee shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for an Urban 3-143 i Standard Levee. Provisions shall be designed into the project levee to allow for a future increase in height of four feet to allow for the "greenhouse effect". During the design of the project levee, the crest elevation shall be increased by an amount equivalent to projected long term settlement. , 3.7-6 The side slopes of the project levee shall be planted and irrigated to reduce erosion, and to provide dust control, in accordance with the project's landscape guidelines.and the guidelines of the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levee. 3.7-7 Adequate easements shall be granted to the maintaining authority in order to provide for maintenance and upgrading of the levee, and to prohibit encroachments onto the levee. ' 3.7-8 To minimize the risk of liquefaction beneath the perimeter levees, the loose clean and silty sand of depths of 10 to 15 feet shall be reworked and densified. Deep ' dynamic compaction and/or over excavation and compaction of soils shall be utilized to densify the soils. ' The following mitigation measures are proposed in addition to those proposed as apart of the project to further reduce any potential impact associated with construction of the internal levee system to a less-than-significant level: 3.7-9 The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized once the public agency , responsible for maintaining the levees is determined. The levee landscape guidelines should then be submitted to the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levees for review and approval prior to installation of any ' landscaping on the levees (same as mitigation measure 3.5-7) (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.7-10 A detailed emergency evacuation plan based on the project's proposed emergency evacuation plan shall be prepared in cooperation with RD-799 and the governmental agency that ultimately accepts the internal levee system prior to ' approval of the project's final subdivision map. The evacuation plan shall include at a minimum the following measures: I • Criteria for determining when a emergency exists I _ • Methods for notifying and evacuating area residents • Identification of agencies and individuals responsible for emergency response and public evacuation ' 3-144 + I Plans for returning evacuees to their homes after an emergency has passed. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) +' The proposed project includes a groundwater monitoring plan to monitor groundwater levels near adjacent residences during project construction to avoid potential impacts to existing residences. The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure implementation of the I� proposed monitoring plans: 3.7-11 The proposed groundwater monitoring plan shall be made a condition of project approval. A final groundwater monitoring plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the County prior to filing a final subdivision map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County) The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure a continued source of funding to ' RD-799 from the project site for continued maintenance of the existing levee system which provides a fist line of defense against flooding. 3.7-12 The project site shall continue to be a part of RD-799 and shall be prohibited from seceding from this district, even if removed from the flood hazard zone by the proposed internal levee system, to provide the district with a continued long-term source of funding for maintenance of the existing RD-799 levee system. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County/Project Applicant) ' Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts of construction of the project levee system to a less-than-significant level. Water Ouality The proposed project includes measures to ensure adequate water quality is maintained ' in the project lake and channels. The measures include a water quality management plan for the lake and channels and maintenance criteria for the golf course. ' The following mitigation measures are proposed in addition to the measures proposed as part of the project to ensure adequate water quality in the lake and channels: 3.7-13 A final maintenance plan for the Golf Course shall be submitted for review and approval by the County, prior to filing a final subdivision map. The final maintenance plan shall build on the maintenance criteria established in the project plans and identify standard maintenance and management practices to be carried out on the Golf Course. Specific maintenance procedures shall be identified regarding the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. An emphasis of the tmaintenance plan should be to reduce potential leaching into local groundwater resources. The maintenance and management plan shall also outline specific 3-145 irrigation practices designed to reduce water consumption. (Responsibility: ' Project Applicant) 3.7-14 An informational packet shall be distributed to all project residents to educate them on the use and disposal of undesirable materials such as motor oil, paints, garden pesticides and other household products. The informational packet should ' be distributed to project residents upon purchase of each house. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.7-15 A street sweeping program shall be provided to reduce urban pollutant run off into ' the proposed lake and channels. The street sweeping may be provided by the County through its existing street sweeping program. If this is not feasible, alternative measures could include funding of the street sweeping program by the ' homeowner's association. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County/Homeowners Association) ' 3.7-16 A final channel-lake operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to filing a final subdivision map. The plan shall be based on the applicant's proposed lake-channel management plans utilizing plants,flushing, aeration and other techniques to maintain water quality without chemicals. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.7-17 The project shall comply with all the requirements of the County's NPDES permit requirements. The project applicant shall provide the County with the appropriate , documentation regarding compliance with NPDES requirements prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) I 3-146 I 3.8 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS The following information regarding local geology, seismicity and soils is summarized from several published and unpublished sources including:the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005, January 1991; the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, October 1989 and January 1990; the Geotechnical Investigation Report, Phase I Study Proposed Bethel Island Area Proiect, December, 22, 1988 prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc.; and the Report Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering - Cypress Lakes Proiect, August, 1992 prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. All of these reports are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. EXISTING SETTING Geology ' The project site is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, in a region known as the Delta where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge. This I' province consists of a thick layer of sedimentary rocks ranging in age from the Jurassic period to recent. The exact thickness of the sedimentary deposits is unknown. Deposits of marine sediments are known to extend 13,000 feet below ground level according to natural gas wells (' drilled in the nearby Dutch Slough gas field. These deposits consist of consolidated, regularly bedded faulted and folded layers of sandstone, siltstone, shale mudstone, and conglomerate. The structural features in these rocks form traps where natural gas and oil are found. I' Structurally the Great Valley of California, is a large, elongated, northwest trending asymmetric trough. This trough has a long, stable eastern shelf, which is supported by the buried ' west-dipping slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The valley's western flank is formed by the steep upturned edges of the basin sediments. The sediments that form the thick valley floor were largely derived by erosion of land areas located to the east of the valley. For the ' major portion of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods;the major sediment source was most likely the Batholiths of the Klammath Mountains and the Sierra Nevada mountains. During the Eocene time, the source of rocks are thought to be the highlands on all sides of the valley. The project site is located near the border of the Great Valley and Coast Range Geomorphic Provinces. During Pleistocene time the delta area is thought to have undergone several depositional and erosional cycles that were brought about by dramatic changes in climate. Sea level changes and glaciation have resulted in the deposition of peat and mud layers and subsequent erosion by running water and wind. However, since late Pliocene time (approximately 2 million year ago),the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley has been above sea level and consequently recent geologic deposits are mostly nonmarine. These deposits typically consist of unconsolidated sand, silt clay and peat. The geology of the project site has been mapped by ' Nilsen (1975) and by Nilsen and Sims (1975), The surficial geology has also been mapped by Atwater (1982) and is presented in Figure 3.8-1. 3-147 i 1 Franks Tract , Franks Tract I �,+ I , H■rler ' ��O i i � Island •r Bethel Jency Island Gm—v Rud r. Li. Ranch La. �gs � y J p.m0 Sloat� 1 D.Uh st—th Road 1\ 1 � .wrn�Rao � ` • ,� �� 1 n IM �•\� :,.� Holland Tract �Project Site , ® Pca�dhCrock(Qy c)of Tidal® arm (Qmze Deposits Wetlands Eolian and Waterways(Qpm) r t Location Generally L=tion May Err Accurate Within 500' ByMorcThan500' Atw2ter(198--) CYPRESS LAKES & Figure 3.8-1: ' COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT Surficial Geology of the Project Area I 3-148 1.� I The surficial geology of the project site consists primarily of eolian deposits of wind blown sand of the Upper Modesto Formation which form a large dune field fanning eastward and ' southeastward from Antioch. The age of the upper Modesto Dune Sands is between 40,000 and 100,000 years. On the project site, these sands overlie alluvium of Marsh Creek that in tum overlie San Joaquin River alluvium ranging in age from 38,000 to 46,000 years. Alluvial ' deposits of silty clay underlie the Hotchkiss Tract and Jersey Island at 50 to 90 feet below the present ground surface. These deposits were probably formed due to a sea level change during a lesser interglacial period about 38,000 to 46,000 years ago (Atwater, 1982). tThe eolian sand is generally fine grained with discontinuous silty sand strata or lenses. . The sand exhibits a moderate amount of cementation in outcrops located on the western and ' northeastern portion of the project site. However, borehole logs indicate that the sand within 15 feet of the surface is loose to medium dense; below that depth the sand is dense. Marsh Creek alluvial deposits, consisting of silty clay and clayey silt generally 7 to 10 feet thick, were encountered in the southwestern and south central portions of the site. Seismicity The project site is located in an area of moderate seismicity and is adjacent to an area of high seismicity in the San Francisco Bay Area (see Figure 3.8-2). Several major faults with ' historic or Quaternary (last two million years) activity are present in the region to the west of the project area. Table 3.8-1 presents a summary of these faults and their respective distance from the project site. Also shown are the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) and Maximum 1 Probable Earthquake (MPE) for these faults. The MCE is the largest earthquake that may be reasonably anticipated to occur on a fault based on the history of movements and tectonic environment of the fault. The MPE is the largest earthquake that may reasonably be anticipated ' to occur on a fault during a one-hundred year period. The MPE is determined from historic and geologically determined seismicity and its value is subject to interpretation by geologists and seismologists. ' The project site and the San Francisco Bay Area is seismically dominated by the presence of the San Andreas Fault system. The San Andreas Fault system is the boundary between the ' northward moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the southward moving North American Plate (east of the fault). In the Bay Area this movement is distributed across a complex system ' of strike-slip, right-lateral parallel and subparallel faults which include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Concord and San Gregorio faults among others. Figure-3.8-2 depicts the location of these faults in relation to the project site. Historically, the Bay Area, including the project site and vicinity, has been subject to intense seismic activity. Several historic earthquakes have been associated with the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. Of these, the April 18, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, with tan estimated Richter magnitude of 8.3 and the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which registered 7.1 on the Richter Scale, are the most famous. 3-149 1 o cz o a x get 4 ♦7 / 1t�V'Oi 'a � :, to a� � , C •• , O ! r I 1 '.��t� ,�,� .i tip, d'-' ��--� �•��r• \'� t t tr cq 40F 11 0CD r"q ul iA / �*J d �� L c '� c �J a �E�° lam-.O °3 W ►`7. 3.150 TABLE 3.8-1 ' ACTIVE FAULT DATA MCE Maximum Maximum Approximate ' Approximate Credible Probable Site Bedrock Fault Distance (miles) Magnitude Magnitude Acceleration' Antioch 8 6.6 5.5 0.05 - 0.40g Calaveras 24 7.25 6.5 0.05 - 0.30g Concord 16 6.25 5.5 0.10 - 0.30g Greenville 16 6.25 5.5 0.11 - 0.25g t Hayward 34 7.25 6.75 0.05 - 0.20g San Andreas 52 8.5 8.25 0.05 - 0.15g Actual surface accelerations would vary from bedrock values shown, however, evaluation of this value and the soil-structure interactions is a complex matter involving detailed engineering and geologic analysis. ' Source: Draft EIR, Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, page V-4, and Geotechnical Investigation Report, page 6. 1 ' A number of high magnitude earthquakes have originated in cast Contra Costa County or adjacent portions of Solano County. Among the largest of these were a pair of earthquakes that occurred on April 19 and 21, 1892. Using Modified Mercalli intensity data, the epicentral ' area of these seismic events appear to be in the vicinity of Winters and Dixon. Although no surface fault rupture was confirmed during these earthquakes, the epicentral area approximately coincides with the mapped tract of the Midland fault. It is a generally north-south trending ' bedrock fault that bisects the eastern portions of Solano and Contra Costa County. Although the Midland fault is not considered active by either the U.S.Geological Survey or California Division of Mines and Geology, it is clear that relatively high magnitude earthquakes have originated in the East County area. The Hayward Fault lies approximately 34 miles west of the project site and extends ' northwestward from the cities of Warm Springs on the south to San Pablo on the north. Tectonic slippage or seismic creep has been measured to be 0.2 to 0.76 cm/year along this fault (Herd, 1978). The MCE for this fault is 7.5. ' The northern portion of the Calaveras Fault lies approximately 24 miles west of the site. The Calaveras Fault is thought to have caused the July 2, 1861 earthquake which reportedly ' generated high intensity ground shaking in the San Ramon Valley. Continued signs of activity along this fault have been confirmed by the Coyote Creek earthquake of 1979 along with seismic creep which ranges from 0.2 to 0.7 cm/year (Herd, 1978). 3-151 1 1 i 1 The Concord Fault extends approximately 15 miles south of Suisun Bay, It is a ' predominately right-lateral strike-slip fault which has a recent history of seismic activity. The Concord Fault expresses itself north of Suisun Bay as the Green Valley Fault, although the two ' faults may not be related. The Antioch Fault is thought to have .been the likely source of small to moderate earthquakes that occurred in 1866 and for the Collinsville earthquake of May 19, 1889, which ' was apparently felt throughout most of central California. An earthquake swarm which occurred southwest of Antioch was recorded in 1965, centered approximately 9 miles west of the project ' site. No mapped active faults traverse the project site. However, it remains likely that the ' project site will be subject to a high degree of ground shaking from earthquakes on the Antioch, as well as other active faults in the Bay Area. Soils ' Composition DELTA AREA The Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta area is located in an area generally classified as "Tidal ' Flat-Delta Marsh Lowlands." Soils in these areas are generally highly expansive, very highly corrosive, and moderately to slowly permeable. With regard to agricultural capability, soils in ' the Delta lowlands are chiefly Class III and IV (non-prime agricultural soils). According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County(1977),large areas of Class III soils ' are found on the islands and areas surrounding the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, and in and around the community of Oakley. The Class III soils found in these areas are from the Kingile ' and Rindge Associations which are described as "very poorly drained organic soils" used primarily for irrigated field crops such as corn, milo, asparagus, tomatoes and pasture. Class IV soils are also mapped in the Delta lowlands. These soils tend to be poorly i drained and have excessive salts. Their agricultural use is limited irrigated pasture and dry farming of grains such as barley. , PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY Figure 3.8-3 maps the soils identified on the project site and vicinity by Kleinfelder, Inc., the applicant's geotechnical consultant. Soils in the project area consist of silty sand and sand, silty clay, nominal amounts of organic clay or silt and nominal amounts of peat. These are ' generally moderately permeable, and have a low expansion potential. 1 3-152 ' I 1� ' Franks Tract Rh W• `�+�~.r + "' Ph I \ Franks Tract ' 0 RRd d Pe PD I Phi e Rd P Z Rd Rh 5e Ph S• M. tRd Q Rd No S• I P• ` . RD I S• Ph P• `: Rd ��•;• Bethel nd s• 5• o ?, Pe . 1 •, lr' -� f�( v� Jersq Ph \:• V Rh P '•, Island S. 59 \ �a \ii P• - S• 1 \\ \ S.li CaunM1 S• '_ter ca Ph Ph Fe Fe Fc Ph Ft r\ ��Du+ce Sloure' ,r`O° S• J, \ f S• � A r 1 P• i P;\ P•I Ea I Ph h � r fl 5• 5• Ph �\D ! 7 it ® P SL Ea Ph' Es Lapano •I Ph P• D&C Deihl Sana, 2-916 Slopes + RD D•G Ea c-obort Mucky Clay Loom- - Es Fe Fluvaouenta ' _ S• Kb Kinoile Muck Mb f Ph \ MD Marcus• Clay -1 Ph .' Pn + Fe P• Pber Loamy Sand I Mb :� w Ph Plpw Firm Sandy Loam �. DOC Ea Rd Rindo• Muck typ—,Itud Ea r Rh Ryde Slit Loam P• • Sa Sacramento Clay P r!g Sb Sacramento Clay,Alkali ' I '\ S•+ p S• Shims Muck ` - Holland Tract, P• 0.c, Sb We w•bue Muck \ FO W Wafer rk \. ►XXN Project Site Boundary P• Ea Sel. ' .• Ph P P• Fc ' Figure 3.8-3: CYPRESS LAKES & Map of Soils in Project Area COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT ' 3-153 i Sampling and laboratory testing of soils on the project site was performed for the ' proposed project by Kleinfelder, Inc. in September, 1988 and April, 1992. Soil sampling consisted of drilling 28 test borings. Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the gradation ' and strength characteristics of the subsurface soils. In addition, cone penetration testing was performed to provide additional information regarding subsurface soils. Four piezometers were also installed on the site to measure and monitor groundwater levels. The soil sampling and laboratory testing indicates that soils consist chiefly of loose to dense sands and silty sands to a depth of 120 feet. Sands in the upper 10 to 15 feet are generally ' loose to medium dense; and below this depth they are dense. The near surface soils consist of a thin organic topsoil layer, 1 to 2 feet thick; underlain ' by a 1 to 2 foot thick layer of sandy clay and clayey sand. A thicker sandy and silty sand layer was encountered in the borings south of the dirt portion of Cypress Road. According to the cone penetrometer testing, some organic material (peat) may be present at various locations on the ' project site. Underlying the sandy and silty clay layer are fine grained, loose to medium dense sands and silty sands. A light brown sandy and silty clay layer was encountered at a depth of 48 to 56 feet below the existing ground surface in most borings. This clay layer is very stiff to hard _ and ranges from 8 to 20 feet in thickness. Underlying the clay layer are dense sands and silty ' sands containing thin discontinuous hard silt and clay layers to a depth of 128.5 feet. The Kleinfelder report entitled, Report Evaluation of Proposed Levees is available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The report provides detailed information regarding the soil profile under the proposed perimeter levee system. Groundwater ' The boring logs and results of the cone penetrometer results are contained in the- Geotechnical he Geotechnical Investigation Report and the Evaluation of Proposed Levees prepared for the project which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Table 3.8-2 summarizes the results of the piezometer monitoring program. Liquefaction Potential ' The project site is located in an area designated by the Contra Costa County General Plan ' as having"Generally High"liquefaction potential. Liquefaction is the transformation from a solid to a liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress. The result is a condition similar to quicksand where the liquified layer is thick and near the surface ' structures may gradually sink downward and tilt. 3-154 ' 1� 11 TABLE 3.8-2 RESULTS OF PIEZOMETER (GROUNDWATER LEVEL)TESTING ' Approximate Static Piezometer# Date Read Water Elevation (in feet) ' P-1 9-29-88 -10.5 P-1 11-9-88 -11.5 P-2 9-29-88 -4.8 P-2 11-9-88 -5.2 1 P-3 9-29-88 -4.6. P-3 11-9-88 -5.0 P-4 10-5-88 -6.8 ' P-4 11-9-88 -7.0 ' Source: Geotechnical Investigation Report, December 22, 1988. ' The liquefaction potential of the project site was assessed by Kleinfelder, Inc., based on the soil borings and other tests conducted for the Phase I geotechnical analysis. The analysis ' indicates that a magnitude 6.75 earthquake creating peak ground acceleration of 0.2g or greater would probably result in liquefaction of the near surface sands and silty sands over most of the site, unless proper mitigation measures are implemented. Of greatest concern in the project area ' is damage to delta levees as a result of liquefaction. Siesmic activity alone has never caused a levee failure in this area (Kleinfelder). ' Local Planning Policies and Regulations Contra Costa County General Plan ' The Contra Costa County General Plan contains Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures regarding Seismic Hazards (Safety Element) and Soil Resources (Conservation ' Element). The following policies and implementation measures are taken from the County General Plan and specifically pertain to the proposed project. Project consistency with these policies and implementation measures is discussed under "Impacts". 1 SEISMIC POLICIES ' Significant land use decisions (General Plan amendment, rezoning, etc.) shall be based on a thorough evaluation of geologic-seismic and soils conditions and risk. (Policy 10-2) • Because the region is seismically active, structures for human occupancy shall be designed to perform satisfactorily under earthquake conditions. (Policy 10-3) 1 3-155 t i • In areas susceptible to high damage from ground shaking, geologic-seismic and soils ' • studies shall be required prior to the authorization of major land developments and significant structures (public or private). (Policy 10-9) • This General Plan shall discourage urban or suburban development in areas susceptible ' to high liquefaction dangers and where appropriate subject to the policies in 10-20 below, ' unless satisfactory mitigation measures can be provided, while recognizing that there are low intensity uses such as water-related recreation and agricultural uses that are appropriate in such areas. (Policy 10-18) , • Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction danger shall be sited, designed and constructed to minimize the dangers from damage due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. , (Policy 10-20) • Approvals to allow the construction of public and private development projects in areas ' of high liquefaction potential shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions; and proper implementation of ' the mitigation measures. (Policy 10-21) The areas (100 year Flood Hazard Areas)designated on Figure 10-8 (See County General ' Plan,p. 10-51) shall be considered inappropriate for conventional urban development due to unmitigated flood hazards as defined by FEMA. Applications for development at urban or suburban densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life, shall demonstrate ' appropriate solutions or be denied. (Policy 10-33) SOIL RESOURCE POLICIES ' • Erosion control procedures shall be established and enforced for all private and public construction and grading projects. (Policy 8-63) ' • Lands having a high erosion potential as identified in the Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Contra Costa County shall require adequate erosion control methods for , agricultural and other uses. (Policy 8-68) IMPACTS ' I Grading The grading concept for the project is to provide a balance of cut and fill on-site. No ' gr g P P J export or import of material is proposed. The existing areas of higher ground and the existing ' main drainage ditch will be incorporated as features on the grading plan. The "pointed" high areas will be graded to achieve a more smooth surface to accommodate street slopes and building pads. The existing 24 foot wide drainage ditch would be widened to a minimum 100 feet and ' I 3-156 enhanced. The maximum cut proposed is a depth of approximately 17 feet in the lake and channel area. The maximum fill proposed is an approximate height of 17 feet above existing ground and generally occurs at the levees. The initial grading operation will involve the ' excavation of the lake and channels and the construction of the project levee. (Bohley, 1992) L Additional excavation may be necessary under the proposed levee system to rework and ' densify these soils to accommodate construction of the levees. This additional excavation is discussed in more detail under Liquefaction below. ' Liquefaction The primary geologic impact related to the project is the potential for seismicity and ' liquefaction. ' The proposed project would expose new structures,including private residences and public roads, to the potential impacts of liquefaction. The Kleinfelder report confirms that the entire site is in an area susceptible to liquefaction. ' To minimize the risk of liquefaction, the project design includes the following construction measures for the proposed levee system: tExcavate, rework and densify the loose clean and silty sands under the levee to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) techniques could also be used. These techniques could involve dropping a heavy weight repeatedly at a given location. • If Deep Dynamic Compaction is used, vibration from this construction technique would ' be monitored along the property line closest to adjacent residences. However, vibration from DDC would not be expected to exceed safe limits beyond 150 feet from the excavation site and therefore would not affect any adjacent residences. ' Other methods of compaction may be employed such as vibrating sheeps foot or pneumatic roller depending soil type and location. The methods described above are standard ' construction techniques and would reduce liquefaction potentials to a less-than-significant level. It should be noted that even if the project is bounded by engineered levees that are ' designed to withstand grounds shaking without liquefaction, liquefaction of sands inside the project could occur unless proper mitigation measures are implemented. ' Other Potential Soil Impacts Other potential soil related impacts of the proposed project include: ground subsidence; ' differential settlement; and erosion. 3-157 1 1 Subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion. , Causes of subsidence include oxidation, solution, thawing, drying, wetting, subsurface compaction,tectonic downwarping or a combination of these factors. Man-made subsidence can be caused by removal of solids, liquids and gas from beneath the ground surface. Subsidence ' caused by these processes may be rapid and may have significant impacts on the structures located in the area of subsidence. Subsidence in the Delta and project area has been occurring since these areas were reclaimed and put into agricultural production in the late 19th and early ' 20th centuries. Reclamation and agricultural activities have resulted in land subsidence ranging from 1 to 3 inches/year (USGS, 1991). The proposed project may cause localized subsidence during construction as a result of groundwater pumping for lake, channel and levee construction. , This could result in localized impacts if not properly monitored and mitigated. The potential for subsidence from dewatering would be short-term(only during dewatering ' activities). Dewatering activities are expected to occur during the excavation for the lake and channels,construction of the levee and installation of underground utilities. Dewatering activities t would affect the top 15 to 20 feet,which would not affect most domestic wells around the project site which are generally below the depth of the dewatering activities (Bohley, 1992). According to the applicant, the localized dewatering activities are not expected to cause subsidence on , adjacent properties because draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering area. To confirm that dewatering activities would not impact groundwater levels in surrounding areas,the project would include a groundwater monitoring plan ' to provide early detection of changes in the groundwater level and to allow adjustments in the construction techniques if necessary. Monitoring wells and settlement plates would be placed on the project site and surrounding properties to control the groundwater level. ' Levee construction, along with subsequent consolidation would reduce the permeability of the soils directly under the levee (to a depth of approximately 10-20 feet). Most producing ' wells are at a depth of approximately 200 feet (Bohley, 1992), hence, groundwater resources would not be impacted. Settlement/consolidation(used interchangeably in this report)is generally caused by filling , or placement of structures on the soil. Differential settlement (uneven settlement) can result in damage to structures and infrastructure in the area of settlement. The proposed project may cause ' localized soil settlement as a result of construction of the proposed levees and homes. Construction of the proposed levee system would add significant weight on top of near surface soils potentially causing settlement. Construction of project homes would also add weight to near , surface soils but would not be considered as significant as the proposed levees. According to the Phase I geotechnical analysis, settlement associated with the proposed project would not be considered a significant impact. (Kleinfelder, 1988). ' Construction of the proposed project would result in grading over much of the site for construction of the proposed homes,golf course,lakes and other facilities. These activities would ' expose soils to wind and water erosion. Because the project site is located in an area which experiences strong winds, wind erosion could result in a significant loss of soil without ' 3-158 i mitigation. The most significant grading and excavation would be required for construction of the proposed lake and channels. The lake and channels would cover approximately 60 acres and would be excavated to a depth of approximately 16 feet. Excavation would primarily take place ' in fine grained, poorly graded, silty sands and sands having generally 5 to 15 percent fines. The- near surface sands are loose to medium dense to a depth of 15 feet. Excavation for the lakes would also result in intrusion into groundwater which varies in depth on the site. Impacts related ' to groundwater intrusion are discussed in Chapter 3.7 Hydrology andDrainage. The material excavated to create the lakes is proposed to be used for construction of the 1 proposed levee system around the project. The geotechnical investigations indicate that the on- site soils are suitable for levee construction. ' Conformance with Soil Resource and Seismic Hazard Policies/Implementation Measures ' Available geotechnical reports indicate geologic hazards can be mitigated. Hence, the proposed project conforms to General Plan seismic policies 10-2, 10-9, 10-18, 10-21, and 10-33 regarding geotechnical analyses and the need to demonstrate that serious risks to life can be ' appropriately mitigated. Specific comments are as follows: • A Phase I Geotechnical Investigation Report has been prepared. • A second phase of soil borings has been conducted to provide information for construction of the proposed levees to FEMA standards. This information is contained in the "Report Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering - Cypress Lakes Project". • Additional analysis would be conducted during the final design of the project to provide ' specific geotechnical recommendations for various aspects of project construction. • The project would include measures to address potential liquefaction by excavating, ' reworking and densifying the soils under the perimeter levee or through the use of deep dynamic compaction techniques. These measures would also apply to the construction of houses, roadways and other structures on the project site. Policies 10-3 and 10-2- pertain to the design of structures to withstand seismic activity. Because specific designs will be provided at a later stage in the project planning and approval ' process, an evaluation of project conformance is not possible at this time. However, the need to design structures to perform satisfactorily under earthquake conditions is essential to safety. A condition of approval should require that each structure be evaluated and recommendations ' made to ensure satisfactory performance. The project would be consistent with General Plan soil resource policies 8-63 and 8-68 ' regarding the need for erosion control measures as follows: 1 3-159 1 i 1 • The applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to the County for , approval at the time of application for"a grading permit. This is routine requirement of the Building Inspection Department. ' MITIGATION MEASURES The project applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures to reduce potential ' geotechnical impacts associated with development on the project site. 3.8-1 Excavate, rework and densify the loose clean and silty sands under the levee to , a depth of 10 to 15 feet. Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) techniques could also be used. These techniques could involve dropping a heavy weight repeatedly , at a given location. 3.8-2 If Deep Dynamic Compaction is used, vibration from this construction technique ' would be monitored along the property line closest to adjacent residences. However, vibration from DDC would not be expected to exceed safe limits beyond 150 feet from the excavation site and therefore would not affect any , adjacent residences. 3.8-3 Groundwater monitoring plans to provide early detection of changes in the ' groundwater level and to allow adjustments in the construction techniques if necessary. Monitoring wells and settlement plates would be placed on the project site and surrounding properties to control the groundwater level. , 3.84 The erosion control measures proposed for the project shall be a part of all construction activities. These measures include the following: ' • Existing vegetated areas should be left undisturbed until construction of site improvements is actually ready to commence. • All disturbed areas should be protected from both wind and water erosion upon the completion of grading activities. ' • Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction, if practical. , I • Temporary check dams, sediment ponds,or siltation basins should be used , to trap eroded soils, and prevent their discharge into storm drain pipes. jTo the extent possible, major site development work involving earth moving and excavations should be scheduled for the dry season. ' I 1 I 3-160 i' Areas used for stockpiling and staging construction equipment and materials should be located so that unchecked runoff from these areas does not enter the storm drain system. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' While the erosion control measures listed above will reduce dust emissions and nuisance 1 at neighboring residences, the potential for dust to cause a nuisance at neighboring residences would still exist due to the windy conditions of the site. This would result in a short term, periodic unavoidable impact on local residents. The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that potential impacts on liquefaction and settlement are addressed during final design of the project to mitigate potential ' impacts to a less-than-significant level. 3.8-5 The Kleinfelder report analyzed alternative approaches for mitigating liquefaction ' impacts. The project should be required to adhere to these approaches. The specific approach will depend on site-specific conditions and analysis. However, the project applicant should follow the reviewed and approved recommendation ' of the Kleinfelder report. A report documenting the methods used in the field to reduce liquefaction potential should be submitted to the Public Works Department and the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levee system. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) The project includes measures to monitor ground subsidence resulting from dewatering ' activities for project construction. The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure these measures are implemented in the field. 3.8-6 The ground settlement monitoring plan should be finalized and submitted to the County for review and approval prior to beginning any construction or dewatering activities. The plan shall identify the location of all monitoring wells, and provide ' specifics on well completion and the method and frequency of monitoring. Similarly, the plan shall identify settlement plates as well as contingency plans to control subsidence or mitigate subsidence related damage. (Responsibility: ' Project Applicant) The following mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that erosion from construction activities is minimized to acceptable levels: 3.8-7 Post at the construction site the name and phone number of a designated dust ' control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. In addition contractors shall implement, at a minimum, the following measures: ' 1) Schedule earthmoving activities, as much as possible, during the early ' spring months when soil moisture is high. 3-161 i 2) Suspend earthmoving or other dust-producing activities during periods of , extreme winds. 3) Provide equipment and staffing for watering of all exposed or disturbed ' soil surfaces at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, should be utilized. ' 4) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 5) Sweep adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be , pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. 6) Where possible,limit the speed of all construction vehicles to 15 miles per hour while on site. , 7) Seed, cover or chemically treat finished grades as soon as practical after completion of activities. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that all structures constructed on , the project site will perform satisfactorily in the event'of an earthquake and liquefaction on the project site. , 3.8-8 Building plans for each structure to be constructed on the.project site shall include an evaluation and recommendations to ensure satisfactory performance in the ' event of an earthquake and liquefaction on the project site. The building plans shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa County prior to the issuance of building permits. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) , Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential geotechnical impacts associated with development on the project site to a less-than-significant , level. 1 3-162 I _ 11 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES This section of the EIR addresses the provision of various public services for the proposed ' project including: fire protection,police protection, schools, parks and other recreation facilities, and other government services (specifically mosquito abatement). This section also addresses applicable policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan, including key growth ' management issues. Policies are presented under 'Existing Setting'; project consistency with these policies is described under "Impacts." Where impacts have been quantified on the basis of the number of residential units proposed by the project, the figure of 1,330 units has been used ' as a worst case. The net number of additional units would be 1,322 after deducting the eight existing residences that would be demolished as a result of this project. FIRE PROTECTION EXISTING SETTING Existing Services The northern portion (or approximately one-third) of the project site lies within the Bethel Island Fire Protection District (Bethel Island FPD). The southern portion of the site (approximately two-thirds)is within the Oakley Fire Protection District(Oakley FPD) (see Figure 3.9-1). Bethel Island Fire Protection District The Bethel Island FPD's jurisdiction covers Bethel Island and the northern portion ' (approximately 40%) of Hotchkiss Tract,from Dutch Slough/Jersey Island roads to Sandmound Slough,with a southerly panhandle covering the development along Sandmound Boulevard. The District operates from a single station located on Ranch Lane in the commercial core of Bethel ' Island. The District is staffed by a full time chief, an assistant chief, a fire captain, a full time secretary, and a force of 25 to 30 volunteers. It operates on an annual budget of approximately $450,000 and has an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of 5. ISO ratings are insurance ' classifications ranging from 1 (best) to 10 (worst). Equipment consists of three engines, two water tenders, two powerwagons, a rescue vehicle, two fireboats and a pickup for general utility use. The District uses Regional Ambulance Service on Lone Tree Way in Brentwood for ' paramedic services. Completion of the Bethel Island FPD's Five Year Plan is contingent upon resolution of ' the fire district boundaries. A previous application for incorporation of the City of Oakley included Hotchkiss Tract. However, this application has been revised and no longer includes Hotchkiss Tract. The consolidation of the East County fire protection districts (Bethel Island, ' Oakley and Riverview)is also under consideration. Plan checking services are currently provided by the Riverview Fire District under contract to the Bethel Island FPD. (Bethel Island FPD Chief Jack Whitener, personal communication May 5, 1992). 3-163 1 tj C /GO Franks Tract.. ...... / -- Jersey Island . - V'1 *` Bethel Island• � ' l , Firc el Holland Tract Go;� Statin Contra'Costa- Oakley Sheriffs Station Project Site - 4c ? Protection Station ` Oakley. j Protection Station — wor 1 tel' •� ;- i- i �' •.� ,` _..,�,. ; _ -Brentwood_ _�.. . .. M�.lwJ ` .'...�L moi. _ �.i. t � � s: z. _--._.s�va •.1�' :iw`i Figure 3.9-1: , CYPRESS LAKES & Fire District Boundaries and Location COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT of Sheriff Station 3-164 1- The District's most important need is for the creation of a municipal water supply throughout the Planning Area. The lack of a municipal water supply requires that water be obtained from sloughs or must be brought by truck to fire sites. The use of slough water, which ' has a high mineral content, tends to damage the pumping equipment. There are six fire hydrants in the District, all located on Bethel Island. Additional problems include a shortage of land for. use as a training site. The District has indicated that at least one additional fire-fighter is needed 1 at this time. (Whitener, May 5, 1992). Oakley Fire Protection District ' The Oakley FPD encompasses a 32-square-mile area, including the southern portion ' (approximately 60%) of Hotchkiss Tract. The District has a first-response station in Knightsen (#94) with a back-up station in Oakley (#93). The District is staffed by 52 volunteers, including one full time firefighter, a part time chief, a part time assistant chief, a recording secretary, and ' three on-call maintenance workers. The District has an annual operating budget of approximately $406,000, and an ISO rating of 3. Equipment at each station consists of three Class A pumper trucks, powerwagon, and van for rescue and medical calls. With creation of a new station, the ' District would require an additional pumper truck. The District's Five Year Plan mentions the need for enlargement of the Oakley Station. Plan checking services are currently provided by the Riverview Fire District under contract to the Oakley FPD. (Oakley FPD Assistant Chief Manual Tovar, personal communication May 5, 1992 and OFPD Chairman Gene Stonebarger, correspondence, September 25, 1992). Fire District Funding The Bethel Island and Oakley FPDs have the same primary sources of funding: property taxes and a Special Districts Augmentation Fund (SDAF). Thirty percent of the local property tax revenue goes directly to the appropriate fire district. The rest is paid into the countywide SDAF to be redistributed among all fire protection agencies throughout the County on an ' as-needed basis as determined by the Board of Supervisors. The County has designated the entire Bethel Island FPD as an overextended service area and established a Fire Facilities Fee of$488 for each new single-family dwelling unit and $0.30 per square foot of other new construction, ' except for multiple-family residential and mobile homes. The fees are subject to annual review (Fire Protection Facilities Fee for the Bethel Island Fire Protection District,adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Oct. 31, 1989). The County levies a $480 fee on all new ' buildings within the Oakley FPD. The Oakley FPD has indicated that they receive approximately 82% of their funding from ' local property tax revenues and 18% from the SDAF. The Oakley FPD has also indicated that they currently have approximately $1,000,000 in their construction budget. (OFPD Chairman Gene Stonebarger, correspondence, September 26, 1992). 3-165 I General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards ' General Plan fire protection goals, policies and implementation measures were adopted in order to provide efficient fire service through the land use planning and review process. Those , which are most directly applicable to the project are listed below. Project consistency with these Ipolicies is discussed under "Impacts". ' • The County shall strive to reach a maximum running time of three minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the first-due station, and a minimum of three firefighters to be maintained in , all central business district, urban and suburban areas. (Policy 7-63) • The County shall strive to achieve a total response time (dispatch plus running and set-up ' time) of five minutes for 90 percent of all emergency responses. (Policy 7-64) The Growth Management Element permits the use of automatic fire sprinkler systems to satisfy this standard. ' • New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and service. (Policy 7-65) , • Needed upgrades to fire facilities and equipment shall be identified as part of project environmental review and area planning activities. (Policy 7-66) , I • Sprinkler systems may be required in new residential structures, where necessary to protect health, safety and welfare. (Policy 7-67) ' • Fire fighting equipment access shall be provided to open space areas in accordance with the Fire Protection Code and to all future development in accordance with Fire Access ' Standards. (Policy 7-74) • All new traffic signals shall be equipped with preemptive devices for emergency response , services. Existing traffic signals significantly impacted by new development shall be retrofitted with preemptive devices. (Policy 7-75) ' I j The five-year plans of the fire agencies should be updated to be consistent with the County General Plan. The fee ordinances should also be amended and fees increased as , �. required to meet new capital requirement. (Policy 7-87) I Fire protection agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to review projects and submit ' conditions of approval for consideration to determine whether there is an adequate water supply for fire fighting; road widths, road grades and turnaround radii are adequate for emergency equipment; and structures are built to the standards of the Uniform Building ' ICode, the Uniform Fire Code,-other State regulations, and local ordinances regarding the use of fire-retardant materials and detection, warning and extinguishment devices. (Implementation Measure 7-av) 3-166 I ' The County Building Inspection Department and Community Development Department shall submit building and development plans for all new construction, including remodeling, to the local fire protection agency to assure that fire safety and control features are included that meet the adopted codes and ordinances of that agency. (Implementation Measure 7-aw) Pursuant to the Growth Management Program, appropriate fire districts shall review all development plans to assess the adequacy of fire protection services. If the response time is more thanfive minutes, special building design features may be imposed. Fire stations shall be ' located within 1.5 miles of development. If this condition cannot be satisfied, then development will not be allowed to proceed. ' However, the Growth Management Element permits automatic fire sprinkler systems to be used to satisfy this requirement. Any new facilities or design improvements necessary to meet ' fire protection standards shall be paid for by new development. Responsibility for fire safety review of development projects is that of the applicable t agency,or agencies. In addition,the Community Development Department relies upon standards contained in the Contra Costa County Code(Title 9: Subdivisions). The current County Sprinkler Ordinance requires that developers provide all home buyers with the option of sprinkler installation. The General Plan endorses an amendment to the Code that would require all new residential construction to install sprinklers in all units. In 1986, the County adopted an ordinance to allow the establishment of fire facility fees. This policy is currently being ' implemented via ordinances establishing the exact amount of the fees for specific agencies' service areas. ' IMPACTS Project-Specific ' Fire Protection Facilities ' The proposed project would increase fire protection service demands on the fire districts by increasing the number of structures and population within the project area. To reduce the project's impacts on fire services, the project would include construction of a fire station near ' the project entrance at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. This station would satisfy the County's standard that fire stations be located within 1.5 miles of development, and the Bethel Island and Oakley fire district standard for maintaining the five minutel1.5 mile response ' standard. The proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have any adverse impacts on fire protection facilities. ' The Riverview Fire District would conduct the plan checking for the project under contract to the Bethel Island and Oakley FPDs, with the participation of both Districts. The Bethel Island FPD expects that the proposed fire station at Cypress Road, with additional 3-167 equipment and personnel, would satisfy the future needs of the District. The District will be ' particularly concerned that the development plans provide adequate access to the proposed lakes for rescue vehicles. (Bethel Island FPD Chief Jack Whitener, personal communication, May 5, ' 1992.) The Oakley FPD has expressed a desire to continue service to the site and has indicated that the district currently has adequate resources to staff the proposed station. (OFPD Chairman Gene Stonebargei, correspondence, September 26, 1992) ' i Water The applicant also proposes annexation to the Oakley Water District (OWD). The OWD , I has provided a "will serve letter" indicating that water demands for the project,can be adequately provided by the OWD (see Appendix F). The availability of a dependable water supply would ' have a positive impact on fire protection services both on the project site as well as surrounding areas. In addition to domestic water supplies, the project site would have an alternative source of water for fire fighting as a result of the proposed lakes and channels. Fees According to the fee schedules now in effect; development fees of approximately $635,000 for the residential component of the proposed project would be required. Additional fees would be assessed on other new construction associated with the project such as the golf ' course club house and day care facilities. However, these fees are subject to annual review and can be expected to increase. The project may receive credit for fire fees (portion or all) for dedication and construction of the proposed fire station on the project site. ' Annexation Issues With the existing fire protection service boundary locations,the Bethel Island FPD would ' serve the northern one-third of the project site. Access to this portion of the Bethel Island FPD service area would be via Sandmound Road at the site's northern boundary or through the Oakley FPD service area, via Cypress Road. The Oakley FPD would serve the southern two-thirds of the project site. The Bethel Island FPD would collect a Fire Facilities Fee of$488 per residential ' unit, plus $0.30 per square foot of other construction. The Oakley FPD would collect a development fee of$480 on all new buildings. However, having the project site served by two separate fire districts would not appear to be practical. , i The Bethel Island FPD Chief believes that Hotchkiss Tract should be included within a single fire district, preferably the Bethel Island FPD, subject to the desires of affected property ' owners. It is preferable to have development fees credited to a single fire district. It is also preferable to have funds administered by a single district; from an administrative standpoint, it is impractical to create a situation in which, at times, the district responding (servicing fire ' district) must be reimbursed by another district (home fire district). (Whitener, May 5, 1992) 3-168 I� The project applicant is proposing to petition LAFCO for annexation of the remaining portions of the site to the Bethel Island FPD. The Oakley FPD has expressed the desire to continue to serve the project site. (OFPD, Chairman Gene Stonebarger, correspondence, September 26, 1992). Relationship to the General Plan The proposed project is generally consistent with the goals, policies and implementation measures of the Contra Costa County General Plan regarding fire protection in the following ' ways: • The project proposes to construct a new fire station on the project site and may pay ' approximately $635,000 in fire protection fees. The applicant may receive credit for fire fees for the dedication and construction of the station. Construction of a fire station on- site would also meet the County's policy regarding response times. (Consistent with policies 7-63 thru 7-66) ' New property taxes and special district fees along with the existing taxes will pay for the cost to provide services for new facilities. Other County policies related to fire protection would be complied with through the normal building inspection and plan review process. Bethel Island Area The General Plan concludes that the allowable build-out of the Bethel Island would necessitate the expansion of the existing on-island facility on Ranch Lane to a full-service facility and the establishment of one or more substations to meet the County goal of a three minute response or 1.5 miles maximum distance between development and station. The recommended improvements to the existing station include making it the base location of emergency response apparatus, administration, training and maintenance. The staff would be expanded to three ' 24-hour paid positions with appropriately expanded living quarters. At least one substation would be required to provide a five minute response time. That station would have a single piece of apparatus and less than full staffing. This sub-station may be provided by the Cypress Lakes ' Project. At full build-out of the Planning Area, and assuming a .uniform distribution of new ' residential units throughout Hotchkiss Tract, the Bethel Island FPD would serve an estimated 3,336 residential units [2,136 on-island and, possibly, 1,200 off-island (3,000 du x 40%)], along with commercial and recreational development. At full build-out of the Planning Area, the ' Oakley FPD would serve an estimated 1,800 new residential units (3,000 du x 60%), along with commercial and recreational development, within the Planning Area. Construction of a fire station in the vicinity of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road,as proposed by the Cypress Lakes ' project, would allow either District to meet the three minute/1.5 mile response standard. 3-169 1 �I MITIGATION MEASURES ' With construction of the proposed fire station in the vicinity of the project entrance at Cypress Lane and Bethel Island Road, payment of fire protection fees (if required), and ' Iannexation of the project site to the Oakley Water District, the fire protection impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a level of insignificance. The following mitigation measures are proposed to ensure adequate fire protection , facilities are provided in the project area prior to project completion: 3.9-1 The project proposes to dedicate a site and construct a new fire station on the ' project site in lieu of fire protection fees as determined by the County. The site and station should meet all applicable requirements of the appropriate Fire District , (Oakley FPD or Bethel Island FPD). The fire station should be operational prior I to the first homes on the site being occupied. If necessary a special district fee ' may be augmented to provide adequate funding to fully staff the new station. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Fire District) 3.9-2 If the project is required to pay fees, the Fire District fees shall be based on the ' fees in effect at the time of the issuing of building permits. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) The following mitigation measure is proposed to insure proper review and approval by the fire districts prior to issuance of the building permits. This measure is based primarily on , in the County General Plan: ,measures 3.9-3 All buildingplans shall meet the applicable Uniform Building and Fire codes. P PP ' Fire protection agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the projects. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County/Fire Districts) , IThe mitigation measures identified above would reduce the project's potential impacts on fim protection service to a less-than-significant level. POLICE PROTECTION EXISTING SETTING EI isting Services Police protection services throughout the Planning Area are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, which is headquartered in Martinez and has a station house (Delta ' Station) located at the junction of Acme Street and O'Hara Avenue in Oakley (see Figure 3.9-1). The Planning Area is covered by one beat, Beat 31, operating out of the Delta Station. The I I 3-170 I Station is staffed by one lieutenant, five sergeants and 23 deputies and has a total of 13 patrol cars. Five deputies, working in shifts, and a patrol car are assigned to Beat 31, with one deputy patrolling at any one time. In addition,the County Sheriff's Department operates a marine patrol which consists of two deputies. In the future, Delta Station will be under the supervision of a sergeant, rather than a lieutenant. Other staffing changes may be made, contingent upon the outcome of the current County and State budget process (Sgt. Phil White, personal communication May 7, 1992; Reed McDonald,personal communication August 7, 1992). Police work within the area covers a wide spectrum of problems, including responding to disturbance calls, fights, threats, burglaries and robberies. At present, the Department feels that the degree of service needs to be strengthened, and that any further development in the area may tax the service beyond its available capacity. r ' For the Bethel Island Area, the County General Plan, sets forth a minimum police protection standard of"155 square feet of station area per 1,000 residents." No formal minimum level of service standard has been established for the East County Area. Most police protection agencies do not estimate staffing needs on a per capita basis, although a rough ratio of 1 officer for each 890 new residents would be desirable. In estimating potential demand for services, it is the Department's practice to review each new project on a case-by-case basis for its public ' safety aspects, location, and other factors. (Parsons, May 12, 1992.) Police protection services are funded almost exclusively through the Special Districts ' Augmentation Fund from the County General Fund. (County Auditor, May 12, 1992) In an attempt to extend the level of police service in the Bethel Island, Oakley and Discovery Bay areas, there have been proposals to create special tax districts that by popular vote would levy ' taxes to cover the cost of such an extension. If a special district is approved, adequate funding would be provided so that police protection services would improve to accommodate a reasonable ' amount of new development. General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards The Public Services/Facilities Element of the County General Plan contains adopted goals, policies and implementation measures to provide an acceptable level of police protection service for the projected population and to improve the level of efficient police protection needed through the land use planning and review process. Those which are most directly applicable to the proposed project are listed below. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under ' "Impacts" (page 3-176). • A sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be ' maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. (Policy 7-58) • Sheriff patrol beats shall be configured to assure minimum response times and efficient ' use of resources. (Policy 7-59) 3-171 I • A maximum response time goal for priority 1 or 2 calls of five minutes for 90 percent ' of all emergency responses in central business district, urban and suburban areas, shall be strived for by the sheriff when making staffing and beat configuration decisions. (Policy 7-60) , • Levels of service above the county-wide standard requested by unincorporated �I communities shall be provided through the creation of a County Service Area or other 1 special governmental unit. (Policy 7-61) • Maintain a sheriffs sub-station in each geographical area of the County (East, West, ' Central, South Central) to serve the individual needs of that area, if warranted. Facility size should be guided by Policy 7-58 and should be commensurate with staffing needs, 1 with provision for future expansion to match projected increases. (Implementation Measure 7-am) • In developing areas the Sheriff protection service standard shall be achieved by creation 1 of a County Service Area and special tax and/or creation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District that generates special tax revenue to support additional increments of ' Sheriff patrol necessary to meet the adopted service standard. Developers, prior to receiving development approvals, should agree (via a Development Agreement or a landowner election) to participate in such special funding districts. (Implementation ' Measure 7-aq) The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department provides police protection services for all , unincorporated areas. According to the Growth Management Element, the Sheriff's facility standard provided above is based on the County's existing facilities of approximately 155 square Ifeet of floor area per 1,000 population in six locations throughout the County. 1 I IMPACTS IProiect-S ecific 1 Police Protection Facilities 1 IThe proposed Cypress Lakes project would result in the addition of approximately 3,247 persons to the County Sheriff's service area. This would result in the need for new officer positions and equipment. I - Fundin ' The costs of the increased services would be paid from the Special Districts Augmentation Fund, which is part of the County's General Fund allocated for police protection service in the ' unincorporated areas and distributed on an as-needed basis. I I 3-172 �I I � 11 f� With an estimated population of 3,247 new residents at build-out, the proposed Cypress ' Lakes project would need to provide approximately 465 square feet of additional space to maintain the County's adopted standard of 155 square feet per 1,000 population. The Cypress Lakes project proposes to satisfy the standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 residents by contributing monies to expand the station house (Delta Station) located in Oakley. (Applicant's Growth Management/Measure C Compliance Statement) ' Relationship to the General Plan ' The proposed project would be generally consistent with the police protection policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan by contributing monies for the expansion of the Delta Station in Oakley. As a course of County review of new subdivisions, the County Development ' Department submits the plans to the Sheriff's Department for review and comments. With regard to the Cypress Lakes project, no comments were received from the Sheriff's Department. ' Bethel Island Area The growth expected under the County General Plan in the Bethel Island area would ' require additional Sheriff's Department personnel,facilities and equipment. No formal minimum level of service on a per capita basis has been adopted for the East County Area, and factors such as the public safety aspects and locations of individual development projects are used by the ' Department to forecast staffing and equipment needs. (Lt. Scott Parsons, Sheriff's Department, personal communication May 12, 1992.) Full build-out of the Bethel Island Area would require additional officer positions and growth in other unincorporated East County areas would add to the cumulative demand. New Sheriff beats and, perhaps, reorganization of existing beats, would be required as ' service demands increase in both the Bethel Island Area and adjacent developing communities. The increased number of required officers would generate increased need for support staff and space. The space needs may be met through an expansion of the existing Oakley facility, however cumulative growth and service demand in the vicinity may necessitate a new facility. The projected population increase of the Bethel Island Area would necessitate approximately ' 1,000 square feet of additional space to maintain the sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station per 1,000 population. ' MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that the proposed project provides ' - its fair-share towards the cost of rehabilitating the Delta Station in Oakley: 3.9-4 The proposed project should pay a fair-share fee equal to the cost of providing 465 square feet of new Sheriff Department facilities, based on the County standard 3-173 1 1 i Iof 155 square feet per 1,000 residents. The fee should be calculated and paid at i the time of issuance of building permits for the project. (Responsibility: Project ' Applicant) I Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce theproject's impact on public ' protection services to a less-than-significant level. SCHOOLS ' EXISTING SETTING ' Existing Services IThe project site falls within the jurisdiction of two school districts: Oakley Union School , District for kindergarten through eighth grades, and Liberty Union High School District. (See ' Figure 3.9-2.) Children throughout the Planning Area are bused to school. The East Contra Costa School Transportation Department,a consortium of the Brentwood and Oakley Elementary School Districts and Liberty Union High School District, provides busing for the bulk of the ' Planning Area. Oakley Union Elementary School District has four elementary (K-5) schools: Oakley ' Elementary School located at 501 Norcross Lane, Gehringer Elementary School located at Highway 4 and Bolton Road, Laurel Elementary School located at 1141 Laurel Road, and Vintage Parkway Elementary School located at 1000 Vintage Parkway. The District operates one , "middle school", O'Hara Park School (grades 6-8) located at 1100 O'Hara Avenue, at the comer of O'Hara Avenue and Cypress Road. Classroom sizes range from 25 to 32 children for every teacher. All schools are presently at capacity, and portable rented classrooms.are used to ' accommodate the student population. (Bennett, May 20, 1992) Liberty Union High School District has one school: Liberty Union High School (grades ' 9 through 12, with a capacity for 1,250 students) located in Brentwood. A typical class size has over'30 students. The school is currently over capacity with a current enrollment is 1,809 students. The District recently completed a master plan which provides for a student capacity of 2,078. The plan is expected to be fully implemented by the end of the 1992 enrollment year. The State Department of Education projects enrollment to increase to 2,672 students in enrollment year 1995-96,however with increased housing demand the projected enrollment could occur a year earlier. In addition to expanding the existing campus, the school district purchased a'second high school site in Oakley. The new facility is planned to have a capacity for 2,200 students, with completion of construction anticipated in August 1995. Proceeds for the purchase ' oflthe site were generated from a 1988 Obligation Bond passed by voters. Funding alternatives for the construction of the Oakley facility are being reviewed by the District. However, without funding participation by both county and city development, the facility cannot be built. (Liberty ' Union High School District, February 18, 1992) I I I 3-174 'I I . . .i • — _ �:. o r �� 'L . . . . 'ice ♦�_a - i _ - O //.►o� • • -.'�•~-.••-_r.ni^l .:. ._.�. ` .a .'. . . . . . . • , . .•.. '( + . . . . • • . . . . . . . . t ocd�'• ' - :�.�f��: : =' ' !► - : : : : Tact - r , .3eiic:psland. r� . . . a• ��r -�•.S�(• Ifiel Md ' ' �• •,I MM :y. .� ..� ...• ".�_.'-=,-� . .:,..f �.mac. �::r_, • : 1 E+: :a~ti;•': : Hollaiid:T'rartr o� . f ' �„•.S""Ct. •ey % • ,,,:� i�xY:�:r�=4 rn..:;,::.;:'�Sri35. J .Ci ".a. .'mss �. �. .�. ' .a. v-r. ai.;•. .<£: �,,��"�"'r; ^ ey: .*�. .,. .•_ •Project SiteTal --.,: •r�r: hiddle School: . . . . :�. '... , •��� -� _— _• •(�' :r :` �•' '�. wax:.'r:�i ��YtL F'�',�'�� Gehringe rs '` ' •__ n r -"`: • • • :Elementary School � • � `�-"'°�'ti� � � ,�x�•i _�� �� ` 1 ,• , _..r Knightsen4,.� .,_�..•• �M r� ` -�� T•�3''�- �2 _ ' =--�_ .�_f_'" - :^f ♦ '—T; Elementary Schools ' ti . -�+rz__..,...rLl..__.. V ` ZZ�1.H ^ Yx y -1 t0.CJ' � • 'Y• 'w• - :, .• 4 { �.� �` � w •` +�.� J,+ Y pawn S A ' ,^w_`\+- � • , �'T✓ ."•��,� 'T�.i.'•�s r<sL��_ 1��•C-`N`9=3 v+j.¢,Y,„�,��,� $,1� 1 ._._.. • n •' N1 � 't■ •i: ..S.0 •• x� �11a� Jf)' l ~.JFat[�r6' . .J �.Liberty Union .......... .. . .... _x High School's V+y i ti t ; lx a 'Brentwood y AzW xl eL + , 4 � r .,� _ I .V .� ,i:..'�`,!;q:F>••1�:. ;yrir.-;-,y .�4--,t. yet:,,,, _�.. Ate. ...... . • _ ..., 1, f•reg �flosy� S'J: "s` tW X15.,. � o � I F _l,-"_- •._..••- .. �_ .:_ rFigure 3.9-2: CYPRESS LAKES &'COUNTRY CLUB Location of School Facilities in the Project Area ' PROJECT ' 3-175 1} IFunding , Both Oakley Union Elementary and Liberty Union High School districts are funded primarily by the State Department of Education, with a small amount of Federal funding (less , than two percent) and remainder made up from local taxes collected within the District itself. At present, developer fees are collected on all new projects built within District boundaries; the fees are $1.65 per square foot for every new house and $.26 for every new square foot of , industrial or commercial space. Out of this revenue, Oakley Union Elementary School District collects 70 percent and Liberty Union High School District collects 30 percent because enrollment has been increasing much more rapidly in the elementary schools than in the high. school. Were development to increase much more rapidly within the districts, the most likely source of additional funding would be through further increases in developer mitigation fees, State building aid, and school bonds. Alternatively, a Mello-Roos tax district could be created , in which each property would be taxed on a permanent, annual basis; this would significantly Iincrease the amount of funding available for school provision within the District. On April 14, 1992, Measure 'D" which would have provided $25 million bond for school facilities was ' defeated by the voters on Oakley/Bethel Island. (Bennett, May 20, 1992.) General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards , The County General Plan Public Services/Facilities Element contains adopted goals, policies and implementation measures to accommodate the projected population growth and , achieve State-adopted standards in the provision of school facilities in all areas of the County. The following excerpts are those most directly applicable to the proposed project. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under."Impacts" (see page 3-182). , To provide new schools in optimal locations to serve planned growth. (Goal 7-AP) • To assure that school facilities are adequate or committed to be adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth. (Goal 7-AR) • The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools a to serve development. (Policy 7-141) • During the development review process, the State classroom size standards set by each district for primary and secondary schools shall be used as the basis for detemlining the adequacy of area schools. (Policy 7-142) ' • The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of educational facility capacity. (Policy 7-144) ' 1 3-176 I ,I ' The development of quality schools shall be supported by coordinating development review with local school districts including such activities as designating school sites, obtaining dedications of school sites, and supporting local fees, special taxes, and bond issues intended for school construction. (Policy 7-145) • Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assured by coordinating review of new development with the cities and other service providers through the Growth Management Program, the environmental review process, and other ' means. (Policy 7-146) • School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use of density transfer ' or other appropriate land use alternatives. (Policy 7-147) • The development of school facilities shall be provided in conjunction with and adjacent ' to local parks and trail ways. (Policy 7-148) • The County shall support school facility fees for growth-impacted school districts. ' (Policy 7-151) Although the State of California has preempted the field of provision of school facilities ' through exactions on development projects, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that the timing of growth is coordinated with the efforts of the school districts to provide school facilities. Currently, overcrowded attendance areas have been identified in many school districts ' in the County. In the East County area of Oakley, where much of the unincorporated growth will occur, schools are severely overcrowded. IMPACTS Cypress Lakes ' School Facilities ' The proposed project would result in the construction of 1,330 new residential units and associated recreational facilities based on the student generation factors provided by the school districts, the Cypress Lakes Project would be expected to have the following student enrollment: tOUSD K-5 0.33 x 1,330 = 439 students 6-9 0.17 x 1,330 = 226 students LUHSD 9-12 0.19 x 1,330 = 253 students The proposed project would generate approximately 665 new elementary and middle school enrollments and approximately 253 new high school enrollments. 3-177 i I At the present time, the Oakley Union Elementary and Liberty Union High School Districts have neither the capacity for additional students or the ability to fund new school construction. Therefore, students generated by the proposed project could not be accommodated , by existing school facilities. Based on the project's student generation and the local school district's school facility ' requirements, the proposed project would require the construction of approximately one new elementary school, 30% of a new middle schools, and 20% of a new High Schools. To help mitigate the project's potential impact on local school district facilities the , proposed project includes dedication of 7.4 acres for a school on the project site. This dedication would be in addition to the required development fees. The OUESD has indicated that a 10 acre ' school site would be desired. Development Fees/Funding ' The proposed project would generate approximately $4.4 million in development fees, based on the District's current fees (assumes 2,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit). Based on the existing ' Isplit approximately$3.1 million would go to the Oakley Unified School District (70%) and$1.3 million would go to the Liberty Union High School District. As indicated previously, the fees generated by the project would provide a significant funding source for the school districts. , In addition to development fees, the districts would also receive increased property tax revenue as a result of the change in land use of the project site and its higher assessed value. , This increase in revenue would provide a long-term source of revenue for the school districts. While the project includes substantial mitigation measures in the form of land dedication ' and the payment of school impact fees, the local school districts have indicated that the project would still result in a significant adverse impact. Relationship to the General Plan , The proposed project would be consistent with County policy regarding school facilities by including dedication of 7.4 acre for a school site within the project; paying the appropriate development fees (approximately $4.4 million) to the local school districts; and providing local parks and trails near the school site. Bethel Island Area The District requires a development fee of $1.58 per sq. ft. of residential construction. ' I This is in the process of being negotiated to possibly $1.65 per sq. ft. (Kimberly Wood, Liberty , Union High School District consultant,personal communication May 5, 1992.) Using the current fee Ischedule on new construction,a 2,000 sq. ft.residence would generate$3,160 for the District. They District requests that all new County development projects be conditioned to participate in I 3-178 �I I a funding plan to build the Oakley High School beyond developer fees. These fees and conditions would apply to all future residential development within the Bethel Island Area. (Liberty Union High School District letter to Community Development Department dated Feb. ' 18, 1992.) MITIGATION MEASURES ' The proposed project would be required to pay the applicable school impact fees as assessed by the local school districts. The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure ' that the fees applicable to the project are those in effect at the time of project construction: 3.9-5 School impact fees shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of issuing ' building permits. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/OUSD/LUHSD) The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the proposed project's impact on school facilities and the need for a new school site in the project area: 3.9-6 School impact fees are projected to be insufficient to cover the project's share of ' facilities required to serve new students in the area. If no state or local funding is available, the project applicant should work with districts to determine additional school fees to be paid as building permits are issued. (Responsibility: ' Project Applicant/OUSD/LUHSD) 3.9-7 The school site should be enlarged from 7.4 acres to 10 acres to meet the OEUSD requirements. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' 3.9-8 If the proposed on-site school site is determined by the OUESD to be unacceptable,the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee to the OUESD for the purchase of an appropriate school site. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/School District) Implementation of these measures would reduce the project's impacts on school facilities to a less-than-significant level. PARKS AND OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES ' EXISTING SETTING Existirip, Services There are no County recreational resources on the project site or within the Bethel Island Area. Private facilities along the perimeter of Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract focus around a variety of water oriented recreational activities such as fishing, water skiing, wind surfing, sailing, speedboating and house boating. Inland, there is a 18-hole golf course located on 3-179 I Gateway Road as well as opportunities for bike riding, bird watching, camping or shopping. Additionally, three planned development projects which include golf courses are proposed for the Brentwood area: A.G. Spanos Brentwood Hills Country Club, Hancock Specific Plan, and the BIackhawk/Nunn Project. ' General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards The County General Plan contains adopted goals, policies and implementation measures to ensure that the recreational needs of present and future residents of the County are provided for. The following excerpts from the Open Space Element are those which are most directly , applicable to the proposed project. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under "Impacts". • To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently Iocated, properly designed park and , recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents. (Goal 9-H) I • To develop a system of interconnected hiking, riding and bicycling trails and paths suitable for both active recreational use and for the purpose of transportation/circulation. (Goal9-1) ' • To achieve a level of park facilities of four acres per 1,000 population. (Goal 9-K) ' • Major park lands shall be reserved to ensure that the present and future needs of the County's residents will be met and to preserve areas of natural beauty or historical ' interest for future generations. Apply the parks and recreation performance standards in the Growth Management Element. (Policy 9-32) I �• A well-balanced distribution of local parks, based on character and intensity of present ' and planned residential development and future recreation needs, shall be preserved. I (Policy 9-33) I ' Park design shall be appropriate to the recreational needs and access capabilities of all Iresidents in each locality. (Policy 9-34) a • Public trail facilities shall be integrated into the design of flood control facilities and other public works wherever possible. (Policy 9-38) • Recreational development shall be allowed only in a manner which complements the natural features of the area, including the topography, waterways, vegetation and soil characteristics. (Policy 9-39) • I Recreational activity shall be distributed and managed according to an area's carrying , capacity with special emphasis on controlling adverse environmental impacts, such as I i 3-180 i ,,il 11 j� conflict between uses and trespass. At the same time, the regional importance of each area's recreation resources shall be recognized. (Policy 9-40) ' Require that new development meet the park standards and criteria included in the growth management program. Ensure that credit for the park dedication ordinance requirements be given for private recreation facilities only after a finding has been adopted that the facilities will be open to and serve the public. (Implementation Measure 9-p) • Coordinate with the various school districts in the County to provide for the joint use of recreation facilities. (Implementation Measure 9-r) • Coordinate funds and programs administered by County government and other agencies, ' such as the East Bay Regional Park District, to obtain optimum recreation facilities development. (Implementation Measure 9-s) ' Develop a comprehensive and interconnected series of hiking, biking and riding trails in conjunction with cities, special districts, public utilities and county service areas. (Implementation Measure 9-t) ' Local parks are areas of open space set aside for recreational use and are located within an acceptable distance from the people they serve. Parks are differentiated into neighborhood ' and community parks. Neighborhood parks generally have service areas equivalent to elementary schools, while community parks more commonly are equivalent to high school service areas. ' The size of a park will vary with the population to be served. The Open Space Element designates one community park on Bethel Island and three neighborhood parks for Hotchkiss Tract. ' County park standards for neighborhood parks are shown below: ' Acreage/Population: 2.50 acres per 1,000 population. • Site Area: Without playground -- 3-7 acres; with playground -- 6-8 acres; with playfield -- 12-17 acres. • Location: Center of neighborhood. • Facilities: (Park area only) Landscaped open space (trees, grass, shrubbery), benches and tables, and walks. ' Service Radius: One-half mile. • Association: Neighborhood parks are best located adjacent to playgrounds, playfields and elementary schools. They may also contain a neighborhood ' recreation center. In areas planned for development, efforts should be made to encourage new County ' Service Areas to provide for maintenance of local parks. 3-181 1 I The plan encourages the development of local feeder trails and paths to provide an ' interconnected system which can work as a circulation component as well as providing recreational opportunities. General Plan Bicycle Trails, Hiking Trails and Riding (Equestrian) Trails Maps show trails through the Hotchkiss Tract,either through or adjacent to the project site. , Increasingly,private developments are being considered which provide on-site recreational facilities to serve project residents." These facilities provide project amenities and are effective ' sales tools. They may limit the impact of new homes on the existing public park facilities; but, generally, they provide compatible facilities to those of the public parks. For this reason, credit from the park dedication ordinance requirements should only be given where it is clear that , private developments provide facilities which are open to and serve the public. The Plan encourages the placement of such facilities in private developments and encourages the development of pathways that are integrated in location and design with those of adjacent ' projects. IMPACTS ' Proiect-Specific The proposed Cypress Lakes project is located in the off-island bonus residential area , which provides higher density for residential projects that include substantial recreational amenities. The applicant's Feasibility Analysis of all Public and Semi-Public Recreational and Educational Areas, submitted Nov. 11, 1991, describes the proposed Cypress Lakes recreational r amenities. These amenities are proposed to satisfy the Off-Island Bonus Area requirements for increased residential density and County park land standards. The project's proposed recreational t amenities include: Golf and Country Club ' IThe applicant proposes a 170.3 acre semiprivate golf course where residents can be members allowing them preferred tee times and other privileges, while also allowing the public. to play. Financing of the golf course business would be secured by the property and the revenues from golf sales and rentals. All costs to develop the course would be incorporated into tt a development cost of the single family lots. Maintenance and management would be contracted out to a professional, experienced company to handle day to day operations. IIn 1989, a preliminary study was done to survey the feasibility of the golf course and the proper type of course to build. The report stated that the Eastern Contra Costa County golf ' demand is dramatically under supplied. Golf courses incorporated with housing has become increasingly popular in the Contra Costa Area. There are as many as 14,600 potential golfers in Eastern Contra Costa County. The potential private club golfers is estimated at 2,300 in 1990, ' translating into potential demand for nearly 1,500 memberships. Subtract existing members at I 3-182 I it ' Discovery Bay,and this leaves 1,300 new golf memberships for 1990. This number is increasing each year especially with the rapid growth in the area. Furthermore, the public golf course demand in the Eastern County is drastically under supplied leaving 12,000 potential non-member ' golfers after allotting for future private memberships. There are a few new projects in the East County area proposing golf courses. Even with the approval of these projects a demand for golf courses would remain. ' As indicated above, there appears to be a sufficient market base to support a golf course at this site and the golf course would supply a recreational need which is lacking in the East County area. The proposed golf course is consistent with the Off-Island Bonus Area recreational goals ' which call for major recreational amenities such as a "golf course". Lake/Canal Areas ' The proposed project would include approximately 60 acres of lakes and canal-like extensions extending into other portions of the project site. The lake and channels are proposed ' as open space areas and to provide aesthetic features to the project. Boating would only be allowed on the lake and no skin-contact (swimming) would be allowed in the Lake or channels to maintain acceptable water quality. The Lake and channels would also provide bird and ' wildlife habitat and trails would be provided along these areas. The Lake and channels would be cared for, maintained and operated by the homeowner's association. Construction of the lake ' and waterways would be financed as part of the construction financing for the overall development of the project, possibly through a Mello-Roos Bond or alternative sources. Beach Club ' The Beach Club which is located on the lake would occupy approximately a roximatel 1.5 acres of the project site and would be owned, managed, financed and maintained by the Homeowner's Association for the project. Memberships would be automatic upon home ownership. Homeowner's dues would be charged to each property owner. The 1,330 homes are more than ' enough to financially support such a center. Parks ' The proposed project includes 33.77 acres of park land. this would primarily consist of one large community park located near the project entrance at Cypress Road and Bethel Island ' Road, nine smaller neighborhood parks scattered throughout the southern end of the project site, and the 200 foot wide power line easement which traverses a portion of the southern end of the project (see Figure 3.9-3). The community park would be approximately 22.4 acres and would contain baseball diamond(s), soccer/football field(s) as well as other recreational amenities. 3-183 t 1 0111RD pug pugj pa4a14gy0 :ao,mos soaroud 2111141 013S018 pu11 u11141Sapad paeodo4d fln70 Au.i.xno0 £6'£am8[d v Sa3m SS3udAO '1V l'0 v f � I.I -JV LO'l M 90 1 i I 4 �v 8'o To 11� 'OV 62 ( I 1 I III•I I I I III ;I j m8vd onsnd -3V b'ZZ °V 0'£ I II rr r r � r � / I I 1 I 1 I I I � 1 (sa3Hlo AE) w31sAs H1Vd/llVal Ol NOIl03NNOO 38f11f13 1 f (133a1S-NO) AVM 3419 ------ (13381S-dd0) II Hlvd/lIval aorvw 1 I 1IV81 NVI81S303d I � V 3418 -lVfUd30NO3 80018800 3OVdS N3d0 3Vf11d3ONOO 1 e I I S48Vd I I I � I I � I I i f � The proposed trail in this area would allow pedestrian/bicycle and golf cart uses. For these ' Ireasons, equestrian use of the trail along the main drain is not proposed. The off-street trail along the top of the proposed levee system would provide a substantial t trail facility for project residents as well as residents in the project vicinity. Some residents have expressed concern regarding privacy from trail users because of the elevated nature of the trail. This impact is not considered significant because there are only a few residences in areas ' adjacent to the proposed levee and these residences are located in most cases; several hundred feet from the levee trail. Day Care Center The need for day care centers is constantly growing especially in residential communities. t J Ideally, parents would like their children to be cared for close to home or close to work. In response to this concern and the concerns of Contra Costa County for day care, the proposed project has allocated 0.5 acres for such a center. Ultimately the site would be sold or leased to ' a professional and experienced group to construct, operate, and maintain the center. Maintenance ' If maintenance of the proposed public park is performed by the County, there could be a slight, but not significantly adverse impact to the County. Maintenance of the proposed lakes ' I and swim and tennis/beach club would be by the Homeowners' Association. Maintenance of the golf course would be contracted out to a professional management company,paid for by revenues ' from golf sales and rentals. From a maintenance standpoint, no adverse impacts from the proposed lakes, swim and tennis/beach club or golf course would occur. IRelationship to the General Plan ' The proposed project would be generally consistent with the goals and policies of the t County pertaining to the development of parks and recreational facilities. Bethel Island Area ' The General Plan provides for an off-island bonus residential area(Hotchkiss Tract)which ' I provides higher density residential development for projects which include substantial recreational amenities (such as the proposed Cypress Lakes project). Such amenities may include marina's I� or landing facilities; sailing/boating clubs; a lake community; an equestrian or rodeo facility; or ' tennis club or golf course. Therefore, build-out of the planning area will result in the provision of significant recreational opportunities for both local and County residents. � 1 3-186 1 �I 'I I . ll MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would have a beneficial impact on parks and other recreational facilities consistent with General Plan park maintenance policies. The following-mitigation measure is proposed to ensure adequate maintenance of park facilities: ' 3.9-9 The project proposes to construct and dedicate the large community park to the County which would then be responsible for continued maintenance of the park. If this is unacceptable to the County, funding for maintenance.of the community ' park should be provided through a special district. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure the design of the community park reduces potential conflicts with the power line easement: 3.9-10 The community park should be designed so that active recreational use areas are located outside the power line easement. Active uses to be located outside the easement include: baseball diamonds, soccer fields and play ground areas. Uses ' permitted within the easement should be passive recreation and landscape areas. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' The proposed project would allocate 0.5 acres for a day care center. In order to ensure that the future facility to be located on this site is adequate to serve the demand generated by the proposed project, the following mitigation measure is proposed: 3.9-11 The project applicant shall prepare a child care needs assessment based upon the projected demographics and density of the proposed project. The needs 1 assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Plan prior to approval of the final phase map for the portion of the project which includes the day care site. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above would reduce the project's ' impact on park facilities to a less-than-significant level. OTHER GOVERNMENT SERVICES: MOSOUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT ' EXISTING SETTING The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District maintains an extensive mosquito control program in the project area. Nearby Bethel, Jersey and Holland Islands have historically had extensive mosquito problems,especially in the springtime following winter rains. The high water t table on these islands, as well as other environmental factors, such as existing wetlands, contribute to this problem. (Letter from Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District,dated March. 9, 1992.) 1 3-187 1 i IMPACTS The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD) notes that the environmental conditions in the area indicate that the project would cause an increase in the Ievel of service ' required from CCMAD. Golf courses and parks typically have water detention basins and possible use of reclamation water within.their boundaries. The detention basins, along with the proposed 60 acres of channels and lake on the project site can lead to mosquito problems year ' round. In addition, residential development adjacent to existing agricultural operations creates problems with urban runoff. New development in the project area would increase the monitoring required to avoid the seasonal emergence of large numbers of pasture mosquitoes, which ' otherwise could annoy area residents and affect human health. (Letter from Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District, dated Mar. 9, 1992.) The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD) recommends that it be ' consulted regarding the creation of any new wetlands in the project area. Ponds and lakes should ' be as deep as possible with steep sides to the embankments to minimize mosquito production. The water level should be kept as constant as possible to avoid production of floodwater mosquitoes. Whenever possible, emergent vegetation should be minimized to reduce protective and nutritive habitat for immature mosquitoes. Channels and basins should be as deep as , possible with steep sides. CCMAD should be consulted regarding any improvements to existing drainage ditches or the creation of new ones. If water reclamation alternatives are considered for recreation areas within the project boundaries,CCMAD should be consulted in the design and , i testing of alternative methods and disbursement sources. (Letter from Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District, dated Mar. 9, 1992). ' i The proposed design of the Lake and channels and the proposed water quality management plan addresses many of the concerns of CCMAD to help reduce potential mosquito ' populations. (See Section 3.7 for additional discussion of the proposed water quality maintenance plan). The proposed design of the lake and water quality maintenance plans would reduce potential impacts from mosquitos to a less-than-significant level. ' MITIGATION MEASURES 3.9-12 CCMAD should be provided the final design plans for wetland mitigation areas and golf course maintenance and irrigation for review and comment prior to their approval. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County) ' i 3-188 I I i I ll 3.10 UTILITIES This section of the EIR addresses the provision of various utilities for the proposed project including: water, sewage disposal, electrical service, natural gas, telephones, solid waste and lighting. This section also addresses applicable policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan, including key growth management issues. Policies are presented under "Existing Setting'; I' the evaluation of the project's consistency with these policies is described under"'Impacts." Where impacts have been quantified on the basis of the number of residential units proposed by the project, the figure of 1,330 units has been used. The actual net number of additional units on the project site would be 1,322 after deducting the eight existing residences on the site that would be removed by the project. Therefore, the following analysis depicts a "worst-case" scenario. WATER ' EXISTING SETTING Project Site, Water Facilities and Use ' The project site is currently irrigated with delta water provided by Reclamation District ' 799 (RD-799). The few homes that exist on the property utilize groundwater wells and individual pressure tanks. There is no duly organized water purveyor providing domestic water within the project area. The total amount of groundwater presently used for domestic purposes ' is estimated at 4,000 gallons per day, while irrigation water use is estimated at 600 acre feet per year. tExisting Facilities in the Proiect Area Groundwater is the source of all domestic water supply in the Planning Area, with 1 groundwater generally withdrawn from depths between 150 and 350 feet however, some shallower wells exist in the area (35 to 40 feet). Most of the wells are private individual wells or privately operated water systems such as the Oakley Mutual Water company located on ' Sandmound Boulevard. Ironhouse Sanitary District (formerly Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 15)publicly operates three water systems. The Contra Costa Water District(CCWD) receives water from Rock Slough. ' Approximately 21 privately operated water companies supply water to as few as two and to as many as 160 customers. There are also an unknown number of private individual wells ' which supply water to other residences. (See Figure 3.10-1) The distribution systems for the various water systems typically consist of a pump, hydropneumatic tank, and small diameter mains. Fire flows throughout the area are substandard. Water for fug fighting is mainly ' provided by tanker trucks and by pumping from the surrounding sloughs. (See Section 3.9) 3-189 i Franks Tract r Franks Tract ' Beacon West 1 �,•° 41 �� Development ° Ciea1 Reie ,Willow Mobile Home Park y\ tt �. Bethel Island JMcy Island i Ruch Ls.Dulc 1 I D %c h4kj^a Road\ _ •RO.O 1 oro Willow Park att , 1.16I1na • i _ Condominium i • _ I e Development Holland Tract 1 Project Site 1 1 C7 a..Rad -r •e� , co \.�I j • � Co ' i• I 1 Figure 3.10-1: 1 CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY CLUB Existing Water Wells and Facilities , PROJECT within the Project Area ' 3-190 1 I 1, In the East County area, the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides raw (untreated) water to the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, and to the Oakley Water District and West Pittsburg (private company). CCWD obtains its water from the Contra Costa Canal, which i' is part of the Central Valley Project. Water for the canal is diverted from the Delta at Rock II Slough. CCWD operates the Contra Loma Reservoir (storage capacity 2,095 acre-feet) and the Martinez Terminal Reservoir (capacity 268 acre-feet). Virtually all of the domestic water used 1� within the County by these agencies is from the Delta. The Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant, constructed under a joint powers agreement ' between the OWD and CCWD, began operation in July 1992. Phase I is designed to process up to 40 mgd, with 25 mgd of the capacity reserved for the CCWD and 15 mgd reserved for the OWD, and with costs apportioned to the respective districts accordingly. First water deliveries ' are to OWD exclusively. The ultimate capacity will be 80 mgd. (Dennis Pisila, CCWD Utility Planner, personal communication May 5, 1992.) The most serious potential water service deficiencies that have been identified in Contra Costa County are found in the area of East County within the Urban Limit Line. The three key issues regarding future water service involve: (1) the logistics of supplying water to the growth ' areas (constructing new pipelines,etc.); (2)identifying which water service agencies will assume responsibility for providing service; and (3) guaranteeing that an adequate supply of water will ' exist during normal and drought periods. Water Service District ' The Bethel Island area is not within the sphere of influence of any water district. (See Figure 3.10-2.) The nearest districts which could feasibly provide water service to the Bethel tIsland area include: • The Oakley Water District (OWD) which serves most of the Oakley area (OWD ' purchases raw water from the CCWD). • The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) which serves a large portion of Contra Costa County. • The East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) which provides agricultural irrigation ' water to a portion of the East County area. • The Ironhouse Sanitary District which serves Discovery Bay and portions of the Bethel ' Island and Hotchkiss Tract areas. 1 3-191 'I goo MEN sms BOB ONE IOU goo goo own logo IRS m MEN m m m m m OEM 11 I m !11 i1,1— 1Ilulr�'I I II I Lf /v ,� kill _ 1lul�l iil'lll �f (,�j ' �'. ( �! l'(�I _ •� P ^� ' !;Its f, I�� � , v P � In � I m rn i -�'-- ':- �-. j.r -. :.. ._._:,.. :_- ...:.._� .;.I ,�/ I I.�' ;tom'--� ,.r•..- ..�,� I 1 m •' _r _ _ I I � I/ � +L o E b + i t < Zo i3 .. A 1 The Bethel Island Area and project site would have to be included in the sphere of influence of either the OWD and CCWD, the Ironhouse Sanitary District or the ECCID before one district could provide water service to the area. The ECCID does not have any specific plans ' for construction of a water treatment plant in this area, but could legally serve the area. The CCWD administers the Central Valley Project supply under contract to the U.S. ' Bureau of Reclamation. That contract requires all areas served to be annexed into CCWD including areas served treated water by another purveyor such as the Oakley Water District. The Contra Costa LAFCO is the Lead Agency for future reorganization actions involving annexations to the Oakley Water District and CCWD, as well as Sphere of Influence actions necessary for annexations to proceed by the Conducting Authority. ' General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards The General Plan contains adopted water service goals, policies and implementation measures to assure adequate water supply and quality to serve the projected population. The following excerpts from the Public Facilities/Services Element are those most directly applicable ' to the proposed project. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under"Impacts" (see page 3-205). ' Water service systems shall be required to meet regulatory standards for water delivery, water storage and emergency water supplies. (Policy 7-16) ' Urban development shall be encouraged within the existing water Spheres of Influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation.Commission; expansion into new areas within the Urban Limit Line beyond the Spheres should be restricted to those areas where urban ' development can meet all growth management standards included in the General Plan. (Policy 7-19) At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The County shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built ' within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant, or other ' sources. (Policy 7-21) • Water service agencies shall be encouraged to meet all regulatory standards for water ' quality prior to approval of any new connections to that agency. (Policy 7-22) • Land uses and activities that could result in contamination of groundwater supplies shall be identified, monitored and regulated to minimize the risk of such contamination. (Policy 7-25) 3-193 i • The need for water system improvements shall be reduced by encouraging new ' development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use. (Policy 7-26) • Conditionally approve all tentative subdivision maps and other preliminary development , plans on verification of adequate water supply for the project. Such condition shall be satisfied by verification, based on substantial evidence in the record, that capacity within the system to serve the speck development project exists or comparable demonstration of adequate waste water treatment capacity. (Implementation Measure 7-i) Encourage water service agencies and the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) • to annex lands planned for urban development by the General Plan into their service areas. (Implementation Measure 7-m) ' • Encourage water service agencies to require separate service connections and meters where large quantities of water are used for special purposes such as landscape irrigation. ' (Implementation Measure 7-p) • Where feasible, include water conservation measures recommended by water service ' agencies in the conditions of approval for subdivisions and other new development. (Implementation Measure 7-r) , The Growth Management Element further states that project approvals conditioned on (1) or(2)of Policy 7-21 above,will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that ' capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quantity and quality availability. IMPACTS ' Estimated Water Requirements , The water requirements for the proposed project would amount to approximately 1.7 I million gallons per day (gpd). This can be broken down into 884,150 gpd for domestic use and 805,200 gpd for landscaping. Table 3.10-1 breaks down the proposed project's water consumption by land use type and domestic versus landscaping uses. The proposed project is proposing to utilize existing groundwater resources for irrigation , of the golf course, parks, wetlands, and certain levee areas. The groundwater used for these purposes would be taken from the proposed lake and channel system. As indicated in Table ' 3.10-1, approximately 805,200 gpd of groundwater would be required for irrigation purposes. Alternative Sources of Water ' The following discussions address various alternative water sources for the proposed I 3-194 'I I project. Where applicable, a review of existing capacity and its relationship to project demands is presented. For other alternatives, such as the use of reclaimed water and water conservation, a brief discussion of the feasibility and/or benefits is provided. ' Oakley Water District (OWD) ' The Oakley Water District is in the process of changing over to purchasing treated water from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The raw water that will be treated by.the CCWD will come from the Contra Costa Canal with the possibility of some of the supply coming from 1 the proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Under an agreement with the CCWD, the OWD has a 15 million gallon per day(MGD)capacity right in the new 40 MGD Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant (scheduled to be completed in July 1992) presently being constructed by the CCWD. The ' OWD projects its ultimate average day water demand to be 14.2 MGD which is for those lands within the defined LAFCO sphere of influence for the District. Of that 14.2 MGD, 3.1 MGD ' is known as being supplied from groundwater. The total requirements from the CCWD would therefore be 11.1 MGD (12,434 AF/Y). Service to the Bethel Island area has been discussed by the District in their October 1992 Master Water Plan, but the necessary treatment capacity, ' transmission facilities, and storage requirements were identified as a developer and/or possible condition of annexation cost. In the subject Master Plan, the Bethel Island area (of which the project area constitutes but a part) was identified to require an ultimate average day water demand of 3.9 MGD based on a per dwelling unit use of 600 gallons per day (GPD), which use is consistent with the present single family dwelling per day use within the District. If this source of supply is chosen, the project area will need to annex to the service area of the CCWD. If the project area chooses to have the OWD operate and maintain a system serving the project, it would also need to be annexed to the OWD. ' Service by a new district would require a number of actions to be undertaken including the fuming of a water right to water from the delta (possibly Sand Mound Slough), the ' construction of a water treatment plant, pumping, and storage facilities. In addition, the State Department of Public Health (SDOPH) would require the formation of, or annexation to, an agency that would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the water works in order to comply with state law relating to suitable drinking water supplies. This agency could be either an investor owned utility (eg - Mutual Water Company) or a public agency such as a County Water or County Waterworks District. Of significance, however, would be the capital cost of ' the treatment, storage, and pumping facilities that would need to be operational prior to occupancy of any structure built as part of the project. ' Contra Costa Water District Water from the CCWD could be made available to the area if a water treatment plant was ' constructed to treat the water to drinking water standards, and the requisite pumping and storage facilities constructed. However, as in the case with the OWD, the project area would need to be 3-195 i 1 Table 3.10-1 Project Water Consumption ' Domestic Landscaping ' Water Water Use Area (acres) Use (and) Use (and) i Single Family ' Residences 239.9 861,350 iFire Station 2.0 3,800 --- School Site 7.4 13,750 --- , Beach Club 1.9 3,750 --- Daycare Center 0.5 3,000 --- ' Roadway ROW 74.6 ---- Lakes/Channels 61.0 ---- --- Parks 33.7 ---- 103,740 , Golf Course 170.3 ---- 664,170 Wetlands 8.8 ---- 1,800 Levees 54.6 ---- --- ' Levee Roads 9.0 ---- --- Drill Sites 10.5 ---- --- Oven Space 12.7 , TOTAL 685.9 885,650 769,710 ----------------- Source: Unit values provided in the Oakley Water District Master Plan Update, 1991. , annexed to the service area of the CCWD. In addition, major capital costs relative to treatment, storage, and pumping would need to be undertaken prior to any occupancy permit being granted. ' Raw water would be. taken from the Contra Costa Canal at Cypress Road. The projected average annual demand at build-out for the Contra Costa Canal(from where , raw water would be obtained under both the OWD and this scenario), has been estimated by the CCWD as 195,000 AF/Y in critical years, with conservation and utilization of reclaimed water reducing that number by 17,800 AF/Y. The relative percentage demand that this project would , have on those estimates are 0.48% and 0.52%, respectively. It is apparent that there is a cumulative impact on the CCWD sources of supply by virtue of the project. However, the ' district has identified in their DEIR/DEIS on the Los Vaqueros project that minor sphere of influence changes may be able to be accommodated without compromising the project goals. The proposed project's demand would be considered minor. ' 3-196 I ' Use of Reclaimed Water The amount of domestic water that would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system is estimated at approximately 375,000 gallons per day. This sewage would be pumped to the Ironhouse Sanitary District treatment plant which presently disposes of their treated effluent onto pasture lands. At the present time, there is no program by the Sanitary District to reclaim the treated effluent for use other than as pasture irrigation water. Water Conservation ' The project intends to import approximately 990 AF of treated water per year for domestic use. Since this number is based upon a conservative per dwelling unit use of 600 GPD, ' the project sponsor plans to practice conservation by installing low flow fixtures and appliances when the project is built rather than retrofitting at some future date. ' Groundwater ' As stated, groundwater is intended to be used for landscaping irrigation outside the residential areas. The estimated demand of 902 AF/Y is an entirely new demand on the groundwater basin since all irrigation water is now obtained from off-site. The water would be taken from the proposed lake (which itself is groundwater) and would be used within the project. The net loss to the groundwater basin would be that water that is normally lost through transevaporation since whatever water that is not transpired by the plants, or evaporated, would return to the basin. Using groundwater as the total source of domestic water supply for this project may contribute to secondary problems such as subsidence, salt water intrusion into the delta aquifers, and general lowering of the groundwater table requiring additional pumping costs to surrounding owners that use groundwater. The use of non-potable groundwater for outside landscaping would lessen the amount of energy and chemicals needed in the water treatment process as well as allowing a reduction in the size of pipelines. Treated water that would have gone to landscaping could be used for other developments which would require a higher level of treated water. The Oakley Water District, in response to the project applicant's requests, has issued a letter(dated April 30, 1992) indicating that the Oakley Water District would supply the proposed ' project with water as long as the project meets all district regulations and specifications (see Appendix F). The District's letter also indicates that the proposed project site is not located within the existing Oakley Water District Service Area and would need to be annexed not only ' into the Oakley Water District, but the Contra Costa Water District as well. Annexation of the project site into the Oakley Water and Contra Costa Water districts would require approval of Contra Costa LAFCO. 1 1 3-197 1 Annexation Issues ' The Oakley Water District appears to be the logical provider of domestic water service to the proposed project for the following reasons: ' • The OWD has provided the project applicant with a "Will Serve" letter for the project. • The OWD has an agreement with the Contra Costa Water District for a.15 mgd right in ' the new 40 mgd Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant. The OWD projects its ultimate average day water demand to be 14.2 mgd, of which 3.1 ' • mgd is derived from groundwater resources, which is for those lands within the District's Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the OWD would have an available capacity of 3.9 mgd ' after build-out of the District's existing Sphere of Influence. • The proposed project would require approximately 0.9 mgd of treated water which could ' be accommodated within the District's remaining capacity. • Service to the project area was discussed in the District's October 1991 Master Water ' Plan which identified an ultimate water demand for the Bethel Island Area of 3.9 mgd. Issues regarding reorganization of the Oakley Water District Sphere of Influence would ' be the responsibility of Contra Costa LAFCO. Facility Requirements ' The project proposes to obtain its domestic water supply from the existing OWD mains located at the intersection of Highway 4 and Cypress Road in Oakley. From that point, the ' project would construct two separate 12" pipelines to the main entrance of the project, that are periodically interconnected, to the project site. The 12" pipelines would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project as well as some limited additional development.in the Bethel Island , Area. The two separate transmission lines are proposed so that if one line develops a break, the break could be isolated and adequate water flow to serve the project could continue in the other line. This is different than the distribution system identified in the OWD Master Plan which calls ' for a 18" line along Cypress Road to serve the Bethel Island Area. i Relationship to the General Plan ' The project would be consistent with the General Plan policies regarding water supply. The proposed project would obtain treated water from the OWD. The transmission facilities ' would be sized adequately to meet fire flows. The project proposes to construct to separate periodically connected pipelines to the site. This "dual" system is proposed so that if one line breaks, the break could be isolated allowing adequate flows to continue in the other line. This ' system also eliminates the need for water storage tanks. 1 3-198 ' The applicant has received a "will serve" letter from OWD indicating that it would serve the project if its regulations and specifications are met (Appendix F). The project proposes to design its facilities consistent with OWD's requirements and to reflect the special Delta environment (i.e. water quality). Consistent with the County's Growth Management Standards, the project would fully finance all new water supply improvements. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measure is proposed to monitor effects on the groundwater table as a result of irrigation on-site and to avoid any potential impacts due to groundwater draw down: ' 3.10-1 Implement a groundwater management plan to address water requirements for irrigating the golf course and parks and to monitor changes in the groundwater table. The groundwater management plan should also address the management of pesticides and measures to be taken to reduce potential impacts on groundwater ' resources. In addition, the plan should identify what areas, and in what sequence, water will be discontinued to portions of the golf course and parks in the event ' of water cutbacks because of drought or substantial lowering of the water table. The plan should be approved by the County prior to filing a final subdivision map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the projects' water consumption demand: 3.10-2 Design into the golf course the use of grasses that are drought tolerant to limit the amount of water necessary for irrigation. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) ' 3.10-3 Require all structures to confirm to the California Health and Safety Code Section 1792.3 and the Public Resources Code Section 25402 with regard to maximum ' flow rates through plumbing fixtures. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.10-4 Provide homeowners with alternative landscaping opportunities such as xeriscape landscaping for builder installed front yards. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.10-5 Design water distribution systems in accordance with American Water Works ' Association standards. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.10-6 Install cathodic protection where corrosive environments are found and metallic water line products must be used. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.10-7 Landscaping materials should be drought-tolerant to reduce overall landscape and irrigation requirements. The landscape areas should conform with the requirements of the County's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3-199 1 1 i The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that off-site water improvements ' necessary to serve the site are provide prior to project construction: I 13.10-8 The project should be required to construct, or pay a fee equal to,'the necessary ' off-site water system improvements to serve the proposed project. The size and design of these facilities should meet all applicable standards and requirements of the Oakley Water District and local Fire District Standards. The project should ' be reimbursed for the cost of constructing facilities which have the capacity to serve future development in the planning area served by the facilities. The necessary off-site water facilities should be completed and operational prior to the ' first homes being occupied on the site. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) i jSEWAGE DISPOSAL ' EXISTING SETTING I Most of the Planning Area is within the Ironhouse Sanitary District and receives sanitary service through a system of collection pipelines, force mains, transmission lines, pumping ' facilities and a wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater is conveyed by gravity sewer system with lift stations and force mains, to the 14-inch transmission force main along Bethel Island i Road, and on to the Oakley Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility (Oakley Treatment ' j Plant) north of Oakley. (See Figure 3.10-3) The Ironhouse Sanitary District combined several previously separate districts,the Oakley Sanitary District, Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 15 (CCCSD 15), and the ' Oakley/Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority, through the following actions: the Oakley Sanitary District was renamed the Ironhouse Sanitary District;the newly named Ironhouse , Sanitary District then annexed CCCSD 15; the Oakley/Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority, which up to that time had operated the wastewater treatment plant, was transferred to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. ' The Ironhouse Sanitary District, through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), is in the process of expanding its Sphere of Influence to annex all lands between the ' former Oakley Sanitary District to the west and the former CCCSD 15 to the east, and between the San Joaquin River to the north and Delta Road to the south. The new boundary may include the Town of Knightsen. However, the parcels in Hotchkiss Tract which were not included in the ' old CCCSD 15 jurisdiction are not included in the Ironhouse Sanitary Districts current application to LAFCO. A separate LAFCO application would be required for these two parcels to be annexed to the district. (Jack Elder, May 5, 1992) ' Collection System I Collection system capacity vanes by location within the system. Because a combination j of gravity lines, pump stations and force mains are used, capacity is dependent on the system I i 3-200 r Franks Tract rFranks Tract ±►,,eSor�� �O i O Ged Read Bethel Island t `� Island \;� i ` tv r Campo _ Sandy Le. � - Main Pump Station ~/ WB-1QRv.tl �G ' i i � `• Pump Station 1 ! r r `� y u•'—' �.'� Holland Tract Project Site t `i ,�. . .. �M.p ..� To OBI Treatment Plant cCc i :L a r Figure 3.10-3: CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY CLUB Existing Sewer Facilities within the Project Area PROJECT 1 3-201 i element or series of elements in the portion of the system most impacted by development. j A 14-inch sanitary sewer force main conveys sewage from the Main Pump Station, located on , Bethel Island, and WEB-14 Pump Station, located at Wells Road and Bethel Island Road, to the sewage treatment plant. Pump station staff indicates a pumping capacity of at least 2.0 million ' gallons per day (mgd) from the Main Pump Station, and a combined capacity of 2.4 mgd using both the Main and WEB-14 pump stations. The force main and pumps appear to have available ;capacity in excess of 1.0 mgd. Flow estimates from the Planning Area average 0.6 mgd, half of ' (which is attributable to infiltration and inflow and half to raw sewage. ;Treatment Capacity I The Oakley Treatment Plant was designed for a treatment capacity of 1.5 mgd dry !weather flow, adequate to serve 5,800 persons. Since the plant was put into operation, it has , !been determined that the actual treatment capacity of the plant is 2.2 mgd, significantly greater !than the design capacity, and that the plant has the capacity to serve approximately 13,800 ' !persons. Currently, the plant is treating approximately 1.45 mgd. The plant can be expanded to serve all forecasted growth within the existing service area. The District has completed a feasibility / preliminary design study for increasing plant ' capacity up to 8.0 mgd in stages. This project is currently undergoing environmental analysis land review. (Jack Elder, May 5, 1992) , i (Disposal System/Capacity The current Waste Discharge Requirements set by the California Regional Water Quality ;Control Board (RWQCB) - Central Valley Region require the District to dispose of all reclaimed !water by land disposal; no surface water discharge is permitted. The District's disposal system ' consists of 309 acres of irrigated pasture land owned by the District (this includes the recently .purchased Porter Ranch), a 100-acre parcel, owned by a nearby dairy, that can be used for disposal during the winter months) and two storage reservoirs with a combined capacity of 350 ' acre-feet (114 million gallons). The District is in the process of looking at additional sites for !land disposal. (Jack Elder, May 5, 1992) I i The plant's disposal capacity is 2.2 mgd based on dry weather flows. Current disposal requirements are approximately 1.4 mgd. Future expansion of disposal capacity may involve !direct discharge of treated water from the treatment ponds to the marsh area near the treatment , ;plant; Big Break; or, the San Joaquin River. If the cost of land disposal were comparable to the slowest cost of one of these alternatives, the RWQCB would probably require land disposal, and ,the District would have to acquire additional rights by agreement with the owners or by eminent ' domain. However, the cost of land required for land disposal has increased rapidly and it is 'unlikely that land disposal through purchase of land would be comparable to the least expensive surface water discharge alternative. ' i i i 1 3-202 i ', Funding of Expansion New system connections will pay a Facilities Capacity Fee to provide funding for future ' expansion. This fee is a charge on all new development to replace the capacity used by the development. The current fee per household connection is $2,146.00 for plant capacity, plus $600 for trunk lines,plus$250 per connection. The Oakley Sanitary District and CCCSD 15 had different trunk lines fees and connection charges. These will be consolidated in June 1992. Future development will pay the same fees, adjusted for inflation, in advance of the capacity needed to serve the development. General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards ' General Plan sewage disposal goals, policies and implementation measures are set forth in the Public Services/Facilities Element. Those most directly applicable to the proposed project include the following. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under "Impacts". • Sewer treatment facilities shall be required to operate in compliance with waste discharge ' requirements established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Development that would result in the violation of waste discharge requirements shall not be approved. (Policy 7-29) ' Sewer service agencies shall be encouraged to establish service boundaries and develop treatment facilities to meet future service needs based on the growth policies contained in the County and cities' General Plans. (Policy 7-30) • Urban development shall be encouraged within the sewer Spheres of Influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Expansion into new areas within the Urban Limit Line but beyond the Spheres of Influence should be restricted to those areas where urban development can meet growth management standards included in the General Plan. (Policy 7-31) • At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to demonstrate ' that wastewater capacity can be provided. The County shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the wastewater treatment system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other ' mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant, or other sources. (Policy 7-33) • For future sewer facilities that may be required,appropriate land areas in the County shall be designated consistent with other policies in the General Plan. (Policy 7-34) 3-203 i 1 • Opportunities for using reclaimed wastewater shall be identified and developed in 1 cooperation with sewer service and water service agencies. (Policy 7-35) • The need for sewer system improvements shall be reduced by requiring new development 1 to incorporate water conservation measures which reduce flows into the sanitary sewer system. (Policy 7-37) • Conditionally approve all tentative subdivision maps and other preliminary development 1 plans on verification of adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the project. Such condition shall be satisfied by verification based upon substantial information in the ' record that capacity within the system to serve the specific development project exists or comparable demonstration of adequate wastewater treatment capacity. (Implementation 1 Measure 7-t) • Include wastewater reduction and other measures recommended by sewer service agencies 1 in the conditions of approval for subdivisions and other new development. (Implementation Measure 7-x) 1 r Encourage sewer service agencies and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex lands planned for urban development by the General Plan into their 1 service areas. (Implementation Measure 7-y) • Encourage LAFCO to establish sewer service Spheres of Influence that are coincident 1 with the boundary of planned urban development in the General Plan, including those rural areas that currently receive service. (Implementation Measure 7-z) The Growth Management Element further states that project approvals conditioned on (1) or(2)of policy 7-33 above,will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable 1 evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity availability. IMPACTS 1 Proiect Specific The proposed project would result in a significant increase in wastewater generated from the project site. Based on wastewater generation factors provided by the Oakley Sanitary District, the proposed project would generate approximately 360,000 gallons/day (or 0.36 mgd) based on 270 gallons/unit day x 1,330 units. The most logical provider of sewer service for the project is the Ironhouse Sanitary District because 75% of the proposed project site is located within their existing service boundaries. The project applicant has requested that the remainder of the project site be annexed 1 3-204 li 11 ' to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. The project applicant has received a "will serve" letter from the Ironhouse Sanitary District (see Appendix G). Annexation of the remainder of the project site into the Ironhouse Sanitary District would require approval from Contra Costa LAFCO. The sewage disposal system for the project would consist of gravity sewer mains, lift stations and pumps. Wastewater from the system would be discharged into the existing force ' main in Bethel Island Road at Cypress Road. The existing force main in the project vicinity appears to have adequate remaining capacity to serve the proposed project (available capacity is approximately 1.8 mgd,project would generate approximately 0.36 mgd). However,the existing ' force main is cast-iron which has caused problems in the past. Therefore, a hydraulic analysis of the force main may be necessary prior to any increase in sewage generation from the project area (Jack Elder, June 3, 1992). There also appears to be adequate treatment and disposal capacity at the treatment plant to serve the project (available capacity is approximately 0.75 mgd, project would generate 0.36 mgd). However, the District provides service on a first-come/first- serve irst-come/fi st-serve basis which is determined at the time building permits are issued. Bethel Island Area COLLECTION ' Projected average daily flow at full build-out of the Planning Area would be 1.61 mgd. The resulting peak hourly flows would be 3.3 mgd. An analysis of the gravity and pressurized elements of the collection system would be required to fully evaluate impacts. The existing force ' main appears to be adequate for this flow rate, although new pumps or new pump stations may be required. The Main and WEB-14 pump stations have a combined capacity of 2.4 mgd. The flow is conveyed from the pump station to the treatment plant through a 23,500-foot long 14-inch diameter force main. Additional pumping in the Main pump station and the WEB-14 pump station would need to be provided to accommodate build-out under the County General Plan. The head loss through the 14-inch force main at a flow of 3.3 mgd would result in head/pressure ' losses of approximately 50 pounds per square inch (psi). Assuming a 150 psi rating for the existing line, the 14-inch line would be adequate. ' TREATMENT The treatment plant was designed for a peak month design capacity of 1.5 mgd. Actual plant operations analyses have shown that the plant has a peak month design capacity of 2.2 mgd. Current disposal capacity is in excess of 2.2 mgd based on dry weather flows. The peak month flow for the Planning Area at build-out (including Oakley flows and existing flows) using a ' peaking factor of 1.15 is 13.0 mgd. This would require expansion of the existing treatment and disposal capacities upon build-out under the County General Plan. 3-205 1 i 1 Relationship to the General Plan i The applicant received a"will serve"letter from the Ironhouse Sanitary District(Appendix , G). The District will provide service if the sewage facilities necessitated by the project are consistent with its regulations. The applicant will pay all general connection facility capacity trunk line and household connection fees consistent with the.District's requirements and the ' County's Growth Management Standards. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are proposed to ensure adequate sewage collection (facilities are provided to accommodate the project: 10n-Site Improvements 3.10-9 The project applicant would be required to construct all necessary sewage ` collection facilities on-site to serve the project. These facilities should be built to district standards and appropriate easements for district maintenance provided. The sewage collection facilities should be installed prior to the first homes being occupied. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Off-Site Improvements a 3.10-10 A hydraulic analysis of the force main should be conducted to determine the capacity of the existing force main and any improvements that may be necessary to accommodate the proposed project. This analysis should be conducted prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. The project shall pay its fair share of any improvements necessary to the force main to serve the project. "The fair-share fee shall be paid upon approval of the first phased map. (Responsibility: Ironhouse Sanitary District/Project Applicant) 3.10-11 The project should be required to pay the full costs of any increase in pumping I capacity or new pump station(s) necessary to serve the project. The need and cost for these improvements shall be determined by the Ironhouse Sanitary District prior to approval of the final map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3[10-12 A reimbursement agreement shall be entered into between the project applicant and the Ironhouse Sanitary District whereby the project applicant would be reimbursed for the portion of the cost of new facilities which have the capacity ' to serve areas in addition to the project. The reimbursement would be paid out of fees paid by future developments. (Responsibility: Project'Applicant) 3-206 I i I l I r ' ELECTRICAL SERVICE EXISTING SETTING rElectricity is supplied to the Bethel Island area by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Power is supplied from the regional power grid, which is fed by various power . generating facilities throughout the western states. The Vaca-Dixon Station near Vacaville distributes electricity to various substations, which supply power to local distribution networks. The Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract areas are currently served by the Contra Costa Substation in Antioch. Power is transmitted over two parallel 21 kV lines along Cypress Road. There are four transformer banks, three on Bethel Island and one south of Dutch Slough, which step down the voltage from 21 kV to 4 kV. Power is supplied to individual units via overhead lines. ' General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards The General Plan proposes, in various Elements, specific policies related to electrical services. The following policies are pertinent to development within the Planning Area. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under "Impacts" (see page 3-216). • Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential community r services and facilities including, but not limited to roads, law enforcement and fire protection services, schools, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. (Policy 3-6) rConsolidation of utility/drainage/transportation corridors shall be considered, where appropriate. (Policy 5-31) ' The County shall encourage housing that will conserve and more efficiently use energy resources. (Policy 6-5) ' New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all existing public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to new development. (Policy 7-1) • New development, not existing residents, shall be required to pay all costs of upgrading r existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed to serve the new development. (Policy 7-2) • New power lines shall be located parallel to existing lines in order to minimize their visual impact. (Policy 8-98) • The appearance of the County shall be improved by eliminating negative features such as non-conforming signs and overhead utility lines, and by encouraging aesthetically designed facilities with adequate setbacks and landscaping. (Policy 8-105) r 3-207 1 1 i I I I IMPACTS , Electric service would be supplied to new development by PG&E. � The proposed project may result in the need to reinforce (add additional capacity to) the parallel 21 kV distribution lines from east of Sellers Avenue to Bethel Island. Typically, the cost of reinforcing existing lines would be borne by PG&E. The project site would be served by new and reinforced 21 kV underground distribution lines. The costs associated with off-site distribution line reinforcement and new line and equipment installation would be financed by both the developer and PG&E, according to Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulations. Underground utilities installed in areas subject to flooding and higher salinity levels should be placed in relatively water resistant conduits and vaults this in order to maximize the cable life. Cables which are presently being installed have life spans of up to 20 or 30 years. As part of their normal planning process, PG&E would conduct a study to determine the eilxtent of reinforcement and need for additional equipment and new lines. Relationship to the General Plan a I The project would be consistent with the General Plan. The applicant proposes-to install ail new electrical service lines underground in water tight conduits according to PG&E-Standards at it's expense. MITIGATION MEASURES D The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure the project conforms with the requirements of the General Plan. 3.10-13 The project shall include the undergrounding of all new electrical service lines necessary to serve the project site. Electrical lines should be placed in relatively water tight conduits according to PG & E standards. This should be completed prior to the first houses being occupied. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/PG&E) 3.10-14 The need to upgrade off-site electrical lines shall be determined by PG&E prior to approval of the final map. If off-site reinforcement is necessary, the project applicant should be required to pay the project's fair-share, if any, of the reinforcement. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3-208 I 'C ' NATURAL GAS SERVICE EXISTING SETTING A natural gas distribution system for residents does not exist in the Bethel Island.Area. Gas service to individual units is provided by propane tanks. ' The Bethel Island Area contains significant natural gas resources. There are approximately 22 natural gas wells operating in the area, three of which are on Bethel Island. None is located in the Hotchkiss Tract. The gas produced by these wells is conveyed through a system of collector lines to a main trunk line in Antioch, where it becomes part of PG&E's regional gas network. Five potential drill sites for natural gas, occupying 10.5 acres, are located ' within the project boundaries but outside the proposed levee system. These drill site areas are not proposed for development at this time. Issues related to natural gas production and the drill sites on the project site are discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIR. IMPACTS ' The Cypress Lakes project proposes all electric service to the site, with individual homeowners having the option of using propane tanks. The five drill sites shown within the Cypress Lake boundaries could have potential impacts, on adjacent residences if the drill sites become operational. Issues regarding the ' development of natural gas wells adjacent to the proposed residential uses are discussed in Section 3.11 of this EIR. ' MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would have minimal impact on natural gas service because it would ' be served by electricity only. If desired,individual project residents could use propane if allowed by the homeowner's association. No additional mitigation necessary. ' TELEPHONE SERVICE EXISTING SETTING 1 Telephone service in the Bethel Island Area is provided by Pacific Bell. The existing system consists of an underground fiber trunk line which runs along Cypress Road and Bethel ' Island Road, to the central office located on Bethel Island. The trunk line feeds the switching equipment, which is located in the central office. Feeders run from the central office and provide phone service to discrete sections of the Bethel Island area. The feeders interface with local ' distribution systems which supply individual units via overhead lines and poles. The phone system serving the area south of Dutch Slough (Hotchkiss Tract) has capacity for approximately 3-209 1 i 1500 additional connections. Bethel Island's phone system has adequate capacity to accommodate , 'the existing growth rate of approximately 80 new connections per year. (General Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards Various Elements of the General Plan contain the following policies which can be applied to telephone services for development within the Planning Area. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under "Impacts" (see page 3-219). • Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential community I services and facilities including, but not limited to roads, law enforcement and fire protection services, schools, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. (Policy 3-6) Consolidation of utility/drainage/transportation corridors shall be considered, where appropriate. (Policy 5-31) • New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all existing public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to new development. (Policy 7-1) • New development, not existing residents, shall be required to pay all costs of upgrading 8 existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed to serve the new development. (Policy 7-2) • The appearance of the County shall be improved by eliminating negative features such as non-conforming signs and overhead utility lines, and by encouraging aesthetically designed facilities with adequate setbacks and landscaping. (Policy 8-105) IMPACTS PI oiect Specific The proposed Cypress Lakes project would require the replacement of the switch on Bethel Island and the extension of new telephone cables to the project site. The proposed project would probably require a minimum of 1,330 new residential connections, plus connections for the proposed recreational uses as necessary. In addition, the use of facsimile machines and personal computer modems would increase the demand for new connections beyond that historically required for the proposed uses. According to PUC regulations, costs of line and , equipment installation would be borne by the developer and Pacific Bell. According to County policy, distribution lines would need to be placed underground in relatively water tight conduits ' and vaults, thereby avoiding visual impacts and prolonging the life of the equipment and cables. I ' 3-210 I � 11 I Bethel Island Area The switch at the Pacific Bell's central office on Bethel Island has capacity for approximately 2,200 additional connections. Modification or replacement of the switch would therefore be required for build-out of the Planning Area. It would be necessary to extend new telephone cables. to Hotchkiss Tract once the 500 connection reserve is exhausted. Cost ' responsibility for upgrading the switch and extending the cables is governed by the Public Utilities Commission. Telephone cables must be installed in relatively watertight conduits and vaults in order to extend their life. Relationship to the General Plan ' The project would be consistent with the General Plan. The applicant will finance all costs of upgrading the existing communications system as discussed above. Moreover, the applicant will coordinate its development plans with Pacific Bell, place all distribution lines tunderground, and install telephone cables underground. ' MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would have minimal impacts on telephone service. The need for additional telephone/communication facilities would be funded by typical hook-up and uses fees assessed on individual homeowners. However, to ensure the proper expansion and design of telephone facilities, the following mitigation measures are proposed: ' 3.10-15 Place distribution lines underground. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Pacific Bell) ' 3.10-16 Install telephone cables in relatively water-tight conduits and vaults. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Pacific Bell) ' No additional measures are identified at this time. SOLID WASTE EXISTING SETTING ' In Contra Costa County solid waste collection and disposal has been the responsibility of private companies. The role of government in solid waste management is one of planning, administration, and facility.approval. Approximately 750,000 tons per year of solid waste is generated by residences,businesses and industries in the County. The County's landfill capacity was expanded with the approval of the Marsh Canyon and Keller Canyon Landfills. Refuse ' collection service in the Planning Area is provided by Oakley Disposal Service. 3-211 i i Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract generate approximately 75 to 100 cubic yards of c�mpacted waste per week. Oakley Disposal currently operates one truck, three days per week, to service this area. The area was previously served by Brentwood Disposal, however growth in the area necessitated opening a second office in Oakley. Both Brentwood Disposal and Oakley Disposal are under the same ownership. (Gloria Gonzales, May 6, 1992) Refuse from the project area is transported to the Acme Waste Recovery and Transfer Station in Martinez where resource recovery and recycling operations for this part of the County are located. After separation, the remaining refuse is then transported to the Keller Canyon IJIandfill near Pittsburg. In accordance with County solid waste policy,all refuse must be initially 1 transported to transfer stations. This requirement is also included in the conditions of approval for development projects. (Ray Malone, May 7, 1992) Refuse from the Bethel Island Area was formerly transported to the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Antioch, however this site was closed on March 31, 1992. In the future, plans are to transport solid waste from the East County area to a new transfer station, the East County Community Collection Center, proposed to be located east of Antioch on Wilbur Avenue. This project is undergoing environmental review; the estimated completion date for the facility, if approved, is 1994. (Ray Malone, May 7, 1992) a GI neral Plan Policies and Growth Management Standards In order to provide adequate and effective solid waste disposal services in keeping with the growth management objectives of the General Plan, a comprehensive set of county wide goals, policies and implementation measures were adopted. The following excerpts from the Public Services/Facilities Element are the goals, policies and implementation measures which could be applicable to private development projects. Project consistency with these policies is discussed under "Impacts" (see page 3-222). • To provide for the safe, efficient and cost-effective removal of waste from residences, 1 businesses and industry. (Goal 7-AE) • I To reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills by: 1) reducing the amount of solid waste generated (waste reduction); 2) reusing as much of the solid waste as possible (recycling); , 3) utilizing the energy and nutrient value of the solid waste (waste to energy and composting); and 4) to properly dispose of the remaining solid waste (landfill disposal). (Goal 7-AG) , • To divert as much waste as feasible from landfills through recovery and recycling. (Goal 7-AH) , � 1 I 3-212 I ' Solid waste disposal capacity shall be considered in County and city land use planning and permitting activities, along with other utility requirements, such as water and sewer service. (Policy 7-89) Since the adoption of the General Plan, the County adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan (Dec. 1989). However, this plan was preempted by AB939 on Jan. 1, 1990, mandating that ' new plans be formulated. The County is in the process of preparing a new plan, but is using the Dec. 1989 plan for guidance. The Dec. 1989 plan contains no project-specific policies, but the new one may address source reduction and recycling. (Ray Malone, Community Development Department, personal communication May 5, 1992) IMPACTS ' Proiect Specific ' The proposed Cypress Lakes project includes 1,330 new dwelling units. This would increase the population by about 3,247 residents and would generate about 13,213 pounds of ' additional solid waste per day, a rate of 4.1 pounds per person per day (Contra'Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan, December 1989). This quantity would contribute to the cumulative impact of solid waste disposal for the population in the East County area. ' Development of the Cypress Lakes project would require expansion of the service routes and possibly necessitate an additional truck and driver. However, the cost of expanding services to serve the project site would be paid for through normal collection fees. (Gloria Gonzales, May ' 6, 1992.) Bethel Island Area ' Generation of additional solid waste by new development in the Bethel Island Area would require modification of the existing refuse collection service. Oakley Disposal Service would need to expand its routes and add additional equipment and personnel. The 3,109 new dwelling units allowed by the County General Plan would generate a ' population 7,190 persons, assuming 2.57 persons per household and a 10 percent vacancy rate. This amounts to about 29,500 pounds of new waste generated per day at build-out of the Planning Area. ' Relationship to the General Plan ' The project would be consistent with the policies contained in the County General Plan. Roadways are designed and would be constructed to provide adequate access for collection trucks. 1 1 3-213 i I MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would not.result in an adverse impact on solid waste collection and Idisposal services, therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. I Although the County's adopted Solid Waste Management Plan was preempted by AB 939, Ithe plan is being used by the County for guidance. In addition, the new solid waste plan, now in progress, may address source reduction and recycling requirements that would be appropriate to include in the conditions of approval for the proposed Cypress Lakes project. (LIGHTING EXISTING SETTING Very little street lighting exists in the Planning Area, particularly in the Hotchkiss Tract portion. I 1 Street lighting in public streets, or streets intended to become public streets,would be installed in accordance with the Contra Costa County Code (Title 9: Subdivisons), summarized below: Following approval of the tentative map, the subdivider shall submit construction plans a for the street lighting improvements. All street lighting systems shall be jointly owned and operated by the county and the serving public utility company, unless other adequate arrangements are approved by the planning commission. Costs for ornamental street lighting standards or costs associated Q with any underground wiring system are not the responsibility of the county or utility company. • If the subdivision is not within the boundaries of a county service area authorized to supply street lighting, annexation to the appropriate county service area is required. •I The public works department may require upgrading of existing or proposed lights at e intersections where deemed necessary to prevent a hazard to traffic or pedestrians. •I Street lighting shall be provided along all streets within one mile of schools. IMPACTS The proposed Cypress Lakes project includes street lighting and additional lighting associated with individual residential units and recreational uses. The street lighting would be installed in accordance with Contra Costa County Code (Title 9) requirements. I 3-214 I tl I 1 1 The project applicant proposes that the street lights be maintained by Contra Costa County. County code requires that a one year deposit be made to the public works department for maintenance and adjustments to the street lighting. Street lighting associated with the project may result in urban "glow" which may impact the visual character of Hotchkiss Tract. This potential impact would be significant. ' MITIGATION MEASURES Street lighting on public streets would require annexation of the proposed Cypress Lakes project to a county service area for this purpose. The following mitigation measure is proposed: ' 3.10-17 Project street lights should utilize down focused lights and other features to reduce glare. The design of street lights should be submitted for review and approval to ' the County Public Works Department for review and approval prior to approval of the final map. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 1 Implementation of this measure would reduce the project's glare impacts to a less-than significant level. t 3-215 1 1 3111 HUMAN HEALTH i EXISTING SETTING Development of residential and recreational land uses on the project site presents certain concerns regarding potential adverse effects on human health. Potential hazards may exist on the project site due to the past and present agricultural use of the property (hazardous materials in the from of pesticides), nearby agricultural operations, the presence of electrical transmission lines, natural gas wells in the project vicinity, mosquitos and their potential to transmit diseases, and the project site's location (down wind) of various industrial uses in the Antioch area. The following discussion describes existing conditions in each of these areas. Hazardous Materials Past and present use of pesticides is the primary hazardous material concern related to the project site. The number and type of pesticides that are legal and thought to be safe has changed significantly over time. For example, DDT, which once was legal in the United States, is now illegal to use due to itsconsiderable adverse.effects on the environment. Because of the long history of agricultural uses on the project site, it is assumed that a wide range of pesticides have been used on the project site (including those that were legal, but may now be illegal). Many agricultural chemicals degrade naturally, either by sunlight-degradation, biological and/or chemical decomposition, oxidation, or volatilization. The rate of degradation ranges widely. Some agricultural chemicals can move up the food chain from plants to animals such a' birds and fish and ultimately to humans. However, the health risks associated with many pesticides are unknown. Long-term agricultural use of a property can tend to concentrate, or build-up, pesticides in the soil. The pesticides of most concern are those that do not easily degrade and are toxic or carcinogenic. County regulations require that "restricted-use" pesticides be stored in storage areas that are locked and posted with warnings. Because of these restrictions, pesticides are generally stored in the same location year after year and can .result in these storage areas being contaminated. i A preliminary environmental assessment for hazardous materials was conducted on the project site in 1989 by Kaldveer Associates. The purpose of this investigation was to identify I ny conditions or activities,on the site or in the site vicinity that may result in or indicate the presence of potentially hazardous materials at the ground surface or in the soil. The information in this section of the EIR is summarized from the Kaldveer Associates Report which is available for review at the offices of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. As part of this preliminary assessment a site reconnaissance was conducted, county and state government agencies were contacted and available documents were reviewed. The research focused on the present and past uses on the site which may have involved the use of hazardous 3-216 'i ' materials. The preliminary assessment found that there was no evidence of any soil and/or groundwater contamination or underground storage tanks existing on the property. However,due to the past and present use of the site for agricultural purposes, there is the potential for the ' existence of low levels of residual pesticides in the soil. Several above ground fuel storage tanks are located on the project site near the Dal Porto ' residence. In addition, four vehicles are also stored on the property. The surrounding properties, primarily to the north, west and south, support some form of agricultural operation. These agricultural operations are similar to those presently and historically found on the project site (cattle grazing, seed crops, row crops). Pesticides are regularly used on the surrounding properties. Aerial application of pesticides is often used on row crops. Aerial application of pesticides can expose agricultural workers and nearby residents to hazards. However, application is restricted to certain wind and weather conditions to minimize drifting ' of pesticides across property lines. County regulations also require that the pilot maintain a 100- foot buffer zone between any building and the application area. ' Electrical Transmission Lines Electric power lines and other electrical devices that utilize alternating current produce ' electromagnetic fields which are created by the electric charges flowing through the electrical transmission lines and devices. The strength of these fields varies greatly from large, high- voltage power lines, which create strong electromagnetic fields, to household appliances which ' create low frequency electromagnetic fields. Numerous studies of human populations (epidemiological studies) have been performed ' to look for associations between exposure to electromagnetic fields produced by power lines, household wiring, electrical appliances and various diseases such as cancer, birth defects, developmental abnormalities and various neurological effects. Some of these studies have found ' a statistical association between increases in exposure to electromagnetic fields and increased cancer rates. However, epidemiological studies only show a statistical association and do not prove that electromagnetic fields are involved in causing cancer. Other research and studies ' performed to date are not conclusive on the potential health affects of electromagnetic fields. Due to the inconclusive nature of past studies, only seven states have adopted regulations ' to limit the intensity of electric fields in transmission line right-of-ways. These include Montana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Florida. The state of California does not have any standards for exposure to electric or magnetic fields or siting criteria for ' residential development near power lines. The California Department of Education has adopted guidelines that recommend minimum distances between new schools and the edge of transmission lines right-of-way. The setback guidelines are 100 feet for 100-110 kV lines; 150 feet for 220- 230 kV lines; and 250 feet for 245 kV lines. 1 3-217 t i i t I The project site contains several large transmission lines and an easement for a future transmission line. Three electrical transmission lines are located through the south-west corner of the project site. These include two PG&E power lines (both 500 kV) and one USA power line (230 M. The 230 Kv USA power line is slated to be removed in the'near future. The project ' site also includes a 200 foot wide easement for a future Western Area Power Administration (WIAPA) power line (planned to be 500 Kv). This future power line would occupy the middle 25 feet of this easement. Construction of the WAPA power line is expected to be complete prior to occupation of the project. Construction of the WAPA line may also result in the removal of the 230 kV USA Power line. Natural Gas Wells The Delta area contains abundant natural gas resources. These resources have been extensively developed ed and are present north of the project site in Rio Vista, to the south on Dutch Slough and to the west on Sherman Island. Some producing wells are also present within the 1 Bi Iethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area. The presence of active gas wells in the area presents the remote potential for an explosion or fire. The project site does not contain any existing active gas wells. However, the project site includes five potential drill sites in the form of easements which would allow for future gas exploration under the project site. The potential drill sites are located around the perimeter of ' the project site. None of these sites has been active (see Section 3.1 for additional discussion of the drill sites). Mosquitos , According to the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District, nearby areas such as Bethel Island, Jersey Island and Holland Island have historically had high mosquito populations. ' Mosquito populations primarily became an issue in the springtime after winter rains. The high water table in the project area and vicinity also contributes to mosquito breeding. ' IMosquitos present a health hazard because they can transmit diseases such as Western Equine Encephalitis and St. Louis Encephalitis. The transmission of these diseases and other in ' California is rare and the potential risks are managed by local Districts that implement population control strategies. Inl ustrial Emissions ' The project site is located downwind of several industrial operations which handle ' hazardous materials or emit certain compounds which may be hazardous to human health in the event of an accident or emergency. 3-218 1. Most of these industrial uses are located west of the project site in Antioch. They include: the DuPont chemical plant; Gaylord Paper Mill; the PG&E natural gas plant; Imperial West; and Kerley agricultural products (Coleman, 1992). ' As required by Proposition 65, businesses that emit certain compounds must notify the public. Some companies such as DuPont send out notices to area residents on a quarterly basis. Others print notices in the local newspapers or statements in their billings.(Coleman, 1992). IMPACTS Hazardous Materials ' The project presents the potential to expose new residents to pesticides. However, this risk is extremely low according to the Preliminary Environmental Assessment prepared for the project site. There is no evidence of soil groundwater contamination on the project site. ' However, due to the past and present agricultural use of the project site and that above ground fuel storage tanks and farm equipment is currently stored on the site, there exists the potential for low levels of residual pesticides and fuel contamination in the soil around these areas. According to the Preliminary Environmental Assessment, the Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture has stated that the site appears to be clear of any significant ' concentration of pesticides. The Preliminary Assessment concludes that the project site poses no threat to public health and safety and that there is no need for additional testing. Residents of the proposed project could be exposed to agricultural chemicals applied aerially on nearby agricultural lands. Chemicals applied aerially on nearby properties could drift ' onto the project site and cause adverse health effects and nuisance odors for project residents. The level of exposure for project residents would vary greatly depending on the amount of chemicals used and proximity to the application. ' As stated previously, Contra Costa County requires that a 100 foot buffer be established between any building and the aerial application of restricted chemicals. This buffer would reduce ' the potential for chemical drift onto the project site. In addition, Bethel Island Road along the western boundary of the project site would provide an additional buffer between the project and agricultural uses to the west. The project design would also include the construction of a flood ' control levee around the entire project. This levee would provide some protection against chemical drift onto the project site from nearby agricultural uses. While the project location, design and intensity of agricultural uses on adjacent properties would limit the potential for ' project residents to be exposed to agricultural chemicals as a result of aerial application and drift, this impact would still be considered potentially significant. This impact would be reduced as the surrounding agricultural land becomes developed with residential uses as currently proposed (See Section 5.2 Cumulative Impacts). e 3-219 i Electrical Transmission Lines ' The south west corner of the project site contains several large electrical transmission lines, the two 500 kV PG&E lines and the 230 kV USA Power line. In addition, a 500 kV WAPA line is planned to traverse the south-west portion of the project site. The proposed project would place residences adjacent to the existing power line easements ' at the south-west corner of the project and along both sides of the easement for planned WAPA power line. The WAPA easement is 200 feet in width. The proposed power lines would occupy the middle 25 feet of the easement. The nearest residential property line would be minimum of 88 1 feet from the power lines plus additional backyard setbacks. Studies of electromagnetic fields from new power lines have indicated that the strength of the field drops rapidly with distance from the line. At 100 feet the strength of the magnetic field is reduced substantially at the edge of the easement. For example, a hair dryer or electric shaver can have a magnetic field 100 1 Mmes more than the electromagnetic field at the edge of the easement. The WAPA easement is 200 feet in width to provide a sufficient buffer to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields (EIR/EIS for the California Oregon Transmission Line, February 1988. An assessment of the significance of electromagnetic exposure and the associated health risks is too speculative based on existing studies and available data. Under CEQA Section 15145, if, after thorough 1 investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. The proposed school site is located along the eastern border of the project site south of i Cypress Road. This location is sufficiently distant from the power line easements to meet applicable California Department of Education criteria. 1 N I tural Gas Wells IThe project site contains five potential drilling sites. These sites are vacant areas of land and no drills or wells are present. Gas has never been found in this area and there are no known gas resources in this area. As a result the potential for future gas exploration and development ' is speculative. A land use permit from Contra Costa County would be required for drilling to take place within 1,000 feet of an areas designated for residential use. Misguitos 1 The proposed project would involve the construction of lakes, a golf course and other ' water related facilities including wetland mitigation sites,drainage facilities. These facilities may provide breeding habitat for mosquitos if not properly maintained. In addition, urban development adjacent to existing agricultural uses can result in problems with urban runoff. All these factors may lead to additional breeding habitat for mosquitos. This may result in project residents being exposed to mosquito populations which could transmit encephalitis. However, I ' 3-220 I 11 it this impact is considered minor and controllable through proper mosquito population management practices. IIn addition to health effects, the project would result in additional demand on the services Of the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District to monitor and eradicate mosquito populations. This potential impact is discussed in Chapter 3.9 Public Services. 1 Industrial Emissions 1 The project site is located down wind of several industrial plants located in Antioch (approximately 10 miles to the west). These plants manufacture various chemicals, agricultural products and/or utilizes certain hazardous materials which may be harmful to human health if an ' accident occurred at these plants. An accident involving release of hazardous materials could result in the hazardous material travelling via the prevailing winds toward the project site resulting in exposure of project residents to potentially unhealthful levels of hazardous materials. 1 It is important to note that the project site is located a significant distance from these plants and the concentrations of such hazardous materials would be greatly reduced by the time it would reach the project site. In addition, these plants have emergency response plans to deal with any accidents or release of hazardous materials which may affect human health. This impact would not be considered significant. 1 MITIGATION MEASURES 1 Hazardous Materials The following mitigation measure is proposed to inform project residents of this potential hazards associated with adjacent agricultural uses and operations. 3.11-1 Each residence on the project site should include in its CC&Rs a clause consistent ' with disclosure currently required by the County stating that the incoming property owner is aware of adjacent agricultural uses and the potential hazards related to this land use. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County) ' Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the project's potential impact to a less than significant level. 1 Mosquitos 1 The following mitigation measures are proposed by the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD) to reduce mosquito populations which could result from the land uses and drainage impacts of the proposed project and the potential human health risks associated with 1 mosquitos: 1 3-221 1 1 3.11-2 The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD) should be consulted ' during the final design of any wetland mitigation sites to be created on the project site. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County/CCMAD) 3.11-3 If reclaimed water is used for recreation areas, CCMAD should be consulted regarding the design and testing of alternative methods and disbursement sources. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the project's potential impact o a less than significant level. 1 Mitigation For Other Potential Human Health Issues IThe electrical transmission lines and drill sites present on the project site do not present , significant human health impacts. However, the following mitigation measure is proposed to provide project residents with information regarding various human health issues related to these facilities: 3.11-4 Each residence within the project site should include in the CC&Rs a clause stating that the incoming property owner is aware of the specific human health issues related to living near electrical transmission lines and drill sites. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) I � 1 3-222 ' 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion of cultural resources within the project area summarizes the findings of two technical reports prepared by William Self Associates entitled: Cultural Resource Assessment Report, Cypress Lakes Project, May 1992, and Archeological Survey and Testing Report, Cypress Lakes Project, August 1992. Both are available for review to qualified ' archeologists at the offices of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The report contains information obtained from surface reconnaissance of the project site and archival research of resources from the California Archeological Inventory Northwest Information Center. In June 1992, subsurface probing was also conducted on the project site. EXISTING SETTING Prior to European contact, the Delta was occupied by the Saclan or Bay Miwok. The Saclan were divided into several smaller independent political tribelets who occupied defined ' territories and controlled access to natural resources. The Julpun is the tribelet known to have occupied the immediate project area. Villages in the Delta were established on natural sand mounds to elevate living areas above the general flood zones. It is believed that the Hotchkiss Mound Site, a large sandmound with scores of burials, was the center of Julpun territory. ' Cultural Resources Nearly 200 burials have been excavated in the vicinity of the project area, the majority ' of which were located in the original compact sand layer below the sandy surface soils. Only two of the sites recorded in the vicinity have exhibited the existence of midden soils,dark,friable soil that accompanies occupational sites. Many of the sites discovered thus far may, therefore, have served only as cemeteries. These burials may represent the early Middle Horizon in Central California prehistory, which occurred about 3,500 years ago. However, the midden sites tend to contain artifacts representative of Late Horizon occupation, from about 1,700 years ago to the 1 time of European contact. Additional data from stratified cultural deposits in the Delta are needed to more accurately define the relationship of the burials to the relatively few known midden sites. ' Contra Costa County General Plan ' The Contra Costa County General Plan designates the Hotchkiss Tract and project site as an "extremely sensitive area" with respect to archaeological resources (See Archaeological Sensitivity Map in the Contra Costa County General Plan, page 9-15). The Contra Costa County General Plan sets forth the following policy regarding historic and cultural resources: • Areas which have identifiable and important archaeologic or historic significance shall be preserved for such uses, preferably in public ownership. (Policy 9-28) 3-223 i In addition to the policies identified above,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ' on June 19, 1979 adopted a resolution (No. 791712) endorsing placement of the Hotchkiss Archaeological District on the National Register of Historic Places. This designation, however, was never pursued with the State Historic Preservation Office and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. rchival Research Previous Cultural Resource Surveys Numerous surveys have been conducted in the project area and vicinity. .Each of these surveys is discussed in more detail in the Cultural Resource Assessment Report, Cypress Lakes Proiect. Although many archaeological surveys of the immediate project area have proven negative, surveys immediately east of the proposed Cypress Lakes area have recorded several prehistoric and historic sites, yielding artifacts and human bone. The majority of these reports, regarding the nature of cultural resource sites in this area, substantiate that, overall, sites tend to be buried and most do not exhibit midden or artifacts on the surface. Excavation and grading for construction, and natural erosion have, in the past, led to the accidental discovery of most of the known sites in the area. KNOWN PREHISTORIC SITES Five prehistoric sites are known to exist within the proposed project site (CA-CCo-20,26, 134, 139, and 647). Of the five sites, CA-Cco-139, the Simone-Mound, is potentially the most ' siccant. This site, excavated both in 1939 and 1962 by U.C. Berkeley archaeologists, is known to have contained burials and extensive midden deposits. Much of. this site is now covered by residences and farm buildings. Site CA-CCo-647 in the northeast portion of the ' project area has been partially destroyed by sand borrow pit excavation, but its remaining integrity, size and components make it potentially significant. An additional site, the Hotchkiss Mound, (CA-CCo-138), adjoins the western boundary 1 of the project site. This site was initially excavated in 1936 and subjected to extensive analysis over the past half decade. More than 190 burials and thousands of artifacts have been recorded, ' as well as remnant house floors from prehistoric occupation. Much of this site is still intact. Some components of this site may occur within or immediately adjacent to the project boundary. Many additional sites have been located in the lands immediately surrounding-the project area. , The specific location of known prehistoric sites on the project site and in the vicinity are not identified in this document to protect the integrity of these sites. ' HISTORIC SITES No known State or County listed historic sites have been identified within the project site or i{mmediate vicinity.. I 3-224 I I Field Reconnaissance Several visits to the project site were conducted in April, May and June of 1992. These reconnaissance visits were undertaken to examine the location of the known prehistoric sites within the project area. Since their initial recording, three of the four known sites have been partially destroyed by grading, dozing, erosion and/or flooding. *The fifth site was identified and ' recorded during preparation of this EIR. It had been partially destroyed prior to its discovery. Site CA-CCo-20 was originally contained within a Piper soil mound that was 10 feet or more in elevation. This mound yielded 5 burials by the time it was recorded in 1956. Oral accounts from a long-time resident indicate that the mound was removed entirely by the late 1950's for use as levee fill and as a result of agricultural field leveling. No evidence of this site appears to exist today. Site CA-CCo-26 was originally located at the 0-foot contour at the southeast comer of the 24-foot mound in the northern portion of the project area. The original site record (from 1958)contains little information. It appears that local residents may have reported finding burials at the location, but none were visible during field reconnaissance by archeologists from UC Berkeley. Auguring done on recent field reconnaissance consisted of placing about 10 holes (at 10 meter intervals) through the dark sand that characterizes the site area. Although large 1 mammal bone was visible on the surface during a walk-over of the site area, no artifacts, charcoal, shell, or other debris indicative of cultural occupation was found in any of the auger holes. Site CA-CCo-134, located between the Hotchkiss and Simone mounds just south of the proposed Cypress Road extension, is also somewhat unknown given that the original site record contains essentially no information. A surface survey of the area did yield sparse artifacts, including two apparent pig teeth and obsidian tool fragment. Auger testing of the site indicated that there is a relatively shallow and light concentration of materials (small pieces of charcoal and two small burned bone fragments) in this location. Based upon the evidence from the surface survey and auger testing, it appears that the site no longer retains sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for importance (CEQA) or National Register eligibility (NHPA). Auger testing along the fence line (property boundary) immediately east of the Hotchkiss Mound site also yielded artifacts between the surface and about 45 cm in depth. Recent backdirt from a rodent burrow along the fence line also produced numerous obsidian flakes and other cultural indicators, as well as apparent non-human mammalian bone fragments. This appears to indicate that a portion of site CA-CCo-138 continues east onto the Cypress Lakes project site. Site CA-CCo-139, the Simone Mound, remains relatively intact although several residences have been built upon it. A reconnaissance of the visible ground surface showed traces of cultural materials including obsidian flakes, shell, charcoal, and small pieces of fire-cracked stone. Access to all portions of the mound was not possible due to lack of permission by landowners. The large Piper Mound that encompasses Site CA-CCo-139 has been built on, no 3-225 I I I doubt, disturbing near-surface cultural resources. Limited auger testing was performed at the ' mound apex and yielded shell-laden soils, obsidian detritus and burned bone. Site CA-CCo-139 appears to meet CEQA criteria for an "important archaeological resource". It would also be likely to qualify for eligibility to the National Register. Site CA-CCo-647 was discovered during survey and testing at the northeastern portion lof the 24-foot mound in the northeast portion of the project area. The site exists at the south end ' hof a borrow pit where digging no doubt led to its visibility and discovery. The. site exhibits mammal bone, some of which is burned, obsidian and chert tool fragments, shell, ground stone fragments, and other indicators of cultural activity. It appears to continue beneath a light yellow sand layer extending 70 meters (230 feet) south of the area of surface concentration. Auger tests indicate artifacts at depths of from about 60 cm to 150 cm. Based on the remaining integrity and I of this site, it appears to meet CEQA criteria for an "important archaeological resource" And would also likely qualify for eligibility to the National Register. Areas of archaeological sensitivity within the project boundaries have been mapped and �• are included in Appendix H. In order to preserve the integrity of these resources, the precise location� of any of the known sites is not shown. IMPACTS P 0n- Ite Impacts IBecause the project site is known historically to contain cultural resources, including the possibility of human burials, the proposed project may result in the disruption of cultural , resources as a result of the grading and excavation necessary to construct various components ofl the project. Field reconnaissance and auger testing to date has indicated that the project would not af�ect sites CA-CCo-20 or 26 because these sites appear to have been completely removed for levee fill or by agricultural activities and no longer retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria of limportance (CEQA) or National Register eligibility (36 CFR 60.4). Therefore, the project would not be expected to result in a significant impact. ISite CA-CCo-134 is located in the general area south of the proposed extension of Cypress Road into the project site near the existing intersection of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. It appears that the site no longer retains sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for importance(CEQA)or National Register eligibility. However,due to the close proximity of sites CAI-CCo-138 and CA-CCo-139, the area surrounding site CA-CCo-134 is recommended as an area of archaeological sensitivity within which significant ground disturbance should be avoided. This area is approximately 11 acres (see Appendix H). Proposed uses in this area include the internal levee, a natural gas drilling site, the proposed fire station, and a community park. With exception of the proposed fire station, these uses would not be expected to result in significant i 3-226 I I i I I I ground disturbance. Construction of the fire station may result in soil disturbance for site preparation and foundation work. This could impact buried cultural resources within this area. Site CA-CCo-139 is generally located south of the proposed extension of Cypress Road into the project site. The site appears to meet most CEQA criteria as an important archaeological resource and would likely qualify for eligibility to the National Register (36 CFR 60.4). Therefore, the area surrounding this site is'recommended as an area of archaeological sensitivity within which significant ground disturbance should be avoided (see Appendix H for location). Proposed uses in this area include a community park, extensions of Cypress Road, and two lots (No. 10 and 11)in Neighborhood 1 would be partially or wholly within this area. The extension of Cypress Road and the community park would not be considered significant long-term threats to cultural resources in this area but should be monitored closely during construction. Demolition of existing structures for the proposed park and Cypress Road extension would be considered activities which could affect cultural resources and should be monitored closely. The two proposed lots would not be considered an appropriate use within this area. Field reconnaissance and auger testing have indicated that development on most of the 24-foot mound would not be considered a significant impact. However, the area of the new site (CA-CCo-647) on the northeast portion of the 24-foot mound would be considered an area of archaeological sensitivity and should be avoided. This site appears to meet most CEQA criteria as an important archaeological resource and would likely qualify for eligibility to the National ' Register (36 CFR 60.4). Proposed uses in this area include the internal levee and one drill site. These uses would be considered appropriate for providing long-term avoidance and preservation ' of this cultural resource site. However, the rear lot lines of two lots (No. 29 and 30) in Neighborhood 7 would be within this area. This use would not be considered appropriate for this area. Off-Site Impacts Several off-site roadway improvements associated with the Cypress Lakes project and future development in the Bethel Island Area may impact site CA-CCo-138, the Hotchkiss Mound. These include: Bethel Island/Cypress Road Intersection Improvements: These improvements are directly related to the proposed Cypress Lakes project. These improvements would require widening of Cypress Road near the intersection of Bethel Island Road and may result in impacts to site CA- CCo-138 which is located south of Cypress Road in this area. Extension of Bethel Island Road South: This improvement is not directly needed for the proposed Cypress Lakes project but would be necessary for further development of the Bethel Island Area. Extension of Bethel Island Road south of Cypress Road could impact site CA-CCo- 138 which is located west of the Cypress Lakes project in the general vicinity of this road extension. 3-227 i I - i To avoid impacting site CA-CCo-138, it may be necessary to realign the proposed ' intersection of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road to the north or west. In addition, any future !extension of Bethel Island Road south of Cypress Road should be located as far east as possible Ito avoid impacting site CA-CCo-138. !Relationship to the General Plan ISite specific field studies and archaeological research have been conducted for the project and an archaeological survey report has been prepared which addresses the extent and significance of cultural resources present on the project site. In addition, a detailed mitigation plan has been developed addressing the preservation, avoidance or removal of cultural resources present on the project site. For the most part, the proposed project would avoid or provide for uses which would be considered appropriate for areas of the site which are considered to be archaeologically sensitive. ' his would be consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan, which emphasize the preservation of cultural resources in their present condition. In two locations, uses have been identified (single family lots) which would not be appropriate in areas of archaeological sensitivity. Recommendations are provided under Mitigation Measures below to remove these uses or redraw lot lines to avoid these areas. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the long-term avoidance and preservation of cultural resources which may be present on the project site: 3.12-1 Due to the existence of subsurface cultural materials along the western perimeter of the CA-CCo-134 site area and the recommendations relative to site CA-CCo- 139 (below), it is recommended that significant ground disturbance be avoided in an area of approximately 11 acres (700 x 700 feet [213 x 213 meters])(see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this area (internal levee, natural gas drilling site, fire station, community park) are not expected to result in significant ground disturbance. However, all construction activity in this area should be closely monitored to preserve known resources and to determine the presence of any �. previously unknown subsurface resources in the CA-CCo-134 area. Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes, it is I recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-2 Significant ground disturbance should be avoided in the area surrounding site CA- CCo-139; from the 0-foot (sea level) contour to the mound apex at 6.5 feet above 3-228 I I I sea level (see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this area (Community Park, extension of Cypress Road) are not expected to result in significant ground disturbance. However, all construction activities should be closely monitored to .preserve known resources present in this area. It is understood that two private parcels of land on the mound are not included in the project proposal. These recommendations do not apply to those parcels unless they are incorporated into the project proposal at some future time. Should any subsurface disturbance occur on the mound through the removal of structures or foundations, an archaeological monitor should be present to observe soils for the presence of cultural materials. Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes, it is recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-3 Construction at the fire station, which would be within the area of archaeological sensitivity for site CA-CCo-139, should be closely monitored and work stopped immediately if cultural materials are encountered. If it is determined that construction is not feasible, the project applicant shall be required to find-an alternate site outside the archaeologically sensitive area. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-4 Lot No.10 in Neighborhood 1 should be removed or redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-5 Lot No.I l in Neighborhood 1 should be removed or redrawn in order to avoid the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-6 The area including and immediately surrounding site CA-CCo-647 should be avoided to preclude impacts to this important resource (see Appendix H). Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes, it is recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-7 The rear lot lines of lots No.29 and 30 in Neighborhood 7 should be redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo- 647. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3-229 3.12-8 In the event that avoidance of the preceding cultural resource sites is not feasible, it will be necessary to develop a data recovery or "excavation plan" pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Appendix K, Part V and subject to the limitations defined in Part VI. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-9 An archaeological monitor should be present when grading,excavation, trenching and other soil disrupting activities are carried out in any of the mapped archaeologically sensitive areas as defined in Appendix H. These activities/areas include, for example, the Cypress Road extension; levee construction/excavation/ compaction;possibly, demolition of existing homes; fine station construction; and the parking lot for the playing fields. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-10 An archaeological monitor should be on-call when grading, excavation, trenching and other soil disrupting activities are carried out on the project site. In the event that a prehistoric site, burial, or historic resource is encountered during construction of the project, the project engineer would be obligated to temporarily stop or relocate construction activities and notify the archaeological monitor immediately. In the event a significant prehistoric or historic resource is identified, no further construction should be permitted in that location until a mitigation plan can be formulated and implemented. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-11 In the event human remains are discovered during construction, excavations should be halted at that location. Any finds of human remains must be reported to the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office. In the event that the find is determined to be prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be . notified within 24 hours to alert them of the find and to permit the designation of i a Native American representative. Consultation between the archaeological consultants in charge of monitoring, Contra Costa County, and the Native American representative would then determine the course of action to be taken with the burial in question. Ideally, if removal is undertaken, time should be allowed for study of the remains and any associated grave goods prior to their return to the Native American Community for reburial at a location of their selection. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 1. 2-12 A report of findings and analyses of all archaeological data recovered during testing/excavation, monitoring and any mitigation procedures undertaken should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.112-13 Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for I "protection to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction". To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely 3-230 I I� reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-14 It is recommended that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento be contacted regarding potential Native American concerns, values, and traditional use areas relative to the proposed project site and vicinity. There is a potential for disturbance of previously undiscovered Native American human remains during construction.of the project. It would prove advantageous to have an established agreement with the NAHC and/or local Bay Miwok tribal representatives prior to the discovery of such remains, should any be discovered. A typical agreement would specify when, in the event of a discovery, Native American involvement would occur, and the treatment and ultimate disposition of ancestral remains. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-15 The proposed intersection improvements at the project entrance and Bethel Island Road should be realigned to the north as much as possible to avoid impacting site CA-CCo-138. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3.12-16 The alignment of any future extension of Bethel Island Road south of Cypress Road should be as far east as feasible to avoid site CA-CCo-138, taking into consideration safety factors. This may result in the need to move the project levee ! along the project's westerly boundary up to 50 feet to the east. (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County) 1 1 3-231 i 3.13 ENERGY EXISTING SETTING The general climate in the Bethel Island Planning Area consists of moderate temperatures, infrequent rainfall, abundant sunshine, light winds and comfortable humidities. The winter temperatures are uniform over much of the Delta area and become progressively warmer to the , least and southeast of Bethel Island. The annual rainfall, which occurs almost exclusively from 'late October to early May, is 12.8 inches per year. Winds through Bethel Island are influenced by the funneling effects of the higher terrain surrounding the Delta area and the local topography I f the island itself. IThe climate and temperature significantly affect residential energy use. Criteria for determining future air conditioning and heating needs are based on the number of heating degree days and cooling degree days per year in a given area. Bethel Island has approximately 2500 }eating degree days and 890 cooling degree days, and is well suited for use of alternative energy systems. (BIASP EIR, p.V-283) I New development throughout California is required to comply with Title 24 Energy conservation Standards of the California Administrative Code. Mandatory features include wall and ceiling insulation, infiltration control, properly sized space conditioning and hot water equipment, set back thermostats,and requirements governing swimming pool heating,shower and faucets. In addition, the Solar Rights Act and the Solar Shade Control Act, both passed by the State legislature in 1978, require tentative subdivision maps to provide for future passive solar opportunities to the maximum extent possible. IA large source of energy consumption for residential development is related to automobile use. Residents travelling to and from jobs and local errands expend energy in the form of r. gasoline. The amount of energy expended depends on how far residents need to travel to their jobs and various services such as groceries, doctors, etc. With respect to the East County Area , and the project site, the sparse population and rural character requires that most residents travel farther to jobs and for services than in more urbanized areas. C Intra Costa County General Plan , IThe Contra Costa County General Plan does not provide specific policies regarding energy conservation. The County General Plan states the following implementation measures related to , the use of solar energy in new residential projects: • Prepare guidelines for solar design to be included as a revision to the subdivision ordinance. (Implementation Measure 8-br) • Include provisions for solar access within design review of projects. (Implementation Measure 8-bs) 3-232 f I �f I �I 1� IMPACTS The project would result in increases in short-term energy consumption as a result of construction of structures,roads and the public facilities necessary to serve the project. However, this use of energy would not be considerably different than other similar construction projects in the County and therefore would not be considered a significant adverse impact. An average dwelling unit could be expected to consume approximately 4,869 kilowatt hours (kwh)/year of electricity. Total energy consumption of the proposed homes would be approximately 6.47 million kilowatt hours/year of electricity. The project proposes to incorporate design features in the project homes so that energy consumption would be reduced. The goal of the project would be to exceed the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%. 1 As indicated in Section 3.2,Table 3.2-4,of this EIR,42% of the project generated vehicle trips would head towards State Route 4 to Antioch and Pittsburgh. The second largest group of vehicle trips would be those heading into Oakley. Because of the project location and relative remoteness from employment centers, a larger number of project residents would commute out of the area to jobs. This situation would tend to increase the amount of energy expended for commuting when compared to other residential development closer to urban/job centers. This characteristic of the project would be unavoidable because of the project sites location. However, 1 as planned development in Bethel Island Area and East County continues,jobs and services will be developed in areas closer to the project site providing the potential to reduce automobile energy expenditures. IMITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that energy conservation measures are incorporated into project home designs: 3.13-1 Building plans for each house should include energy conservation features such as passive solar heating, additional insulation and other features so that Title 24 efficiency standards (1991) will be exceeded by at least 10%. These features shall j be reviewed and approved by the County Building Department as part of the building permit review process. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 3-233 1� 4. ALTERNATIVES Section 15126 (d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires comparative analyses of a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project, or the location i of the proposed project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The CEQA Guidelines state that alternatives can be considered "reasonable" even if they would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. The CEQA Guidelines also state that if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects, in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative should be identified, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project. 1 The range of alternatives to be analyzed is governed by "rule of reason." The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The following alternatives are discussed in this Chapter of the EIR: • 4.1 No Project Alternative • 4.2 Ranchette Alternative • 4.3 Low Density Alternative • 4.4 Maximum Density Alternative • 4.5 Off-Site Alternative • 4.6 Commercial Alternative The following analysis of alternatives evaluates how each alternative would either avoid, reduce, or in some cases worsen, potential impacts when compared to the proposed project. This comparison between the project and the alternatives allows the public and decision makers to ' clearly understand comparative merits of the alternatives. This approach to the analysis of alternatives to the project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d). 1 4-1 i 4.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15126(d) requires that the specific alternative of "No Project" shall also be evaluated in the environmental document. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative would consist of no development occurring on the proposed project site. The existing uses on the property would remain in its current setting. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use Planning and Public Policy -The overall land use pattern under this alternative would be similar to that described in the Existing Setting subsection of Section 3.1 Land Use, Planning and Public Policy of this EIR. The area would not be converted from agricultural/rural uses to suburban/urban uses. This alternative would not provide the recreational facilities or housing opportunities for the County residents that would be provided by the proposed project. The local community has made it clear through public meetings that it wants additional, reasonable development and related infrastructure and amenities. ITransportation/Circulation-This alternative would generate considerably less traffic than the proposed project. The existing uses on the project site generate approximately 100 vehicle trips per day. The proposed project would generate approximately 12,000 vehicle trips per day from the project site. The roadway and circulation improvements needed to accommodate the pri posed project would not be necessary. JAir Quality - Air quality impacts are directly proportional to the number of sources of emissions (mainly automobiles). This alternative would reduce potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project as a result of fewer automobiles and persons residing on the project site. This alternative would also avoid the project's potential exceedance of the BAAQMD's significance threshold for emissions of ozone precursors. This alternative would , also avoid the construction-generated dust emissions associated with the proposed project. Vegetation and Wildlife -This alternative would have less impact on existing vegetation and wildlife which are present on the project site. This alternative would also avoid impacts to existing wetlands and waters of the United States present on the project site (Note: the proposed project would avoid much of the wetland/waters present on the project site and replace impacted wetlands/waters on-site). However, wetland avoidance and preservation may be more difficult under the present agricultural use of the project site. I 4-2 Visual Quality-This alternative would avoid the introduction of residences and other uses which would irreversibly change the existing visual character of the project site. This alternative would also avoid construction of the internal levee system which would obstruct views from existing residences in the area. Noise - This alternative would avoid the increase in traffic noise levels associated with the proposed project. In addition, construction-generated noise would be avoided with this alternative. Hydrology and Drainage - Under this alternative no improvements would be made to the existing drainage system on the project site. Under this alternative, the proposed storm drainage improvements would not be constructed, therefore, the beneficial impacts on RD-799 drainage 1 facilities associated with the proposed project would not occur. This alternative would not provide for the potential to improve water quality in Sand Mound Slough by pumping excess storm water into the slough as would occur under the proposed project. Under this alternative the project site would still be exposed to the existing flood hazards which exist on Hotchkiss Tract. Area residents would not be provided a closer evacuation site which would be provided under the proposed project with construction of the internal levee system to FEMA standards. Geology, Seismicity and Soils - Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed to the existing geologic, soils and seismic conditions present in the project area. Public Services - This alternative would substantially reduce the need for additional fire, police and school facilities that would be associated with the proposed project. However, this alternative would not provide the recreational opportunities and facilities.that would be afforded by the proposed project (i.e. golf course, lake/channels, bicycle/pedestrian trails). New public service facilities would not be needed nor constructed under this alternative. Utilities - This alternative would substantially reduce the need for additional utility infrastructure to serve the project site. However, this alternative would not provide the various utility improvements that would be provided under the proposed project. Human Health - This alternative would reduce potential human health risks associated with placing additional residential uses next to agricultural uses,electrical transmission lines and natural gas extraction areas. However,the human health risks associated with.locating residential uses on the project site are not considered significant. Cultural Resources - Continued agricultural use of the project site could adversely affect known and unknown cultural resource sites. The proposed project would avoid areas identified as containing cultural resources and preserve them in their existing condition. ' Energy-This alternative would substantially reduce the energy consumption which would occur with the proposed project. 4-3 i This alternative would substantially reduce or avoid many of the adverse impacts of the project. However, as identified in the previous sections of the EIR, most of the impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels implementing the proposed 'mitigation measures. This alternative would not provide certain benefits which would be provided by the proposed project, such as: increased revenues to the County and other agencies which receive property tax revenues from the project site; payment of certain development fees to various agencies; and the development of additional housing units and recreational amenities. This alternative would be considered the "environmentally superior" alternative because of its potential to substantially reduce or avoid many of the potential impacts which would be associated with the proposed project. While many of the potential impact of the proposed project can be mitigated to insignificant levels,avoidance would be considered environmentally superior. When an EIR identities the "No Project" Alternative as "environmentally superior," another alternative should be identified (See Section 4.3). I I I i � 1 1 i 1 i 4-4 I i I i i 1 4.2 RANCHETTE ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE The Ranchette Alternative is being evaluated because it would consist of the existing development potential allowed on the project site based on the current agricultural land zoning and land use designations which allow one dwelling unit per five acres. The Off-Island Density Bonus overlay designation would not apply. Clustering would not be required since this Alternative is being evaluated under the existing agricultural zoning. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE 1 The Ranchette Alternative would result in development of the project site at a density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres for a total of 136 dwelling units. The resulting land use would be small ranchettes. No recreational amenities would be required with this alternative because the Off-Island Density Bonus overlay designation would not apply for development at this density. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use, Planning and Public Policy-The land use pattern under this alternative would be more rural in character as a result of larger parcels. However, this alternative could result in piecemeal development of the area and thus a greater conflict between residential and agricultural uses. This alternative would provide significantly fewer housing units than the proposed project. The provision of additional housing in the Bethel Island Area is a goal of Contra Costa County and has been planned for through the establishment of the Off-Island Bonus Area. By significantly reducing the number of housing units possible on the project site,-this alternative could be considered to have a significant adverse affect on reaching the housing goals of Contra Costa County in the East County area. This alternative would not provide the recreational facilities (i.e golf course, lake, bicycle/pedestrian trails) that would be created with the proposed project. 1 Transportation/Circulation - This alternative would substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips generated from the project site by approximately 85 percent when compared to the proposed project (this alternative would result in 1,500 vehicle trips per day, 140 vehicle trips per hour). Very few roadway improvements would be necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by this alternative. Air Ouality -This alternative would reduce the air quality impacts by roughly 90% when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would also reduce emissions of ozone precursors and potentially avoid exceeding the BAAQMD's threshold for these emissions. Construction-generated dust emissions would also be substantially reduced with this alternative as a result of less soil disruption. 4-5 i i i Vegetation and Wildlife - This alternative would reduce certain impacts on plant and animal life by creating larger parcels which would tend to be preserved in their existing agricultural setting. This alternative would also reduce the conversion of foraging habitat for Ibirds which utilize the project site. Some animals present on the project site would still be displaced by this alternative, however, this alternative would result in more undeveloped area for them to migrate toward. This alternative's impact on wetlands is difficult to quantify. Since the site would be developed in smaller pieces it may be more difficult to regulate and mitigate impacted wetlands. Visual Quality-Under this alternative, the internal levee system would not be constructed and the homes would be on larger lots which would more reflect the existing agricultural/rural character of the area. However, in order to comply with the building standards within the floodplain, the houses would be built on stilts, causing an aesthetic impact. The project site would appear to be more urbanized under this alternative than under the No Project Alternative. Noise - This alternative would decrease noise levels relative to the proposed project as a result of less traffic and no recreational uses. As a result, the need for localized noise barriers along Cypress Road would not be expected with this alternative. Construction noise would also Ile substantially reduced with this alternative. �. Hydrology and Drainage - This alternative would result in additional storm drainage runoff entering RD-799 drainage facilities as a result of development of additional impervious surfaces on the project site. Development under this alternative would most likely not include sgn�cant drainage improvements because each parcel would be developed separately . This could result in a greater impact on local drainage facilities than under the proposed project which includes on-site detention facilities. This alternative would not provide an internal levee system, nor would it be large enough to fund improvements of the existing RD-799 levee system on Hotchkiss Tract. Therefore, additional, people would be exposed to the flood hazards. which currently exist on Hotchkiss Tract. Under this alternative new housing would be constructed on stilts which would create an aesthetic impact. This would be a significant adverse impact aslsociated with this alternative which would not be avoided with the proposed project. , Geology, Seismicity and Soils - Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed to�the existing geologic, soils and seismic conditions within the project area. However,the same ' mitigation measures identified in this EIR to mitigate soil and geologic hazards could be i iplemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Public Services - This alternative would reduce the demands on local public services associated with the proposed project as a result of fewer people living on the project site. However, it is not expected that this alternative would be able to provide the necessary level of financing to improve various public services (i.e. fire, police and schools) which would be needed. This alternative would also not provide the recreational facilities and opportunities associated with the.proposed project. �� 4-6 i� S i� Utilities - This alternative would reduce the level of demand for new utilities associated with the proposed project. However, it is likely that under this alternative a non-groundwater source would not be developed for the area. Development of a non-groundwater source is a significant benefit of this proposed project. Human Health - This alternative would result in placing residential uses next to agricultural uses, natural gas extraction areas and electrical transmission lines. These impacts would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, however, human health risks associated with locating residential uses on the project site are not considered significant. Cultural Resources - This alternative could result in adverse impacts to cultural resources as a result of piecemeal development of the site. Under this alternative it would be more difficult to require preservation and avoidance of cultural resources because of the segmented development that would occur under this alternative. The proposed project would avoid known cultural resource sites. Energy - This alternative would reduce the amount of energy consumed when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would reduce or avoid many of the adverse impacts of the proposed project. However, as identified in previous sections of this EIR, the impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. This alternative would not provide certain benefits which would be provided by the proposed project, such as: increased property tax revenues to the County and other agencies; payment of certain development fees to various agencies; and the development of additional housing units and recreational amenities. In accordance with CEQA Section 21085, a public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if there is another feasible specific mitigation measure that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. 1 4-7 i I4.3 LOW DENSITY ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE The Low Density Alternative provides an alternative at the low end of the development potential of the project site under the existing land use designation taking advantage of the Off- Island Bonus program. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE IThis alternative would involve development of approximately 510 dwelling units on the protect site at a density of 1 unit per net acre. The unit count was derived by using the following equation: 681 acres X 75% (25% for road and infrastructure) X 1 dwelling unit = 510. This alternative would include recreational amenities similar to those of the proposed project in conformance with the Off-Island Density program. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ILand Use, Planning and Public Policy - This alternative would have similar land use characteristics as the proposed project. However, the intensity of uses on the site would be e reduced to some degree. This alternative would result in fewer housing units being developed and therefore would not provide the level of housing opportunities for County and Bay Area residents as the proposed project. A reduction in the number of housing units would increase the amount of open space/park land that could be provided on the site. Transp ortation Circulation - The total traffic generated from this alternative would be about 4,800 vehicle trips per day, which is about 40 percent of the trip generation under the proposed project. The PM peak hour trips would amount to about 500 vehicle trips per hour. Te traffic impacts of this alternative would be comparatively low, and few roadway improvements would be required. The road widening at the project entrance would be required, but signalization would not. This level of development should be sufficient to fund the necessary roil dway improvements. IAir Quality - This alternative would reduce potential air quality impacts associated with , the proposed project by approximately 53% based on the reduction in vehicle trips produced by thiIs alternative. However, this alternative may still result in exceedance of the BAAQMD's th eshold for emission of ozone precursors. TDM requirements of the County would apply to thil is alternative to reduce overall traffic generation. Vegetation and Wildlife - This alternative may result in reducing impacts on plant and animal life. The reduced density would allow more flexibility in site planning and would provide the ability to leave certain areas of the project site in agricultural production or as additional open ' space. I i 4-8 I Visual Quality-This alternative would reduce visual impacts because of the lower density and additional open space that would be provided. Under this alternative, homes may be constructed on stilts (unless the project site is removed from the floodplain) which would cause an aesthetic impact. This would result in a more rural character to the project site but would still appear to be more urbanized than under the No Project or Ranchette Alternatives. If the project site were removed from the flood hazard zone by construction of a perimeter levee, this alternative would result in similar visual impacts as those discussed for the proposed project. Noise-This alternative would have similar noise impacts as the proposed project. While this alternative would generate less traffic and therefore reduce noise levels somewhat, this benefit would not be considered significant. Some noise mitigation measures may be required for this alternative. Hydrology and Drainage - This alternative would have similar drainage impacts as the proposed project. It is assumed that this level of development would be sufficient to support construction of on-site drainage facilities to mitigate potential increases in storm water runoff and impacts to RD-799 drainage facilities. This alternative may result in construction of the internal levee system. However, it is unlikely that 510 units would be sufficient to fund construction of a levee system to remove the site from the 100-year flood plain. Therefore, this alternative would expose additional residences to the existing flood hazards present on Hotchkiss Tract unless homes were constructed on stilts. This alternative would not provide a close evacuation site for area residents in the highly unlikely event of a RD-799 levee overtopping or failure which would be provided with the proposed project. _Geology, Seismicity and Soils - Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed to the existing geologic, soils and seismic conditions which exist within the project area. However, the same mitigation measures proposed for the project to mitigate soil and geologic impacts could be implemented under this alternative. Public Services-This alternative would result in reduced demand on public services from that associated with the proposed project because of the reduction in number of units and project population. This alternative would provide a reduced level of financing for improvements to various public services, but this level of financing would be commensurate with the level of development under this alternative. Utilities - This alternative would result in reduced demands on utilities from that associated with the proposed project because of the reduction in number of units and project population. Limited utility improvements would be necessary under this alternative and would be expected to be financed by this level of development. A non-groundwater source may not be financially feasible with this alternative. The development of a non-groundwater source is a significant benefit of the proposed project. 4-9 i Human Health - This alternative would result in placing residential uses next to ' agricultural uses, natural gas extraction areas and electrical transmission lines. These impacts would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, however, human health risks associated with locating residential uses on the project site are not considered significant. 1 Cultural Resources-This alternative would be similar to the proposed project with respect Ito the protection of known cultural resources on the project site. Mitigation measures identified. for the proposed project could be applied under this alternative. Energy - This alternative would reduce the amount of energy consumed when compared o the proposed project. IThis alternative would reduce to some extent the adverse impacts of the proposed project. However, as identified in the previous sections,mitigation measures are proposed to reduce most of the project's impacts to less-than-significant levels. This alternative would not provide certain benefits that would be associated with the proposed project, such as: increased property tax revenues to the County and other agencies which collect property taxes from the project site; additional development fees which would be assessed on the project; and additional housing I In accordance with CEQA Section 21805, a public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if there is another feasible specific mitigation measure that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. IThe Low Density Alternative would be considered the next most "environmentally superior" alternative because of its potential to reduce certain impacts on traffic,air quality,noise and vegetation and wildlife when compared to the proposed project. Air quality could still be a significant impact. The selection of an environmentally superior alternative is not required by CEQA, but is provided for consideration by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. I , 1 I 4-10 I i ': ' 4.4 MAXIMUM DENSITY ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE This alternative would represent the maximum level of development possible on the project site under the current land use designation and the Off-Island Bonus program. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative a density of 2.9 dwelling units per net acre would be allowed. This would allow a total of approximately 1,530 dwelling units based on the following calculation: 681 acre project site X 75% (25% for roads &infrastructure) X 2.9 dwelling units'-- 1,530. The project would include recreational amenities as required by the Off-Island Bonus program such as a golf course, lake, marina or other significant recreational amenity. This alternative would also include construction of an interior levee to FEMA standards as required by the County General Plan. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use, Planning and Public Policy - This alternative would result in similar land use patterns as the proposed project. This alternative would provide additional housing opportunities for County and Bay Area residents. This alternative would result in a higher overall project density than the proposed project which may result in less area designated for recreational and open space uses. However, for a project to receive the density bonus substantial recreational amenities would have to be provided. Transportation/Circulation - This alternative would generate approximately 20 percent 1 higher traffic volumes than the proposed project. However, an analysis of this alternative indicates that further road widening and improvements would not be required to accommodate this alternative. Air Quality - The air quality impacts of this alternative would be approximately 13% higher than those associated with the proposed project as a result of the increase in vehicle trips generated by the additional units. This altemative would result in a greater exceedance of the BAAQMD's threshold for emission of ozone precursors than would be associated with the proposed project. County TDM requirements would apply to this alternative to reduce overall trip generation. Vegetation and Wildlife - This alternative would have similar impacts on vegetation and wildlife when compared to the proposed project. The high overall density of this alternative may result in reduced area dedicated for recreational and open space uses which would increase impacts to vegetation and wildlife when compared to the proposed project. However, mitigation measures similar to those for the proposed project could be imposed to reduce this impact to an acceptable level. 4-11 i Visual Quality-This alternative would have similar visual impacts when compared to the proposed project. Noise - Noise impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to proposed project. While there would be a.slight increase in project traffic, this increase would not be expected to result in a perceivable increase in noise levels. Hydrology and Drainage - This alternative would have similar drainage impacts as the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would be sufficient to support construction of similar drainage improvements as the proposed project to fully mitigate drainage impacts on RD- 799 facilities. This alternative would also include construction of an internal levee system and therefore would have impacts similar to those associated with the proposed project in this area. Geology, Seismicity and Soils - Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed to the existing geologic, soils and seismic conditions present within the project area. However, the same mitigation measures proposed for the project to mitigate soil and geologic impacts could be implemented under this alternative to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Public Services - This alternative would result in slightly higher demands on public seIrvices from that associated with the proposed project because of the increase in number of units and project population. However, this alternative would provide an increased level of financing for improvements to various public services to accommodate the increased demand. Utilities - This alternative would result in increased demands on utilities from that associated with the proposed project because of the increase in number of units and project population. This alternative would be able to provide the increase in level of improvements to varl ous utilities necessary to accommodate the increase in dwelling units and population. ' IHuman Health - This alternative would result in placing residential uses next to agricultural uses, natural gas.extraction areas and electrical transmission lines. These impacts w�uld be similar to those associated with the proposed project, however, human health risks associated with locating residential uses on the project site are not considered significant. ICultural Resources-This alternative would be similar to the proposed project with respect r to the protection of known cultural resource on the project site. IEner-gy-This alternative would increase the amount of energy consumed when compared to the proposed project. The energy conservation measures incorporated into the proposed project could be incorporated into this alternative to reduce overall energy consumption. This alternative would result in similar impacts as those associated with the proposed project. The mitigation measures proposed for the project would also be applicable to the Maximum Density Alternative. This alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce the adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. i 4-12 i � 1 i �I 4.5 OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE As discussed in the introduction to this Section of this EIR, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that an EIR must describe 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 and significantly reduce or eliminate the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Contra Costa County reviewed all vacant developable parcels near the project site to determine if an alternate site was available. One site was selected for further analysis due to location, size and ability to accommodate the basic objectives of the proposed project. The location of the off-site alternative is depicted in Figure 4-1. This site is not owned or under the control of the project applicant. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE The location of the off-site alternative is depicted in Figure 4-1. This site is located along the north side of Cypress Road and west of Jersey Island Road adjacent to the Off-Island Bonus Area. The site is approximately the same size as the proposed project site. This alternative would include development of the same number of homes as the proposed project (1,330) along with the same recreational amenities as the proposed project. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This alternative is designated M-8 by the County. The M-8 (Mixed Use-Oakley Community Center) designation includes three properties totalling 1,539 acres. The eastern most parcel makes up this alternative site. The purpose of the M-8 designation is to provide for the integrated development of these three properties through a comprehensive planning process which will be completed prior to actual development of any of the three properties. The focal point of ' development in this area is to be a community center complex including a large community park, for either the incorporated or unincorporated community of Oakley. This designation allows broad flexibility in land uses including open space areas,wetland preservation,commercial/office development and single and multi-family residential development. Because of the broad land uses allowed under this land use designation, the proposed uses would generally be consistent. The proposed project located at this alternative site would have the same basic impacts as the proposed project in the following areas: Noise, Visual Quality; Plant and Animal; Public Service; Utilities; Human Health; and Energy. 1 4-13 SH , SH CR r • CR : ORA.. .. rR AL' SFi mo - \ AL MO i oS - AL SL- SH SL OPR DR CIS_ SL st -`'• U _ OS Mtr. H MO M8 M8T.CH o S �.. A Location of � - - - Off-Site Allernative . PS :l:lt. MS , ! PS MM OS SC IpS sV x 5N \� AL v co I DA SM ee• c i i CYPRESS LAKES & Figure 4-1: COUNTRY CLUB Off-Site Alternative PROJECT ► Source: Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map �I 414 i i i Development of the project at this location would result in similar traffic impacts as the proposed project. All of the road capacity results and recommended mitigation measures west of the project site would be the same with this alternative. While many of the road improvements to Bethel Island Road would not be necessary with this alternative, there would be other mitigation measures required on Sellers Avenue that would be similar in magnitude and cost. With regard to air quality, this alternative site may result in less construction dust nuisance because of the reduced number of adjacent residences. Due to multiple ownership of the property it would be more difficult to construct an ' integrated development in a timely manner. Moreover, the proposed project does not include some of the amenities intended by the M-8 designation (community center complex, commercial/office uses and multi-family development). Because this site is outside the Off-Island Bonus area, it would not achieve the goals of the County Goal Plan to provide additional housing and recreational amenities in the Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract areas. 4-15 I i i i I I 4.6 COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE ; RATIONALE IThis alternative is the same as the proposed project with the addition of a commercial component. This alternative is being evaluated to address the Jobs/Housing imbalance of the proposed project and the East County area. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE This alternative would include the same level of residential development as the proposed project(1,330 dwelling units) as well as the same basic recreational amenities (golf course,beach club,lake). However, this alternative would include neighborhood commercial development near tlie project entrance at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. This commercial area would provide neighborhood commercial space for local serving businesses and services such as: a grocery store,cleaners,video store,restaurant,professional offices(real estate,insurance,medical etc.) and a bank. CIOMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use, Planning and Public Policy - This alternative would result in the same overall land use pattern as the proposed project with the exception of the addition of commercial uses i near the project entrance at Cypress Road. The General Plan designation for the project site does not include commercial uses. An amendment to the General Plan would be required to allow commercial development on the project site. Additional commercial development would provide additional jobs, improving the Jobs/Housing balance in East County. This alternative would result in the same housing and development opportunities as the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation-The commercial component of this alternative would generate approximately 2,700 vehicle trips per day. However,this would not result in a significant change in ithe impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project. This alternative w6uld capture many trips internally by reducing the number of trips made off-site for jobs and commercial services. However, this would be partially offset by new trips to the commercial uses by • ' employees, deliveries and customers from other areas. Air Quality - The local and regional air quality impacts of this alternative would be approximately 15% greater than the proposed project as a result of the increased number of vehicle trips generated by the commercial component of this.alternative. TDM requirements would also apply to this alternative to reduce overall trip generation. IVegetation and Wildlife -This alternative would have similar impacts on vegetation and wildlife as the proposed project. ,I 4-16 I I I i Visual Ouality - This alternative would have the same visual impacts of the proposed project with the exception of the project entry at Cypress Road where the visual character of the project would be that of a local serving commercial center.This change in visual character would not be considered significant. Noise - This alternative would have similar noise impacts as the proposed project. However, the commercial uses would generate additional traffic noise and noise as a result of truck deliveries and mechanical equipment. ' Hydrology and Drainage - This alternative would result in the same hydrology and drainage impacts as the proposed project. Geology, Seismicity and Soils - Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed to the existing geologic, soils and seismic conditions present within the project site. Public Services - This alternative would result in slightly higher demands on public services from that associated with the proposed project because of the addition of commercial uses. However, this increased demand would not be considered significant. With regard to ' school impacts, the commercial uses would provide additional school impact fees, but would not produce additional school enrollments. This aspect of this alternative would be beneficial. Utilities - This alternative would result in a slight increase in demands on utilities from that associated with the proposed project because of the addition of commercial uses. However, 1 this increase would not be considered significant. Human Health - This alternative would result in placing residential uses next to agricultural uses, natural gas extraction areas and electrical transmission lines. These impacts would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, however, human health risks associated with locating residential uses on the project site are not considered significant. Cultural Resources-This alternative would be similar to the proposed project with respect to the protection of known cultural resource on the project site. Energy - This alternative would result in a slight increase in the amount of energy consumed when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in similar impacts as those associated with the proposed project. The mitigation measures proposed for the project would be applicable for the ' Commercial Alternative. This alternative would not avoid any of the adverse impacts associated with the project. This alternative may result in additional air quality impacts. This alternative could reduce the jobs/housing impact of the proposed project by providing additional employment on-site. Provision of additional jobs in the Bethel Island Area would be considered a beneficial impact of the Commercial Alternative. However, the provision of commercial uses on the project site would require an amendment to the County General Plan. 4-17 1 e5. OTHER CEOA SECTIONS 5.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT Chapter 3 of this EIR identifies the environmental impacts of the proposed project. In many cases, the mitigation measures proposed in this EIR can minimize impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels. Section 15126 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that significant impacts of the project which cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level be described. The proposed project would result in the following unavoidable significant impacts: ' Air Quality: The project would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District significance thresholds for emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROG). • Visual Quality: The project would result in an unavoidable impact on the existing visual character of the project site and the views from adjacent residences along Sandmound Boulevard. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact (see Section 3.5 Visual Quality), however, the impact would remain significant. • Jobs/Housing Balance: Because the East County area currently has more housing units than jobs,. the project would result in an unavoidable impact on East County's jobs/housing balance which could promote additional community to employment centers in Walnut Creek/Concord and other job centers in the East Bay. The impact of the project would be unavoidable in the short-term until businesses and jobs are attracted to the East County area. Noise: Construction of thero'ect would result in elevated noise levels at local P J residences. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact. However, construction period noise would still be considered a short-term unavoidable impact on local residents. • Construction Period Dust: The project would result in elevated dust emissions during construction periods as a result of excavation and grading activities. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact. However, construction activities would still generate dust which may result in a nuisance at local residences. This would result in a short-term unavoidable impact on local residents. 5-1 i I6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IThe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can 'compound or increase other environmental impacts. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration in an EIR of potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone or 1 tll gether with other projects. "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." In considering cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of a list of projects potentially affected by the proposed project. The cumulative impact analysis in this EIR is based both upon ai list of approved and under review projects in the study area and upon projections of areawide significant growth patterns, as required by 'Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. The following list summarizes past,present and reasonably anticipated future projects,and a summary of projections contained in the County General Plan for areas adjacent to the proposed project site.. Protects within the Bethel Island Area Planning Area The following projects have either been approved but are not constructed yet, or have applications for approval on file at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department: • South River: proposed 575 unit project located south of the proposed project site. • North State Development: proposed 14 single family residential/agricultural project , located north of the project site along Sandmound Boulevard. • Lesher Landing: proposed 1,079 unit project located west of the proposed project along Ithe north side of Cypress Road. • Willow Park Marina No. 3: approved 62 unit condominium project located along Sandmound Boulevard. • Conner Property: approved 236 unit residential project located on the north side of Gateway Road, east of Bethel Island Road and south of the canal. • Delta Coves Project: approved 550 unit small-lot recreation homes located south of , Gateway Road and east of Bethel Island Road. • Subdivision 6610: approved 91 unit single family residential project located at the southeast end of Sandmound Boulevard. i 5-2 i i I I • Bacon Project: proposed 75 unit single family home project along the inland side of the levee at Taylor Slough. 1 Anchor Marina:proposed expansion of an existing marina(67 covered berths, marina and boat ramp facilities, dry boat storage, mini-storage, office and convenience store, recreational vehicle park, and picnic/campground area) located one mile northwesterly of Bethel Island Road. The following is a summary of the potential development allowed within the Bethel Island Planning Area. • Within the Hotchkiss Tract Off-Island Bonus Area approximately 2,998 units are proposed (South River, North State Development, Willow Park Marina, Lesher Landing). In addition to this development, there is the potential for an additional 398 units as allowed under the base density allowed on Hotchkiss Tract of 1 unit/5 acres. The total number of units exceeds the number of allowed units on Hotchkiss Tract (3,000) and would require an amendment to the County General Plan for all units to be constructed. • On-Island development limited to one unit per parcel (approximately 200 units could be developed). • 100,000 square feet of commercial development and 500 hotel rooms. • Commercial recreation/marina commercial uses. Neighborhood commercial integrated into residential development. ' Protects or Land Uses Outside the Bethel Island Planning Area ' The following list summarizes currently proposed projects and future development potential of lands surrounding the project site but outside the Bethel Island Planning Area. • Cypress Corridor: This area is located north of Cypress Road between Marsh Creek and Jersey Island Road, and includes 1,539 acres which have been designated for mixed-use development. The site is intended to function as a community center for Oakley. Land uses would include single family and multi-family residential (1,135 to 1,480 acres); commercial (15 to 20 acres); office (30 to 40 acres); commercial recreation (20 to 30 acres); parks and recreation (100 to 150 acres); and public and semi-public (25 to 35 ' acres). • Cowell Ranch: A General Plan Amendment application has been filed and a rezoning application is on file for approximately 6,000 residential units with business and commercial uses for 5,000 acres southwest of Brentwood. 5-3 • Mixed Use Laurel Road (M-9) Area: This area is located on the south side of Laurel ' Road at the ATSF railroad tracks and is planned as a transition from the lower density, single-family residential use to traditional commercial uses. • Pittsburg-Antioch Area: The County General Plan anticipates approximately 12,000 new i housing units in this area. The rest of the East County includes unincorporated Oakley, Bethel Island and Discovery Bay. ' • Brentwood: The City of Brentwood is in the process of updating its General Plan. Presently, there are approximately 12,000 units proposed or approved in this area. • An application for incorporation of the Town of Oakley was filed but has since been Iwithdrawn. The project site and Hotchkiss Tract are not included in the application. •I Byron 78: A general plan amendment project located at the corner of Bixler Road and SR4 in the Discovery Bay area. The project covers approximately 78 acres of which 21 acres would be developed with commercial uses, 13 acres with office uses; and 44 acres i with light industrial uses. Cumulative Impacts IThe following discussions summarize potential cumulative impacts which may occur when th'e proposed project is combined with the approved,pending and reasonably anticipated projects diIscussed above. The cumulative impact analysis contained in this EIR is based on the specific analysis conducted for the Cypress Lakes project;conducted and contained in the County General Plan,January, 1991, and the Final EIR on the County General Plan, 1990. These documents are incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15150. The referenced documents are ' available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 701 Laurel Street, Martinez, California. The proposed project's impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures, in any one of these areas are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. ' Land Use: The proposed project in connection with other planned future development in the area will result in an irreversible change in the existing land uses of East County and the Bethel Island ' Area. While this change has been planned for through adoption of the County General Plan, which designates an Off-Island Density Bonus Overlay District for Hotchkiss Tract, and established an Urban Limit Line through the passage of Measure C, which identifies those areas of the County which can be developed with urban uses. The change in land uses would be an irreversible change associated with urban development. General Plan amendments may be required for future development in the Bethel Island Area if proposed development exceeds the residential cap. The proposed project.does not require an amendment to the County General Plan. Tralffic/Circulation: The cumulative impacts of development on the Bethel Island area and East ' County are addressed in Chapter 3.2 of this EIR. The cumulative traffic volumes in the planning 5-4 i i i area are depicted on Figure 3.2-11. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. Mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts area discussed in Chapter 3.2 of this EIR and include construction of the Delta Expressway. The project would contribute to the construction of this improvement through the payment of the County's Subregional Road Fees. If the Delta Expressway does not go forward, the following mitigation measures would apply to the project to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts: • Improve the Neroly Road/SR 4 intersection (mitigation measure 3.2-11). The project should pay 10% of the cost of this improvement. • Improve the intersection of Cypress Road/SR 4 (mitigation measure 3.2-12). The project should pay 25% of the cost of this improvement. ' Other regional improvements needed to accommodate cumulative growth include the improvement of SR 4 from Bailey Road to SR 160. ' Air Quality: The project in combination with other projects proposed in the BI Planning Area would add incrementally to emissions in the Bay Area Basin. However, future projects would ' be subject to the County's TDM requirements which would help reduce the total number of automobile trips in the County. Cumulative development would be expected to result in a cumulative impact on region emissions (NOx and ROG in particular). Vegetation and Wildlife: The proposed project in connection with other cumulative development in the area will result in the loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, the County has a "No Net Loss of Quality or Quantity of Wetlands" policy and is currently preparing a wetlands ordinance to protect wetland areas throughout the County. In addition, the County requires that projects provide adequate mitigation such as replacement habitat or avoidance of sensitive areas. County policy further requires that impacted wetland be replaced in a ratio of 3:1 wherever possible. In addition to these policies the County has, through the passage of Measure C, established an Urban Limit Line within the County which delineates those area where urban development may be contemplated, The intent of the Urban Limit Line and Measure C is to limit urban development within the County to 35% of the land area. The remaining area (65%) is to be left in its current rural/agricultural/wetland state. Visual Quality: The proposed project in connection other proposed projects in the BI Planning ' Area and development of the Oakley Planning Area,would contribute significantly to the change in visual character of the East County region from primarily agricultural to a mix of suburban residential and agricultural uses. Pastoral visual qualities of the area would be diminished, and suburban qualities would be enhanced. This cumulative impact would be an unavoidable impact of urban development. Noise: The proposed project in connection with other planned development in the area may result in cumulative noise impacts. Cumulative noise impacts will be addressed through environmental review of future projects and requiring conformity with County noise standards. 5-5 i Standard noise mitigation measures may include increased setbacks along major roadways; architectural treatments of homes to reduce interior noise levels; and local noise barriers. The ,proposed project will contribute to adverse cumulative noise levels along Cypress Road. Mitigation for this impact includes local noise barriers(see Section 3.6,mitigation measure 3.6-1) which will reduce cumulative noise levels to normally acceptable levels. Hydrology and Drainage: The project in connection with other planned development in the area may result in cumulative changes to regional hydrology and drainage patterns. This cumulative impact will be addressed through environmental review of future projects and conformance with County policy and Growth Management requirements regarding the provision of adequate drainage facilities to be constructed as part of any future development project. Hydrological and drainage impacts can generally be mitigated through proper engineering techniques and the use of detention basins or other drainage facilities. The proposed project includes the use of detention facilities in the form of the proposed lake and channels to mitigate the project's drainage impacts to a less-than-significant level. Geology, Soils, Seismicity: The project in connection with other planned future development in the Bethel Island Area would result in exposure of additional persons to potential hazards from liquefaction and seismic shaking. This potential cumulative impact will be addressed through requirements that detailed geotechnical plans and measures to satisfactorily address liquefaction problems be developed prior to project approval and through the requirement that all structures ble constructed to withstand seismic shaking. ublic Services: The project in connection with other planned future development in the area will result in additional demands on public services, such as police, fire and schools. This cumulative impact is addressed by compliance with County Growth Management requirements and other County policies which require future development to pay its fair share toward impacts on community services. Therefore,cumulative impacts on Public Services will not be significant. Impacts on public services are of particular concern due to recent County and state budget cuts. In the future, developments will be required to pay for more of the cost of providing these services than has occurred historically. Special tax districts or privately financed services may be required as conditions of approval on new development. UI ilities: The project in connection with other planned future development may result in , cumulative impacts on utilities (water,sewage disposal,electricity and gas,telephone service and solid waste). These impacts are discussed below: Cumulative impacts on water may be significant. However, the Oakley Water District which serve the project site has prepared a Water Management Master Plan which addresses the District's ability to serve development within its Sphere of Influence. The impact of cumulative development on water resources is unclear at this time due to the continuing drought situation and the potential for additional water resources to be diverted , to fish and wildlife needs. It is likely that water resources will become the primary Ilimiting factor of future development. New facilities are being constructed to serve 5-6 I projected growth but not to induce growth. As a requirement of Measure C and the Growth Management policies, future development is required to demonstrate adequate available capacity prior to project approval. • Cumulative impacts on sewage disposal may be significant. However, at this time the Ironhouse Sanitary District has adequate capacity to serve the project and some limited future development. Future development fees would provide a funding source for future expansion of the District's capacity. New facilities are being constructed to serve projected growth but not to induce growth. As a requirement of Measure C and the AGrowth Management policies, future development is required to demonstrate adequate available capacity prior to project approval. ' Cumulative impacts on electrical, gas and telephone utilities are not expected to be significant. • Because the County has recently approved new solid waste sites, cumulative impacts on solid waste disposal are not expected to be significant. Human Health: The Delta area historically has experienced mosquito problems. Cumulative development in this area may expose additional persons to potential health hazards transmitted by mosquitos. This potential impact is addressed by CCMAD which is responsible for mosquito abatement and management. Future projects in the Delta area should be required to conform with CCMAD requirements regarding drainage and lake designs. Implementation of standard maintenance practices and proper design of drainage facilities would mitigate this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. ' Cultural Resources: The project in connection with other planned future development in the area may result in cumulative impacts on buried cultural resources. This potential impact will be addressed through the environmental review process and requirements for cultural resource studies in areas known to contain cultural resources such as the Delta area. The environmental review process would be used to identify areas most sensitive to development and provide for the avoidance or limitation of development in these areas. With regard to the proposed project, ' areas of the project site which may contain significant cultural resources are avoided. 5-7 i I II r 5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ' The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15126 (f) requires (1) an analysis of the justification of uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued ' phases of a project which may be irreversible since large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; and (2) an analysis which describes irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents with a project. The proposed project would result in the following irreversible changes: The commitment of energy and raw materials for development would deplete certain non- ' renewable resources. The project will also lead to irreversible foreclosure of a portion of the agricultural uses within the Bethel Island Area. The project would result in an irreversible impact on the existing hydrology of the Hotchkiss Tract floodplain by removing approximately 685 acres from the flood hazard zone and constructing a internal levee system around the project. The internal levee system would result in altering the direction of flood waters in the highly unlikely event of a RD-799 levee failure and would result in the remaining portions of RD-799 being flooded faster due to the reduced flood plain area. While the project site would provide I a closer area of safety for area residents in the event of a RD-799 levee failure, this p impact would be irreversible with the proposed project. r I I 1 I 5-8 I i i I I 5.4 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a project is considered to be growth inducing if the project could directly or indirectly foster economic growth or population growth. Extensions of urban services or transportation facilities into previously unserved or under served areas, and other projects which remove obstacles to growth or generate esubstantial economic or employment activity would be considered growth inducing. The proposed project could result in growth inducing impacts as a result of the required annexations to the Oakley Water District, Contra Costa Water District and Ironhouse Sanitary District. The proposed project would extend water service from State Route 4 along Cypress Road to the project site as well as construct the necessary sewer facilities to serve the project. This new accessibility to water and sewer facilities would encourage continued growth in the East County area. However, services would be extended through the Cypress Corridor, an area that is identified for planned urban development. The project site and other properties west of Sand Mound Slough are within the Urban Limit Line. The project site and the remainder of the Hotchkiss Tract are within a Specific Plan Area. Consequently, this growth would not be expected to exceed that which is envisioned in the County General Plan for the Bethel Island ' Area. To ensure that growth does not exceed planned levels, water and sewer infrastructure should not contain capacity in excess of that necessary to accommodate planned development levels in the Bethel Island Area. The proposed project could also result in growth inducing impacts as a result of the required roadway improvements. Presently, the roadway system in and around the project area is in an unimproved state. Improvements to the roadway system may encourage additional development in the area. ' With an existing population of about 3,000 residents and a proposed project population of about 3,229 residents and projected population of 11,000 residents, the Bethel Island Area would experience significant population growth. This growth would place additional pressure for conversion of agriculturally-designated lands to low-density residential uses. ' The Bethel Island Area abuts Jersey Island to the west and Holland Tract to the east and southeast. Both of these areas are in open space or agricultural use, and have severe infrastructural constraints. However, if development as proposed and projected becomes successful, it could potentially attract developers to consider developing these adjacent Delta tracts some time in the future. In terms of growth-inducing impacts on surrounding areas,rural east Contra Costa County, including Antioch,Brentwood,and the Oakley area is projected to have the County's highest rate of population growth during the next two decades (ABAG 1991). Much of this projected growth would take place in incorporated cities and within their spheres of influence and may occur regardless of future development patterns or rates of growth in the project area. Improvements to the road system, utilities and public services required by growth in the project and Bethel 5-9 i i IIsland area would not play a significant role in determining the rate of growth in these adjacent , areas. Major infrastructure improvements required to serve future residents would be assisted by financing.proposed in the Specific Plan, however, and may act to stimulate residential and commercial development in the immediate project area. 1 I I I I I I i 5-10 i 5.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity is often one of tradeoffs, or the balancing of social, ' economic, and environmental impacts over time. In some cases, a relatively short term benefit may have adverse cumulative effects, with the possibility that future generations and the future economy may be burdened with unwarranted social and environmental costs. The opposite situation, in which long term benefits occur at the expense of short term impacts,is also possible. Decisions that influence the balancing of such impacts for this project are the responsibility of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors as part of their policy making and regulatory functions. Adverse short-term impacts of the proposed project would result from construction. ' Examples of these impacts would include visual disruption, nuisance dust emissions, and energy consumption. Construction impacts would not be considered significant due to the relatively short duration. Examples of long-term adverse effects would include: reduction in agricultural uses within the Planning Area,increased population and its resulting impacts on traffic congestion on local roadways,noise and air quality. The project would also permanently change the existing patterns of vegetation and wildlife habitat on the project site. Beneficial long-term effects would include increased housing and recreational opportunities for County residents. 1 1 5-11 i ' 6. REFERENCESIPERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 1. Kaldveer Associates, Preliminary Environmental Assessment, February 27, 1989. ' 2. Bethel Island Fire Protection District, Chief Jack Whitener,personal communication May 5, 1992. 3. Brentwood Disposal Company, personal communication with office staff May 5, 1992. 4. Bohley/Maley Associates, Peter Bohley, personal communication, June 1992. 5. Contra Costa County Auditor's Office,personal communication with office staff May 12, 1992. ' 6. Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Ray Valone, personal communications May 5 and 7, 1992. 7. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Sam Choi, Staff Engineer, personal communication May 7, 1992. ' 8. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department,Delta Station House,Sgt.Phil White,personal communication May 7, 1992; Reed McDonald,personal communication August 7, 1992. ' 9. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, Martinez Headquarters, Lt. Scott Parsons, personal communication May 12, 1992. 10. Contra Costa Water District,Dennis Pisila, Utility Planner,personal communication May 6, 1992. 11. DuPont Chemical Plant, Ian Dunn, Plant Manager, telephone communication, May 5, 1992 ' 12. DuPont Chemical Plant, Coleman, Brian, Environmental Manager, telephone communication, May 7, 1992. 13. Ironhouse Sanitary District,James Elder,District Engineer,personal communication May 5, 1992 and June 1992. ' 14. Kleinfelder Inc., Ron Heinzen, personal communication, June 1992. 15. Land Planning Consultants, Inc., consultant to Liberty Union High School District, Kimberly Wood, personal communication May 5, 1992. 6-1 i r 16. Lindorff& Associates, consultant to Ironhouse Sanitary District, Mary Lindorff, personal ' communication May 5, 1992. 17. Oakley Disposal Company, Gloria Gonzales, personal communication May 6, 1992. i I18. Oakley Fire Protection District, Assistant Chief Manual Tovar, personal communication ' May 5, 1992. I19. Oakley Union Elementary School District, Louis Bennett, Facilities Director, personal communication May 6, 1992. , l 20. Oakley Water District, Bonnie McLain, personal communication May 6, 1992. 21. U.S. Geological Survey, Evaluation of Selected Data to Assess the Causes of Subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, 1991. I I I 6-2 1.1 7. LIST OF PREPARERS This report was prepared by Public Affairs Management of San Francisco, California with ' technical assistance from Abrams Associates (traffic),Don Ballanti Consulting Meteorologist(air quality), William Self Associates (cultural resources) and Charles Salter Associates (noise). Public Affairs Management and the technical consultants involved in the analysis presented in this report haves no financial interest in the approval or disapproval of the Cypress Lakes & Country Club project. The persons participating in the preparation of this document are: NAME/ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY/SPECIALTY Mr. Dennis Barry Project Coordinator Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. Mr. Art Beresford Project Manager Contra Costa County Community Development Department ' Kay A. Wilson Principal in Charge Public Affairs Management Scott L. Steinwert Project Manager Public Affairs Management ' Jo Julin Land Use/Policy Analysis Environmental Planner 1 Charles Abrams Traffic Analysis Abrams Associates Alan Rosen Noise Analysis Charles M. Salter Associates ' William Self Cultural Resource Analysis William Self Associates Don Ballanti Air Quality Analysis Don Balland Consulting Meteorologist 7-1 I I Additional Technical analysis was provided by the following: , NAME/ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY/SPECIALTY Peter Bohley 1 Bohley/Maley Associates Drainage, Levees and Water Quality I I I I _ � r i I 7.2 8. APPENDICES Appendix A - Initial Study Appendix B - Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions ' Appendix C - List of Plant Species Observed During Field Surveys Appendix D - Wetland/Landscaping Information Appendix E - Geotechnical/Hydrology Information Appendix F - Will Serve Letter from Oakley Water District Appendix G - Will Serve Letter from Ironhouse Sanitary District Appendix H - Cultural Resource Appendix 1 8-1 i Appendix A ' Initial Study 1 I 1 1 1 Harvey E. Bragdon 'Community Contra Director of Community Development Development Costa ' Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street ' 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 Phone: « (510) 646-20311 February 6, 1992.C• sT4 CUUN�J 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB, A.J. Solomon/Chartered Land & Cattle Co. (Applicant) Three Sisters Trust (Owner) County File #2918-RZ, Final Development Plan 3032-90, Subdivision 7562: ' A request to rezone 682:t acres from Agricultural Districts (A-2) and (A-3) to Planned-Unit District (P-1); and for final residential development plan and vesting tentative map approval for 1,301 single- family dwelling unit/lots, golf course, lakes and associated recreational facilities and commerical areas. ' The subject site fronts on the east side of Bethel Island Road between Cypress Road and Sandmound Boulevard approximately 2.7 miles east of the town of Oakley, South of Bethel Island in eastern Contra Costa County. Site also fronts on the south side of Sandmound Boulevard east of Bethel Island Road, and on the west side of Sandmound Boulevard north of the proposed Cypress Road extension. (Parcel# 032-210-029/032-220-005,7,8,12,26) (CT 3010.00) (ZA: G-27, 28/ H-27,28) As the owner or occupant of abutting or nearby property, or as an otherwise interested person or ' organization, you are invited to submit any comments you may have on this project, and raise any significant environmental issues of which you are aware so that they can be considered in the environmental review process. . ' This letter plus enclosures will constitute a Notice of Preparation. Please circulate this information to the appropriate persons and agencies as soon as possible. I would encourage those interested to contact me directly by phone or letter to convey any concerns they may have about the environmental ' review for the project. If you require further information regarding this Notice of Preparation, or if you have any comments ' regarding the environmental review of this Notice of Preparation, please contact me & Byron Turner of Community Development Department at 510/646-2031 no later than March 13, 1992, 5:00 p.m. Sincerely yours, �2 Art Beresford Senior Planner AB/at S. SUMMARY The project' s basic components include a vesting tentative subdivision map, request for rezoning from A-2 (Agricultural) to P-1 (Planned Unit Development) , preliminary commercial development plan and final residential development plan for 1, 301 single-family residential dwelling units with recreational amenities. Specific project components include: a golf course; a swim and tennis club; lakes; commercial and marine related uses; and internal levee system; a day care center; a boater' s club and storage area, a school site (optional) ; parks, open space and wetland areas all on approximately 683 areas.' The project also includes the establishment of public financing districts to help pay for required infrastructure improvements; transportation improvements; boundary reorganization/annexation to the necessary service districts, such as water, sanitary and fire districts and related public improvements; and improvements which may be required by Reclamation District 799. The project also includes any other land use and development approvals and ' permits necessary to carry out the project, including but not limited -to, permits from state and federal agencies (e.g. Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA - etc. ) ; a final commercial development plan; a development ' agreement (the existing one as it may be amended to incorporate any new entitlement or a new one to reflect such new entitlement) ; and any other measures or programs necessary to ' implement the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan as it relates to this project site. The findings of this Initial Study indicate that an EIR is necessary for the proposed project. Information contained in prior EIRs on the Specific Plan and County General Plan may be considered in the preparation of the EIR on the proposed project. However, the EIR for the proposed project will be prepared as a separate EIR and will not rely on the impact findings of the Specific Plan or County General Plan EIRs. ' The project application may be amended during the EIR process in response to environemntal issues and concerns raised. Amendments made prior to completion of the draft EIR will be discussed thoroughly in the EIR. The project will be proceeded under both 1) the Specific Plan as a specific plan and 2) the New General Plan using the Specific Plan informally as planning guidelines in the P-1 zoning process to implement the General Plan policies relating to the project area. This latter approach is proposed to avoid possible complications and delays in the planning process if a court sets aside the Specific Plan. This dual processing is acceptable because the General Plan includes the same land use designations and planning policies for the project area as the Specific Plan. 1 1 i I I 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Location and Existing Setting The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the 1 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorpora.ed north-eastern Contra Costa County approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of 1 Oakley (see Figure 1) . The project site is located in the off- island portion of the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the IHotchkiss Tract. The project site is located at the junction of , Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road (see Figure 2) , and is generally bordered by Bethel Island Road on the west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and Rock Slough on the south. The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and 1 consists of several fenced pasture areas, with irrigation and flood control canals crossing the property in various locations. ' I Several homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are primarily located along Cypress and Bethel Island Roads near Sandmound Boulevard. Project Characteristics 1 IThe Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would be constructed on approximately 683 acres consisting of five parcels. The (project would consist of 1, 301 single-family residential units divided into eleven neighborhoods. In addition, the project would include a 1'8-hole golf course with amenities, swim and 1 (tennis club, man-made lakes, commercial development. area, recreational vehicle/Boat storage, a day care facility, parks and ,pen space (see Figure 3) . 1 The project may be constructed in phases. The phases would be timed to coincide with necessary off-site infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewage, storm drainage, water facilities, ' roadway improvements, etc. ) . The first phase would include basic grading of the site. Most grading would occur in the southern portion of the site for the man-made lakes. Material excavated for the lakes would be used t,lo construct a levee system around much of the project site -for flood protection. This levee system would require FEMA approval 1 before any home constructed on the site could .be occupied. At the same time, preliminary grading for the golf course would occur. ' 1 2 I 1� I i Il $acrarnento 99 ao Napa 12 ifi0 '•� Mtioch so . Stockton lol '' a �Concord O,ycicy project A-"' a 0 •� Za 68o Breataaod ao algid xo San 3ao sao F .;• • ,, `• sao • . • tar rt . • . '> San 3ose � FIGURE 1=ZO�TION COUNTRY C-LUB gEGZON� . 3 Y .... ............ ............ VA Et tt v !! :a at is 1. 'air ,r ids' ! •�.. "�� N a 1 1 40--am m m m m m mi —m m m m m m m m m MI XV —. . c'1 PRELIMINARY DEVIEELOPMENT PLAN—FINAL DEVELOPMENT PL FOR ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL USESFOR ALL gEEIOENTIAL H[IOHBOgNOOOE VESTING TENTATIVE M RUN� (� R SUBDIVISION 768 _: V `~lJ Il]� CYPRESS- ,SCALE:1'-200' I, ,, D LAKES COUNTRY Jnrl2 _ iy7A? � CLUB ; „ ET EL ISLAND AREA,CONTRA COSTA Q,OUNTY I G FILE# CONTRA CO A COUNTY _ COMMUNITY DEVELOFVIENT CHARTERED— !- . _ LAND&CATTLE —C O I' 4 LP�/,/y"7�' _ SHEET INDEX NOTES , � X°I':4"yYF^• .x..'x° °...L°..". •„a,a.�.,.., ...•.. ..a. •. ... h• i4 r;' », ,I� ,III Y” .. I... ! �� ,I j. ,nom •�,.1 e 11th L ' ' ...,,I •:.I,FXI,I,.. ,.• F"L..x°.. ..,•.,..ax.,,•I,.,I . lip ' I-�E. ay. ...���� '° °.i .�Irl ..•. ,.. ,.,. x ( 3 W �Qia p n. S :I , \••'! ' ''• �/yl 1 LAND USE SUMMARY Jr 'LEfOEFNOIi Rq I'I N-41,......X°°°...... I! /t r� f ^'niao w`n..ao.rue°ao.c` < S ✓ 't RESIDENTIAL USE,SUMMARY :. " C'1 A .,` Top TO Or Or.°u.Xr..[r.rlOX 4 • ' �. d5) ` x• Y'!. XI .—.r AAL s 1 J l `� .,.. I .., .�I �°1 4 fan. - � `I.`, ! !.�_I I .T •.,.., I,. x �• __._ / � LEVEE BEDTIDN S-B �; \\\• L' �� 11 -- a , �. VICINITY MAP' I LASE EDGE SECTION A-A .'PnELLI � '�''�'1i 'A -�-� b,,�-��� ��I�".�I.,.�;,�„yl.,� ��eass� oc►ares 'NlT(lfll IDLAl10 ROAR STR![T 6ECTN)N - I CFRESB ROAD STREET SECTION TYPICAL STREET SECTION SHEET 1 OF 1 S eMm FIGURE 3: PROJECT LAYOUT ' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET REPLY TO SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 958142922 ATTE?MONOF September 27, 1991 -- Regulatory Section (9100843) ' Ms. Lynn Jochim Chartered Land and Cattle Company P.O. Box 430 Walnut Creek, California 94597 ' Dear Ms. Jochim: This letter concerns the project known as the Chartered Land and Cattle Company property, located in Sections 22 and 23, Township 2N and Range 3E, Contra Costa County, California. ' We have reviewed and verified the wetland delineation map of the Chartered Land and Cattle Company property submitted to us by letter dated August 8, 1991. ' Our jurisdiction in this area is under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Department of the Army permit is required prior to the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Accordingly, a permit will be required prior 1 to filling any of the 9.18 acres of waters present on the Chartered Land and Cattle Company site as identified on the verified wetland map. The type of permit processing required ' will depend on the type and amount of waters which would be lost or substantially adversely modified by fill activities. This verification is valid for three years from the date of this letter. Please refer to identification number 199100843 in any future correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please write Karen Shaffer at the letterhead address, Room 1444, or telephone (916)557-5269. Sincerely, Tom Coe ' Chief, Regulatory Unit 1 Copy Furnished: ' Huffman & Associates, Inc. , Mr. James Gibson, 4204 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, California 95826 1 1 1 1 ' - 1 THE WETLAND DELINEATION MAP IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. t t I ' tSTUDY AREA SOILS' 1 Map Symbol Mapping unit Order DaC Delhi sand,- Entisols ' 2 to 9% slopes Ea Egbert mucky Mollisols clay loam Kb Kingile muck Histosols Pe Piper loamy Inceptisols sand Ph Piper fine Inceptisols ' sandy loam Rd Rindge muck Histosols Rh Ryde silt loam Mollisols ' Sa Sacramento clay Mollisols Sb Sacramento clay, Mollisols alkali Se Shima muck Histosols 1 $USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Coats County,California. t Chatur.sol I -,, � -- � 1� ` �������x � \ � \, � � � � � , � -� i i STUDY AREA SOILS 5 .. :,;;•,c:y,� , .• ••�!+3y .x�:: ethel' Islandjs �:. ,•,.. SG UCH:;,-, o• .r•�'y� '" U •V�;. ..,. Se ' O y:; •"F to r <: FF :•i'J,'+:jlh.• r. �' F'rL 'Ph Ea F •`� r ^Rdti. t, Ph r +. a ..y`%:. . QdC .'y i •''+': I:,t: - DaC Fv:: MN*-. - .. .' '•�f,-.. ��' 'DaC `.�1` '��fq��',yr'1f• y •.i°,'�' ,,;� "y..a�t •• � ; :�- .ra.':r:•. - j�•tf�slr.'u�- .Myr•n� �. �:W4 i..(? - `'�-i . •YS:. I�aIPNON' } P° n1j Re Pa. OaC 'Pe Eaa So EeI DaC. �. '. .�, '_ Vin./w' �'�'i.;�,S•=Ph:•• -.,' t� a r•. %"�."�y�,y`;"r� iy�'?:'' n • `�t J:r;':•., vi y Pa C I.. }y0. 11 ^`:• �' ..a;'. n .. ''V:; .Jd Uth•�i:.:F.i+::yl f..t�;r ORA" ' .Y:1•. �.. �' R'' Fe 5 USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1977 Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. IS(AVIS ' Scientific Name Common Name Status Rumex crispus curly dock FACW- Salicornia virginica virginia glasswort OBL Salix lasiandra yellow willow OBL Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow FACW Sal5ola kali Russian thistle FACU+ Scirpus olne i olney OBL Sparganjam eurycarpum giant bur-reed OBL Spergularia marina saltmarsh sandspurry OBL Spergularia rubra purple sand spurry FAC- Trianthema portulacastrum desert horse-purslane FACW Trifolium fraQiferum strawberry clover NI* Tvpha latifolia cattail OBL Urtica dioica stinging nettle FACW Vulvia bromoides six-weeks fescue FACW Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur UPL 1 f I 1 1 Charter.plt f a PARTIAL LIST OF PLANTS OBSERVED ON THE CHARTERED LAND & CATTLE CO. PROPERTY ' AND THEIR STATUS AS WETLAND INDICATOR SPECIES scientific Name Common Name Status1 a2 Atriplex patula ssp. hastata halberd-leaf saltbush FACW Avena bar ata wild oats UPL Brassica nigra black mustard UPL Bromus diandrus (B. rigidus) rip-gut grass UPL Brgmus mollis soft chess FACU- Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle UPL Chenopodium rubrum red goosefoot UPL Cirsium vulaare bull thistle FACU oni m maculatum poison hemlock FACW Cotula coronopifolia brassbuttons FACW+ Cynodon dactylon bermuda grass FAC Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge FACW Distichlis spica�ta inland saltgrass FACW* Elymus triticoides creeping wildrye 'FAC Eutthamia occidentalis western ragweed OBL Festuca arundinacea reed fescue FACU Frankenia grandifolia alkali heath FACW , Heliotropium curassavicum seaside heliotrope OBL Hemizonia pungens common tarweed FAC Hordeum geniculatum Mediterranean barley NI Hordeum hystrix Mediterranean barley FAC Hordeum jubatum fox-tail barley FAC+ Hordeum leporinum barley NI Juncus balt,icus baltic rush OBL Juncus bufonius toad rush FACW Juncus effusus soft rush OBL Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce FAC Lepidium latifolium whitetop FACW Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass. FAC Lotus corniculatus bird's foot trefoil FAC Parapholis incurva sickle grass OBL Picris echiodes bristly ox-tongue FAC* Polygonum amphibium water smartweed OBL Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed UPL Polypogon mons.Reliensis rabbit's foot grass OBL Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood FACW Raphanus satiws wild radish .UPL Rubus procerus himalaya berry FAC 1Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in wetlands: California (Region 0). Biological Report 88(26.10) May 1988. National Ecology Research Center, National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Fl. 20BL = obligate; FACW = facultative wetland; FAC = facultative; FACU = Facultative upland; UPL = upland; , and NI = no indicator. Charter.pLt 'Ir � 1 ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Field� ProjectnDate: v tiga o sta I, 5 County Wetland•Type and Sample Number: --G Site Condition: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator status Associated Plants Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes: No: Rationale: 7 SU�p �,Q C°, '� B G SOILS Is soil on hydric soils list? Yes: No: Unknown: Is the soil Mottled? Yes: No: Gleyed? Yes: No:� Soil Matrix Color: I ' e Color: Soil Texture: 4v 7_q-I' `' Q ' Other hydric soiY indicators: of Q" �-- Hydric Soil? Yes: No: Soil Sample Depth: 1Z2'' Rationale: �� HYDROLOGY Inundated? Yes: No: Depth of Standing Water: ' Saturated? Yes: No: Depth of Water: 2,211 Other evidence of inundation or saturation: Wetland Hydrology? Yes: No: X 1 Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Is the community a wetland? Yes: No: Rationale: IQ9 h 6� ew DdDala.frm ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Field Investigat r• I SU S T.UIM Date: 1 Project: St County: Wetland Type and Sample Number:- S W - Site Condition: f VEGETATION Dom'na t P1ant, S ecies Indicator Status Associated Plants WL �f Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes: No: i Rationale: E:6ejj2;' 0BtL . � SOILS Is soil on hydric soils list? Yes: No: Unknown: Is the soil Mottled? Yes: No: X Gleyed? Yes: No: Soil Matrix Color: Mottle Color: Soil Texture: Other hydric soi indicators: Hydric Soil? Yes: No: Soil Sample Depth: ?0 Rationale: r HXDROLOGX Inundated? Yes: No:�� Depth of Stdnding Water: Saturated? Yes: No: Depth of Water: ZO" Other evidence o inundation or saturation: Wetland Hydrology? Yes: No: Rationale: ' JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Is the Community a wetland? Yes: X No: Rationale: ' 14 DCIDnU.frm I . i l ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Field in stiga or: j S T.V1 Date: (J Project: Sta County: Wetland Type and Sample Number: - Site Condition: S �v VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status Associated Plants vu W 21d19k22U 99,W Hydrophytic. Vegetation? Yes: No: Rationale: 5"0 `¢To &4d( , f3n'41 , -p$ L , SOILS Is soil on hydric soils list? Yes: _ No: Unknown: , Is the soil Mottled? Yes: No: Gleyed? Yes: No: Soil Matrix Color: Mottle Color: Soil Texture: / " • d -f —OT Is" Other ydric soil indicators: v �� saps 5rurr* t. Pore7- Hydric Soll? Yes: No: Soil S mple Depth: Rationale: o sib)�i ., HYDROLOGY Inundated? Yes: No:_X Depth of Standing Water: Saturated? Yes: _ No: Depth of Water: IV" other evi ence of In nd ti n or satu tion: W tland 1qydrolog . Yes: No: ? 1 Rationale: ' JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Is the community a wetland? Yes: No: Rationale: , Dc1D&a.GTn 1f ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Field Investi a : �, j Date: (J q Project: St County: Wetland Type and Sample Number: -, f3 Site Condition: md� IOR '54J� VEGETATION — Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status Associated Plants EAC V t EACW 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes: X No: Rationale: > 5007a rAC, W. OBL SOILS Is soil on hydric soils list? Yes: No: Unknown: Is the soil Mottled? Yes: No:'sG�leyed? Yes: . No: Soil Matrix Color: 2, Mottles Color: Soil Texture: Other hydric soil indicators: , Hydric Soil? Yes: No: Soil Sample Depth: I " Rationale: Hairo C HYDROLOGY Inundated? Yes: No: Depth of Standing Water: Saturated? Yes: No: Depth of Water: IOther evidence of nunda_tion or saturation: ) Wetland Hydrology? Yes: No: . Rationale: _ JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION j Is the community a wetland? Yes: No: Rationale:--o poqj}'vtarvicetii TiQy^ so! ,15 nv- v ' DdData.frm i . .I i ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Field Investigator: J, ib50 , Daiy& T. Ulm Date: 1 O TUM 1331 Project: v Sta County: Co h4-rc4 COS'�[ti Wetland Type and Sample Numb r: Site Condition: W/ ) r — VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status Associated Plants C CL L Le '.I iy A urY1 C,I�V Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes: No: Rationale: o e7o: SOILS Is soil on hydric soils list? Yes: No: Unknown: Is the soil Mottled? Yes: No: Gleyed? Yes: No: Soil Matrix Color: JOY Mottle Color: )0 Y Y Soil Texture: Other hydric soil indicators: Hydric Soil? Yes: No: Soil Sample Depth: ' Rationale: Lpuj rAq ri' ro o ill rA rhoi:r2t Soil HYDROLOGY Inundated? Yes: No: Depth of Standing Water: i. Saturated? Yes: No: Depth of Water: ($�� Other evidence of inundati n or saturation: Wetland Hydrology. Yes: No: Rationale: yl. JgEISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Is the community a wetland? Yes: No: Rationale:_ li'yt � r'�u�r� ►^ Q11 J�u►ztwt S. DdDeta.fmn -% �,=/'\ ; � � � �� � s����5 � � � � \� � ,� � z l � TABLE 2 j SOIL SATURATION DATA COLLECTED AT THE , CHARTERED LAND & CATTLE CO. PROJECT SITE Depth of Relative 7bservation Estimated Saturated Elevation Point Elevation Soil of Saturation (Feet) (Inches) (Feet) i 1 -7 .8 60 -12.8 2 -6.7 0 - 6.7 3 -7.5 29 - 9.9 4 •-9.2 28 -11.5 5 -9. 1 18 -10. 6 6 -6.0 Below 20 ----- 7 -7.2 10 - 840 8 -7.3 13 8.4 9 -8.3 20 -10.0 10 -7.9 18 - 9.4 11 -8. 6 27 -10.9 12 -7.9 28 -10.2 13 -6.7 28 - 9..0 14 -8.6 24 -10.6 15 -8.4 25 -10.5 16 -8.3 20 -10.0 17 -8.5 28 -10.8 18 -9.9 25 -12.0 19 -7. 4 30 - 9.9 20 -9. 0 Below 28 ----- 21 -8.8 23 -10.7 22 -7.4 24 7 9.4 ' 23 -7.3 Below 22 ----- 24 -8.9 20 -10.6 25 -7.7 22 - 9.5 26 -8.0 20 - 9.7 27 -8. 6 20 -10.3 28 -8.8 22 -10.6 29 -8. 6 22 -10.4 30 -8.5. 23 -10.4 31 -4 .5 Below 26 ----- Chacter.thl TABLE 1 WETLAND/WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES CHARTERED LAND & CATTLE CO. PROPERTY SEASONAL WETLANDS SW 1 70, 680 sq.ft. SW 2 4, 340 sq.ft. SW 3` 2.,480 sq.ft. SW 4 1,860 sq.ft. SW 5 1,860 sq.ft. SW 6 1,860 sq.ft. SW 7 74,400 sq. ft. SW 8 19,840 sq.ft. SW 9 1,860 sq.ft. SW 10 104,780 sq.ft. TOTAL 283,960 square feet or 6.52 acres CHANNEL CH 1 116,000 square feet or 1 2. 66 acres GRAND TOTAL = 399,960 square feet or 9.18 acres Charterl.rbl i Channel A channel, averaging 20 feet wide for a total of 2.66 acres, is present in the center of the study .site. It is used as a district drainage ditch and receives irrigation water from a main pump at its western extent at Sand Mound Slough. This channel is considered to be waters of the United States since it is a remnant historic natural drainage channel that has been channelized for irrigation use. CONCLUSION Based on our detailed wetland delineation on the Chartered Land and Cattle Company Property,: we conclude that approximately 9.18 acres are subject to Corps ,of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Adelineation map with the locations of waters of the United: -States/wetlands is provided in Appendix D. Chartcr.del underlying gray silt loam (10 YR 6/1) at a depth of -18 inches is saturated. The wetland-upland border is dominated by the alkali-tolerant (or halophytic) species including whitetop, russian thistle, virginia glasswort, and halberd-leaf saltbush. The soil matrix color is 10 YR 3/2 with no evidence of mottling or any other hydric soil indicators. Depth of saturation is below 18 inches. During our survey, we investigated several alkali areas supporting similar hydrophytic vegetation as that' found in the delineated seasonal wetland, including saltgrass (Distichlis snicata) , virginia glasswort, saltbush, and seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) . Because these areas lack positive hydrologic indicators, we concluded that these species are present due to these plants' abilities to tolerant alkali conditions. The areas in question are underlain .by permeable soils as observed in the field. Mr. Dalporto, who has farmed the property for fifteen years, stated that water does not pond in these areas for over 1 several days unless an abnormal storm event occurs. Another vegetative cover in seasonal wetlands is dominated by plants such as brassbuttons (Cotula coronopifolia) , Mediterranean barley (Hordeum hystrix) , and purple sand spurry (Speraularia rubra) . The soil in these areas is organic to a depth of 14 inches with silty clay loam from 14-18 inches and sandy loam at 18 inches. Salts are accumulating in the cracks and pores of the soil. Soil is saturated at a depth of 18 inches. The wetland-upland border is dominated b bird's foot trefoil p Y (Lotus corniculatus) and fox-tail barley (Hordeum jubatum) . Soil is organic to a depth of 14 inches with underlying sandy loam which is not saturated at 20 inches. jThe upland border is dominated by creeping wildrye (Elvmus triticoides) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum hystrix) . Soils are organic to a depth of 14 inches with silty clay loam to a depth of 20 inches and sandy loam below 20 inches. The soil is not saturated at a depth of 20 inches. In the southeastern corner of the site, a seasonal wetland (SW- 10) is vegetated by a dominance of arroyo and yellow-willows (Salix lasioleris and Salix lasiandra) . This area is surrounded by irrigation ditches and receives seepage of irrigation tailwater. The existing sandy soils are saturated to the surface. Chadcr.del 1 � by a substratum of very dark gray and dark-gray, medium acid silty clay. Rindge soils consist of deep, black organic material. Shima soils are underlain by sand at a depth of about 16 to 36 inches. Associated with the organic soils on the site are Ryde, Egbert, and Piper soils. Ryde soil consists of stratified mineral and organic i layers formed by thick deposits of sediment during several river floods. Egbert soils formed in poorly drained silty clay loam alluvium, and had a thin surface layer of organic matter that oxidized and mixed with the underlying mineral soil. They now have a dark-gray mineral A horizon that contains organic matter and is underlain by gleyed silty clay loam and clay. ' Piper soils formed ' in windblown material that had encroached on the northwest part of the delta. The surface of Piper soil has had additions of organic material. The B2 horizon has been weakly cemented by carbonates from a fluctuating water table. Sacramento clay and alkali clay consist of poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium. These soils are adjacent to the organic soils. Sacramento soils are -used mainly for irrigated row crops on leveled areas and for irrigated pasture. The Sacramento alkali clay contains enough saline and alkali salts to limit selection of crops and type of plant growth. The Delhi soils formed in wind-modified stream deposits of mixed origin (they are made up of slightly acid to mildly alkaline brown , sand) . The types of waters on the property include seasonal wetlands and a channel. A description of each type is provided below. A delineation map with the locations of jurisdictional waters is provided in Appendix D and a summary of acreages is provided in Table 1. Seasonal Wetland ' The seasonal wetlands, measuring approximately 6.52 acres, are present on the study site. These wetlands display several different vegetative compositions. One dominant vegetative cover includes virginia glasswort (Salicornia vircrinica) and whitetop (Lepidium latifolium) , with plants along the wetland-upland border including Russian thistle (Salsola kali) , and halberd-leaf saltbush (Atriolex patyla ssp. hastata) . This vegetative cover is underlain by soils with a soil matrix color of 10 YR 4/1 with 10 YR 4/5 mottles and a red calcic horizon at a depth of 12 inches. The Chncter.del i Based on the above, we identified saturation within 20 inches (1.50+ feet) of the surface as our standard for a positive hydrologic indicator. Using this standard, we estimated that saturation would be at the surface at the beginning of the growing season. FINDINGS 1 The study area consists of rolling grassland used for grazing and irrigated agriculture. There are also three residences with associated buildings, barns, and fenced areas. Irrigation ditches network the study area with pumps at the southeast and northwest corner of the property, where ditches pump water from Sandmound Slough and Dutch Slough, respectively. There is a large district drainage channel which crosses the center of the property on an east-west axis. Elevation on the study site ranges from 25 feet above sea level to approximAtely -10 feet mean sea level. Historically, much of this area was a freshwater marsh, and the 1 .Soils formed in the accumulated remains of tule, reed, and other aquatic plants. Thin layers of silty mineral matter were added when the marsh flooded. As the mineral base subsided, organic deposits accumulated, and the streams built up bordering alluvial ridges. Hotchkiss Tract (where the study area is located) was reclaimed around the turn of the century by levee construction and 1 drainage. Pumping has lowered the water table and allowed the soils to dry; Soils have dried irreversibly so that cracks have developed that remain after rewetting.' These organic soils, which are near or below sea level, have subsided as a result of drying, oxidation, soil blowing, fires, and tillage. The organic-matter content has been diluted as thin layers of minerals have collected in the residual organic soil.• The soils (mapped by Soil Conservation Service) within the study area are comprised of ten soil types including Kingile muck, Rindge muck, Shima muck, Egbert mucky clay loam, Piper loamy sand, Piper fine' sandy loam, .Ryde silt loam, Sacramento clay and alkali clay, and Delhi sand. Appendix C contains a soil map of the study area with pertinent soils information. Kingile, Rindge, and Shima mucks are highly organic soils found on the study site. Kingile muck is underlain at a depth of 20 inches 'USDA Soil con scrvation Service, 1977. Soil Survey,of Contra Coda County,California. 4USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,California. Charter.del 1 . I 1 t 1 1 y r Q. t 7 + 4 ff r to 1-4 C + V t r M The delineation of wetlands on the site was complicated because of the following factors. 1. Historically, much of the study area was wetlands. Levees and drainage ditches were constructed nearly 100 years ago for land reclamation. As a -result, relic hydric soils are found over a large area of the site, most of which have been . drained. ' Therefore, the presence of hydric soil characteristics is not a reliable indicator of current conditions. 2. The study area is irrigated for pasture and row crops. Some pasture areas are flood irrigated and contain wetland plant species. Normally, evaluation of soils will indicate whether the wetland vegetation is responding to irrigation or natural conditions. In khis case, however, the soils are not a valid indicator. ' , 3. There are areas on the site which are highly alkaline where 1 the vegetation is dominated by wetland halophytes such as saltgrass and saltbush. Dominance of these species does not always mean that wetland conditions exist, since alkalinity can reduce competition from less tolerant upland species. 4. It is apparent that wetlands on the site -are sustained by groundwater. We were unable to identify a consistent correlation between depth of saturation and ground surface elevation (See Table 2) as we did at a site on Bethel Island in 1990. Therefore, using ground surface elevations to estimate groundwater depths is not appropriate. A California Department of Water Resources (DWR). groundwater monitoring station is located in the eastern portion of the site. This station, consisting - of monitoring wells 10, 20, 25, and 40 feet deep, provided groundwater readings at. various times of the year from 1968 to 1990. We graphically plotted the monthly mean 1 , groundwater level for each of the groundwater wells over the period of record (Figure 2) . It indicates that the groundwater table is relatively stable throughout the year, varying from approximately 1.75 feet to 2.5 feet, depending on the particular groundwater well. Of particular interest is the average fluctuation of 1.50 feet between January and mid-June when we conducted our field delineation. Charter.del FIGURE I — TOPOGRAPHIC AND VICINITY MAPS 77 a EA A c0q, I WT rz •;i= e UrCH $'L'O iZCH "rN"' .., ,.,. STUDY AREA BOUNDARY" H 0 u Tic H 0 u K G A S F I E D DUTCH SLOUGH 0 L L A' N 28 % ----------- S I a u 0 h .'Ar e a VaauY. . % 34 A L E: T R A A4— 3 OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to delineate and map the extent of all waters of the United States ("waters") , including wetlands, located in the study area, that are subject to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. LOCATION The 700-acre study area is located in northeastern Contra Costa County, south of Bethel Island and Dutch Slough, northeast of Brentwood, west of Holland Tract and Sand Mound Slough, and is bordered on the east by Bethel Island Road (Sections 22 and 23, Township 2 North, Range 3 East; Jersey Island, Brentwood, Woodward Island, and Bouldin Island 7.5 minute U.S.G.s. quadrangles) . Figure 1 is a topographic and vicinity map depicting the study area. , METHODS AND MATERIALS Field studies were conducted on June 18 and 19, 1991. The "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands", was used as the standard for determining whether specific areas are wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act. Corps of Engineers' regulations (33 CFR 328) were used to identify "waters". of the 1 United states other than wetlands, that are present in the study area. The "National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0) " was used to determine the status of observed plants as wetland indicator species. The boundaries of all waters, including wetlands, were mapped in the field onto a 1" = 200' scale infrared aerial photograph taken on May 15, 1991. All acreages of wetlands .were computed from the aerial photograph by use of a digital planimeter. Detailed data on soils, vegetation and hydrology were taken in the field. Delineation data sheets are provided in Appendix A. A list of plant species observed and their status as wetland indicator species is provided in Appendix B. Appendix C contains soils information and Appendix D contains delineation map. 'Federal Interagency Committee for Wotland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,Washington,D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 'Reed,P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species'ntat Occur in Wetlands:California(Region 0). Biological Report 88(26.10)May 1988. National Ecology Research Center,National Wetlands Inventory,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,St. Petersburg,Fl. Charter.del 1 1 1 DELINEATION REPORT 1 i CHARTERED * LAND 1 8c i CATTLE COMPANY 1 PROPERTY 1 i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JULY 199 Prepared By: Prepared For: Huffman & Associates, Inc. Chartered Land & Cattle Co. 4204 Power Inn Road P.O. Box 430 Sacramento, Calif. 95826 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94597 i i f ■ Appendix D We " Hand/Landscaping Information i # 1 i SCIENTIFIC-NAME COMMONNAME i Trifolium repens white clover Typha angustifolia nailrod Typha domingensis cattail Urtica dioica stinging nettle Vulpia myuros rattail fescue Xanthium spinosum spiney cocklebur Xanthium strumarium cocklebur SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Hordeum leporinum barley Juglans nigra black walnut Juncus balticus baltic rush Juncus bufonius toad rush Juncus effusus soft rush Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Layia platyglossa tidy-tips Lepidium latifolium whitetop Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass Lotus corniculatus bird's foot trefoil Ludwegia peploides water primrose Lupinus albifrons shrub lupine Malva parviflora cheeseweed Marrubium vulgare ._horehound Melilotus indicus yellow sweet clover Melilotus officianale alfalfa Oenothera deltoides var. cognata evening primrose Parapholis incurva sickle grass Phragmites australis common reed Plantago lanceolata English plantain ' Plantago major broad-leafed plantain Poa annus annual bluegrass Polygonum amphibium wireweed Polygonum aviculare knotweed � . Polygonum lapathifolium willow-weed Polygonum persicaria lady's thumb Polygonum punctatum dotted smartweed Polypogon monspeliensis rabbit-foot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Ranunculus sceleratus celery-leaf buttercup Raphanus sativa wild radish Rubus procerus Himalaya berry Rumex crispus curley dock ' Salicornia virginica pickleweed Salix babylonica weeping willow Salix gooddingii Gooding's willow Salix hindsiana sandbar willow Salix laevigata smooth willow Salix lasiandra Pacific willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salsola kali Russian thistle Scirpus californicus Bulrush Scirpus olneyi Olney's bulrush ' Sida hederacea alkali mallow Silybum marianum milk thistle Sonchus oleraceus sow-thistle Sparganum eurycarpum bur-reed Spergularia rubra rose spurry Spergularia marina salt spurry Tamarix pentandra salt-cedar Trianthema portulacastrum horse-purslane Tribulus terrestris puncture vine i PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON TRE CHARTERED LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY PROPERTY ' DURING SPRING AND SUMMER,1991, FIELD SURVEYS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Anemopsis californica yerba mansa Amsinckia intermedia fiddleneck Anagalis arvensis scarlet pimpernel , Asparagus officianale asparagus Aster exilis annual aster Atriplex patula ssp. hastata henfat Atriplex semibaccata Austrailian saltbush ' Baccharis douglasii Douglas's falsewillow Bassia hyssopifolia five-horn smotherweed Brassica nigra black mustard ' Bromus diandrus rip-gut brome Bromus mollis soft chess Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's purse Centaurea calcitrapa purple star thistle Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle Chenopodium rubrum red goosefoot. Cirsium vulgare bull thistle ' Conium maculatum poison hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Morning glory Cortedaria selloana pampus grass , Cotula coronopifolia brass buttons Croton californica California croton Crypsis schcenoides swampgrass Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge Cyperus strigosus straw-colored flatsedge Datura stramonium jimson-weed Distichlis spicata salt grass Echinochloa crusgalli barnyard grass Elymus triticoides creeping wild rye Erodium cicutarium filaree Euthamia occidentalis western ragweed Festuca arundinacea reed fescue Festuca pratensis meadow fescue ' Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel Frankenia grandifolia var. campestris alkali heath Gilia capitata gilia Glycyrrhiza lepidota wild licorice Gnaphalium palustre everlasting Helianthus annus common sunflower Heliotropium curassavicum heliotrope Heterothecag randiflor a telegraph ra h weed Hordeum brachyantherum meadow .barley Hordeum geniculatum Meditteranean barley , Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley r i ,I Appendix C List of Plant Species Observed During Field Surveys , specific, user-supplied information can also be used when it is available. The following is a description of the parameters that were used in the regional air quality analysis of the proposed project: -Ambient Temperature: 60 degrees F. -Trip Lengths: Home-Based Other 7.94 miles Home-Based Work 16.34 miles Home-Based Shop 5.18 miles Nonhome-Based Work 8.35 miles Nonhome-Based Other 5.0 miles The above trip lengths were based on MTC estimates of trip length in the year 2000 for the project area.Z An adjustment was made to the URBEMIS-3 output. The URBEMIS-3 program generates estimates of Total Organic Gases rather than Reactive Organic Gases. Reactive Organic Gases were assumed to equal 91% of the Total Organic Gases. r Z Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Travel Forecasts, Congestion Management Program Databook #1• Regional Summary, March 1991 APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS CALIHE-4 MODEL The CALINE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant dispersion over the roadway. Given source , strength,meteorology, site geometry and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The CALINE-4 model allows roadways to be broken into multiple links that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc.. ' The intersection mode of the.model was employed for the four intersections studied, which distributes emissions along each leg of the intersection for free- flow traffic, idling traffic and accelerating and decelerating traffic. The intersection model extended 250 meters in all directions. Receptors (locations where the model calculates concentrations) were located at distance of 25 feet from the roadway edge for all four corners of the intersection. Curbside concentrations were for a receptor located immediately adjacent to the roadway. The worst case mode of the CALINE-4 model was employed. In this mode the , wind direction is varied to determine which wind direction results in the highest concentration for each receptor. Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC-7EP computer model. The computation of carbon monoxide levels assumed the following worst-case meteorological conditions: Windspeed: 1 mps ' Stability: F Category Mixing Height: 100 meters Surface Roughness: 150 cm Standard Deviation of Wind Direction: 10 degrees , The CALINE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby roads to the total concentration. The other contribution is the background level attributed to more distant traffic. The 1-hour background level was taken as 2.6 PPM in ' 1992 and 1.9 PPM in 2005.1 Eight-hour background levels were taken as 1.8 PPM in 1992 and 1.3 PPM in 2005. To calculate 8-hour concentrations from the 1-hour output of the CALINE-4 model, a persistence factor of 0.7 was employed. URBEMIS-3 PROGRAM Estimates .of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program called URBEMIS-3. URBEMIS-3 is a program that estimates the emissions that would result from various land use development projects. Land use project can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial parks. URBEMIS-3 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project- . 1 , Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality and Urban Development-Guidelines, November 1985 (Revised 1991). Appendix B Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions 4 . DETERMINATION ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 1 effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a sig- nificant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation mea- sures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on r the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re- quired. Date Signatur ' - 6-gz 1 Revi ed By: r 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 32 r 7. Contra Costa County, Environmental Impact Report Bethel Island Area Specific Plan (Draft EIR - October, 1989 and Responses to Comments - January, 1990) . The EIR on the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan identifies the potential environmental effects which ma} result from implementation of the Specific Plan. Due to the broad range of actions to be implemented, this EIR was prepared as a program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. It is intended' that as subsequent development projects occur in accordance with the Specific Plan, they will be evaluated to determine whether project impacts will result in effects not examined in the program _ EIR. i 1 1 31 . i 4. Chartered Land & Cattle Company, "Delineation Report"; July, ' 1991. • i This report provides information regarding the extent of wetland areas on the project site including a map depicting wetland areas. The report included review of aerial photographs and field surveys conducted in June of 1991 . The report concludes that approximately 9. 18 acres of the project site would be considered wetland and/or subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has , confirmed the findings of the applicant' s wetland delineation Report in a letter dated September 27, 1991. 5. Chartered Land & Cattle Company, "Geotechnical Investigation Report", December 22, 1988. This report provides information regarding the surface and , subsurface soils on the project site and provides general recommendations regarding the geotechnical conditions present on the site. ' The report identifies *ou: areas of concern and makes recommendations regarding: potential liquefaction on the project ' site; construction of lakes and levees; potential soil subsidence and settlement; and. underseepage of levees. 6. Contra Costa County, Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, as , approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1989 and ammeded on April 16, 1991 . This plan provides specific goals, objectives and detailed ' development guidelines for the future development of the Bethel Island area. This plan outlines the land use concepts for the , Bethel Island area including concepts for residential and commercial development, parks and open space, and agricultural uses. Concepts for circulation and utilities are also provided. ' Specific Development guidelines are also provided including those for: single and multiple family residences; in-fill development; clustered residential development; commercial development; public ' service; schools; parks; circulation systems; and levees. 30 I r . 3. LIST OF SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS The following documents have been used in preparing this Initial Study. -These documents are available from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The contents of these documents are briefly summarized below. 1. Contra Costa County, "Contra Costa County General Plan", January, 1991. The County General Plan sets forth the broad goals and policies and specific implementation measures which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources through the year 2005 within the unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County. The General Plan is divided into nine elements including: Land Use, Growth Management, Transportation/Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities/Services, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, and Noise. These elements provide objectives, principles and standards to decision-making bodies in the County, as well as numerous other.public agencies, that will be making decisions about the development of private and public lands and the locations and extent of infrastructure improvements such as sewers and roadways. 2. Contra Costa County, Final EIR on the Contra Costa County Genera=1 Plan",. December, 1989. The EIR on the County General Plan identifies the potential r environmental effect which may result from implementation of the General Plan. Due to the broad county-wide scope of the plan, the evaluation of potential impacts is less detailed than an EIR on a specific development project. For this reason, it is intended that further environmental review will occur when: 1) the County receives development proposals for parcels within the Planning rarea; and 2) specific area review projects are undertaken. 3. Chartered Land & Cattle Company, "Special-Status Species Survey", October, 1991. rThis study provides information regarding special-status plant and animal species which may be present on the project site. The survey included literature review, consultation with experts and field surveys of the project site. The results. of the survey found that no special-status plant species were found on the property during spring and summer field visits . However, several special-status animals. may be present on the site or utilize the site for foraging. r r 29 r- r -. I *S *I ' i d. Does the project have environmental effects ' which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? S i Discussion Initial review of the proposed project indicates that the project has the potential to degrade the environment, impact biological and cultural resources, achieve short- term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts and cause adverse impacts on human being either directly or indirectly. These potential impacts require further review. Y 1 __L:._._._ S'_ __. .an 28 r *S *z ' d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? S Discussion The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area contains numerous known buried cultural resource sites . The project site is located within an area identified on the County' s Archaeological Sensitivity Map as being 'Extremely Sensitive" and containing known archaeological sites. Due to the presence of buried cultural resources in the project vicinity and the potential for encountering cultural resources during site development, the impacts of the project on cultural resources requires additional review. ' 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially ' reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of- California history or prehistory? S b. Does the project have the potential to achieve ' short-term,. to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) S c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total ofthose impacts on the environment is significant. S i * o:ease No:.e: 's• .5 :C- .$' ---_<--- C` ---V�- ---% -- - -S :ns,cC:---Carl- i 27 1 r i *S Discussion , The existing visual setting of the project area is characterized by rural agricultural uses with minimal man-made structures (e.g. homes, barns, levees, roads) ' interrupting views of broad open space. Mount Diablo and the broad views across the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta can be seen from several vantage points in the project , area. The proposed project would develop approximately 683 acres with residential and recreational uses as well as levees around much of the project site. This development will substantially alter the existing visual character of project site and levee construction may affect certain distant views. Therefore, the visual impacts of the project require environmental review. . , 19. Recreation. will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing ' recreational opportunities? S Discussion The project site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area which provides significant recreational opportunities (i.e boating, fishing, water sports) . The , proposed project would include: man-made lakes, a tennis and swim club, 18-hole golf course, park and open space. While the provision of these recreational facilities ' would appear to be beneficial, their compatibility with existing recreational opportunities and the "Off-Island Bonus Area" requirements, needs further review. This review should be provided in the land use discussion. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration ' of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? S ' b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? S , c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? S i :e-::_.:y S:cr.: .ca::.: or :r.signi° car.t 't ?:ease Xc�e: '.S' :s [c: S:ec_' � �`: E 26 r r *S *I Slough and several open channels crossing the project site. The proposed project would significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and increase storm water runoff from the site. To address this change, the project would include on-site storm drainage facilities including curbs, gutters and drain inlets which would convey runoff to existing off-site drainage facilities. In addition, the proposed lakes would also act as detention facilities. While the project appears to include adequate on-site storm drainage facilities, the project' s impact on off-site drainage facilities and increased storm water runoff requires additional review and agency consultation. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? I b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? S Discussion . Unrecorded' and/or accidental discharge of hazardous materials such as oil, gasoline, diesel and pesticides may have occurred on the project site. The project applicant has conducted a preliminary assessment of the project site for the presence of hazardous materials. The potential presence of . these or other hazardous materials could result in health hazards and the need for remediation. Additional review of the project site for the presence of hazardous materials and soil contamination is necessary. An :in-depth field ' investigation may be necessary. Once constructed, the proposed project would primarily consist of single-family residential units, recreational facilities and open space areas. These uses would not be expected to create or expose persons residing within the project, or in surrounding areas, to any health hazards. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? S * ?!ease \o:e: 'S' :s S:cn' ca can - - • 25 *S *I necessary. Conformance with County energy conservation Ipolicies and standard building -requirements would 1 mitigate any potential energy impacts from the project. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in .a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: i a. Water? S b. . Sewage Disposal? S ' C. Lighting? S d. Storm Drainage? S ' Discussion Domestic water in the project area is primarily provided ' by private wells. The project applicant is proposing service from the Oakley Water District. To receive water , from the Oakley Water District, the project site would need to be annexed into the Districts Sphere of Influence. The impacts or the proposed project ' .on available water supplies and the ability of the Oakley , water District to serve the project, should be evaluated. The project site is located within the Contra Costa , Sanitary District #15. -The sewage collection facilities are operated by the .Oakley-Bethel Island Wastewater Management Agency. The proposed project would include sewage collection facilities to accommodate development of the site as well as contributions to off-site wastewater disposal area. While the project would appear to provide adequate sewage collection facilities on-site, ' impacts to off-site wastewater treatment facilities and disposal areas require additional review and agency consultation: ' The project would include significant new lighting for residential,. commercial and recreational uses. The provision of lighting has not been addressed in the , project application and therefore requires additional review and agency consultation. Storm drainage facilities in the project area are , operated and maintained by Reclamation District #799 and include two pumping stations located along Sandmound * :ease Xo_e: .IS' is,!cr _••,...n_ _. ...c-.c.__.y SEacar.C: = 9 _ f: "' is fcr nsi r.ificant 24 *S *I d. Parks or other recreational facilities? S e. Maintenance of public facilities, including _ roads? S f. Other governmental services? S MDiscussion Police protection, fire protection and- public school services in the project area are currently provided by ' the Contra Costa County Sheriff' s Department, The Bethel Island Fire Protection District and Oakley Fire Protection District, and The Oakley Union (K-8) and Liberty Union High School Districts. Maintenance of park land, roadways and other public facilities is the responsibility of the Contra Costa County Department of ' Public Works. The project would result in the development of 1, 301 new residential units . The resulting increase in residential structures, urban services and population may have a significant impact on police protection, fire protection, schools and maintenance services . Therefore, the ' project' s impacts on public services requires additional environmental review and agency consultation. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? I b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? I Discussion The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would require the use of fossil fuels for the operation of construction equipment, manufacture of materials and long-term commitment of energy to operate the residences, commercial uses and recreational facilities. The amount of energy that would be consumed during the construction and long-term operation of the project would be similar to other residential communities in Contra Costa County and would not be considered adverse because it would not be inefficient or wasteful . For these reasons, no further environmental evaluation of this issue is * ?'_ease Xc;e: IS, _S I V S± a S: -_`.:can., s fc: T_r.sicn::icant 23 . I *S *I regarding the project' s contribution to existing and future (cumulative) traffic and the resulting capacity , impact on local roadways, traffic hazards, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation is necessary. Single-family residences would include two parking spaces ' (garages) which would meet County parking requirements. Parking for the golf course, swim and tennis club, park ' and commercial. areas has not been defined. Therefore, the parking requirements for these facilities needs to be evaluated.. The proposed project may include off-site improvements to ' the local circulation system. These improvements are not specifically defined at this time but may affect the . present pattern of circulation and will require further review. Because of the project' s close proximity to the Delta waterways, it is expected t .at a portion of the residents of the project would own boats for use on the Delta. Therefore, the project may increase the existing waterborne traffic in Delta waters . The project' s impact. -on boat traffic on the Delta needs to be evaluated. 14. Public Services. The following issues address the ' provision of public services for the project which will require the reorganization of service bound- aries and/or amendments to the Sphere of Influence ' for a particular agency. Contra Costa County LAFCO is the Responsible agency with regard to the reorganizationof service boundaries and/or ' amendments to the Sphere of Influence. Question 14, Public Services, and Question 16, ' Utilities, summarize the issues most relevant for LAFCO considerations. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in ' a need for new or altered governmental services in any. of the following areas: a. Fire protection? S , b. Police protection? . S c. Schools? S ' * ?'_ease _e: '�' s:c^:`::_... s'on,"_can:; :s to:. _ns:gn.f-can: 22 *S *I 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? I Discussion The proposed project would add 1, 301 residential units to the East County area and would not adversely affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. No additional environmental review regarding this topic is required. Issues related to the potential affects of the project on the Jobs/Housing balance, ' densities and growth rates will be discussed under Population, item 11 . 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional ' vehicular movement? S b. "Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? S c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? S d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? S ' e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic.) S f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? S Discussion The existing circulation system in the project vicinity consists of rural roadways (Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road) and State Route 4 which is a two-lane State Highway approximately 1 . 6 miles west of the project site. ' The project would not alter the location of these local circulation routes. The proposed project would result in approximately 13, 500 new vehicle trips per day. This increase would result in a significant increase in automobile traffic on local roadways and State Route 4 . Therefore, additional review * ?_ease \2_e: S' -. �: s ..._ _ns_.;r---can- 21 1 �. I - , I *S *I ' Discussion IThe Cypress Lakes and Country Club project will consist , of single-family residences, commercial and recreational uses. Under the requirements of RD 799 the project would ; be required to submit a revised emergency response plan to address the increased population of the project site. Approval of this plan by the Reclamation District would 1 I be required before any homes could be built on the site. Therefore no significant impact on emergency response pians would occur. In addition, the proposed land uses would not result in the storage of significant amounts of hazardous substances. Therefore, no further environmental review ' of this topic is necessary. Additional discussion regarding the potential for hazardous materials on the project site is contained under item 17 a & b. The project area is located in an area which contains peat soils . Peat soils present an: unusual safety hazard because they are somewhat combustible. The potential ' risks assoa.iated with development on, or near, peat soils will be evaluated under potential impacts to fire protection services. 11. Population. Will tLe proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or- growth rate of the human population of an. area? S ' Discussion The. proposed project site is located in rural eastern Contra Costa County which includes one city (Brentwood - 6, 800 persons) and several unincorporated communities including Oakley (13, 400) and Discovery Bay (4, 800) . The proposed project would result in. the development of 1, 301 single-family residential units on the predominately vacant project site. This would constitute a significant ' increase in population in rural east Contra Costa County. Therefore, additional environmental review regarding the impacts of the project ' on population distribution ' (jobs/housing balance) , density and growth rates is necessary. * ::ease Note: . ._. S_-: y. y,.S: ' ea-:: :' .s `c: _^s`_gni:?car._ ' . 20 *S =I Additional review of the proposed projects conformance with the "Off-island Bonus Area" policy is necessary and how it is consistent with the overall Density Cap of not more than 2,909 dwelling units in conjunction with other pending proposals and potential "Bonus" development in the area. Reviev+ of the project density as it relates to an allocation of dwelling units th;itmay tie necessary and can be applied to maintain the overall Density --ap tor development of the "Off-Island Bonus Area". ' The project would require a rezoning from the existing A- 2 (agricultural use) to P-1 (Planned Unit District) . This rezoning would be consistent under the "Off-Island ' Bonus Area" program. In addition, - the project' s conformance with the various ' goals, policies and development guidelines of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan -and the Contra Costa County General Plan (January 1991) , including the requirements of . the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan; the Growth ' Management -Ordinance; the Safety Element; the Public Services/Facilities Element; park land dedication requirements; planned trails; and other pertinent policies will be reviewed. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? r Discussion ' Construction of the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project will require the use of certain natural resources 1 (i.e lumber and other building materials) . in addition, the operation of construction equipment will require the use of fossil fuels. However, the use of these-natural resources would not be considered inefficient or wasteful and would be similar to other residential construction projects in Contra Costa County. For these reasons, this impact is not considered significant. ' 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of ' hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or ' upset conditions? I b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? i ' * Please Note: 's' is for significant or Potentially significant: 'I' is for Insignificant 19 1S *T i residential uses are "acceptable" within a LDN of 60dB ' and "conditionally acceptable" within a LDN of 65dB. The proposed project would result in additional traffic on both Cypress and Bethel Island Roads. This traffic, along with other projected traffic, would increase noise levels along these roadways exposing project residents, existing residents along Cypress and Bethel Island roads, ' and other noise-sensitive receptors in the area to potentially significant noise levels. For these reasons, additional environmental review regarding the project' s ' impacts. on off-site noise levels and noise-sensitive receptors, as well as noise exposure on-site, is required. , 7.. • Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? g Discussion , Existing- sources of light and glare .in the project area , include headlights from automobiles traveling on Cypress and Bethel Island Roads and lighting associated with residences on and near the project site. The proposed project will result in additional lighting associated with the residential, commercial and _ recreational uses being proposed. These new sources of light may result in adverse glare on project residents as well as adjacent residences. Therefore, additional ' environmental review regarding the project' s impact on ' light and glare is necessary (this potential impact will also be discussed under Item 18 . Aesthetics) . S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- ' stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? g Discussion The proposed project site is designated by the ' Contra ' Costa County General Plan Land Use Mapas Agricultural Land which limits residential development .to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. However, the project area is also within the "Off-Island Bonus Area" which would allow ' increased residential density (1.0-2. 9 units per net acre) for projects which either contain a recreational character (i:e. marina, lake community, equestrian ' facilities, tennis club, golf course) , or purchase development rights of agricultural land and dedicate the land to the County. ' * Please Note: 'S' is for Significant or Potentially Significant; '1' `.s for Insignificant 18 - - *S *I As discussed previously under item 4, the project area also contains wetland areas. wetland areas can provide valuable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species depending on the size and quality of the wetland. The ' project applicant has prepared a wetland Delineation Re ort (see Section 3) , which identifies 9. 18 acres of seasonal wetland and drainage channels on the project ' site. The amount of wetland area on the project site has been confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a letter dated September 27, 1991. ' The project will result in the conversion of approximately 683 acres of agricultural land to urban uses (residential, commercial, recreational and open space) . This may result in significant adverse impacts on 'special-status. animals and wetland areas as well as the introduction of new animal species into the area (i.e. dogs, cats and other domestic animals) . In a broader context, the project site is located near the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta which contains significant fish and wildlife resources . The project may result inr- secondary impacts on fish and wildlife resources as a result of increased urban pollutants in storm water runoff and increased human use of Delta lands and waterways. ' For the reasons discussed above, the project' s impacts on wetlands, special status animal species and fish and wildlife resources requires additional review and agency consultation . 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: _ a. Increases in existing noise levels? S b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? S ' Discussion The major noise source in the project vicinity is traffic - on Bethel Island Road and Cypress Road. Noise levels calculated in 1985 along Bethel Island Road between Cypress Road and Gateway were 63 Decibel (dB) at 100 ' feet . Along Cypress Road noise levels were calculated to be 65dB at 100 feet (Contra Costa County General Plan, Draft EIR, page VII-89) . Under the noise and land use compatibility standards of Contra Costa County, ` .-case N :e: :_..C..__,...y 5_,;n:_._ca _.._ _ns:gn_`_can: ' 17 1 1 1 *S *I plant species, special status plants and the adequacy of Iproposed wetland mitigation is necessary. , 5. Animal Life. . Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ' bers of any species of animals (birds, land j animals including reptiles, fish and shell- ' fish, benthic .organisms or insects) ? . S b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? S ' c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion igra tion or movement of animals? S d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife ' habitat? S Discussion Numerous reptile/amphibian, bird, mammal and insect e species thought to - be rare, endangered, threatened or declining ("Special-Status Species") are known to occur , in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region of Contra Costa County. . The EIR on the Contra Costa County General Plan, January, 1991 (see Section 3) , identifies 52 animals for which legal protection exists and which occur ' in the County. Many of these animals are known to occur, or have historically occurred, in the eastern portion of the County. The project applicant has prepared a ' Special-Status Species Survev (see Section 3) , for the project site. This study identifies 9 reptile/amphibian, 12 bird, 2 mammal, and 16 insect species of special ' concern as potentially occurring in the project area. According to the applicant' s report, one burrowing owl was sited roosting on the property during one field , visit. In addition, the drainage channels may provide habitat for western pond turtle and river otter. The agricultural lands and grasslands present on the project site may provide winter foraging habitat for short-eared owl, black-shouldered kite, northern harrier, golden eagle, and/or prairie falcon. Sand. dune areas may ' support California legless lizards and/or Coast horned lizard as well as several dune inhabiting insects of special concern. * _e.se .._.e: ';' 5::; .._ �-_ crc_:c :_..y 5-4,;n2___can:: _ .s :c: :ns:q^.:_"_can: 16 ' t *S *I d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S ' Discussion ' Several plants thought to be rare, threatened, endangered or declining ("Special-Status Species") are known to occur in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region of eastern Contra Costa County. The EIR on the Contra Costa County General Plan identifies 47 plants for which legal protection exists and which occur in the County. Many of these plants are known to occur, or have historically ' occurred, in the eastern portion of the County. In addition, the project applicant has prepared a SDecial— Status Species Survey (see Section 3) for the project site. This study identifies 19 special-status plant species which may occur in the project area. However, during field surveys conducted in May and September of ' 1991, no special-status plants were found on the project site. In addition, much of the project area consisted . of wetlands before the area was reclaimed through the construction of levees and drainage ditches. As a result, some areas exhibit wetland characteristics (i.e hydric soils, wetland plant species) . Wetlands are considered "Waters of the United States" and are protected under the provisions of Section 404 of the ' Clean Water Act. The project applicant has prepared a wetlands Delineation Report (see Section 3) which identifies approximately 9 . 18 acres of seasonal wetland and drainage channels on the project site. This ' calculation of wetland area on the site was confirmed by the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers in a letter dated September 27, 1991 . ' The proposed project will result in the conversion of approximately 683 acres - of agricultural land to ' residential, recreational and other urban uses disrupting the existing vegetation on the site and possibly introducing new plant species into the area (i.e. landscaping) . The project may result in a significant loss of agricultural land and may affect rare, threatened or endangered plant species as well as 0. 95 acres of wetland area. However, the proposed project would ' include a wetland mitigation area to replace wetland areas impacted by the project. Additional environmental review and agency consultation regarding the project' s impact on agricultural land, the introduction of new * Pease \c e: 5, _s S: . _..can. ?a e.n_;ai:y s., .s for --.s:; -can_ ' 15 . 1 1 I *S *I 1 supplies within the project area and vicinity are ' primarily provided by wells. The proposed project would be susceptible to major flooding if overtopping or rupture of the local levees ' occurs. To address potential flood hazards the project would include flood control measures (i .e: levees around much of the project site) . In addition, the project would cover over a significant amount of soils with urban uses. This may result in increased runoff and the potential degradation of runoff water quality. However, ' the proposed project would include. a drainage system to accommodate runoff from up to a 100 year storm event through a system of underground drainages and detention lakes. ' Excavation for the proposed lakes would intercept groundwater and . require dewatering of the lake sites to ' complete construction. In addition, groundwater would be the primary source for filling the proposed lakes . For these reasons, the project' s potential impact on groundwater will require additional environmental review. ' The proposed domestic water supply for the project is the Oakley Water District and the sewage collection system ' would be connected to the Contra Costa Sanitary District #15. Therefore these systems would not affect ground water supplies or ground water quality. ' For the reasons discussed above, additional review of the project' s proposed drainage and flooding mitigation measures, as well as its' potential impacts on the ' quality of surface water runoff, domestic water supplies (also •see item 16) , groundwater and Delta waterways is necessary. , 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in .the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of ..plants (including trees; shrubs, grass, .crops, � and aquatic plants) ? S b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? S c. Introduction of new species of plants into an ' area, or a barrier to- the normal replenish- ment of existing species? S , * "lease Note: 'S' i.s fcr Si=r.4__:ca-t a::y s?gn'_f:ca.^.c: '?' _s for. -nsignificant 14 ' *S *I 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine ' or fresh waters? I b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? S c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? S d. Change in the amount of surface water in ' any water body? I e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, , dissolved oxygen or turbidity? S ' f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of%.ground waters? S g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an ' aquifer by cuts or excavations? S h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public ' water supplies? S i. Exposure of people or property .to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? S Discussion ' The project site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area near Sandmound and Rock Sloughs. The area consists of reclaimed Delta lands which are at an elevation of -5 feet to -8 feet (below sea level) to +25 feet (above sea level) and protected from flooding by an 1 extensive levee system. The existing drainage facilities on the project site include open drainage channels which traverse the site conveying runoff to the Delta at Taylor and Sandmound sloughs. Presently, domestic water * ..ease N::-0: - - 13 l 1 *S *T ' c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, l either locally or regionally? T i Discussion ! The predominate land use in the project area and vicinity ' is agricultural. Agricultural uses tend to generate little air pollutants other than dust from soil tilling ' and other particulates from burning crop residues. Some objectionable odors may be created by livestock and composting activities associated with the type of agricultural uses on the project site, but these tend to be minor due to the lack of sensitive receptors (i.e. residences, schools, etc. ) in the area. The most ' significant source of air pollution in the project area and vicinity is automobile/truck traffic. The project would convert the existing agricultural land ' use to residential, recreational and commercial land uses . This change in land use would result in additional automobile traffic which may have a significant adverse ' impact on local and regional air quality. The primary air pollutants emitted by automobiles include carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NO,) . Elevated carbon monoxide levels primarily occur on a local level, while nitrogen oxides and reactive )rganic compounds' (ROG) react to form ozone, or photochemical smog, which is a .pollutant of regional concern. Traffic resulting from the proposed project ' would. increase carbon monoxide levels primarily at the project entrance (Cypress Road.at Bethel Island Road) . In addition, nitrogen oxide levels would also increase contributing .to- regional air quality problems . In addition, the proposed land use change may alter the local climate (e.g. slight changes in temperature and wind.patterns) , however these changes would be considered minimal and not significant due to the limited area ' within which these changes would take place and the abundance of open space/agricultural uses which border the project site and would regulate the overall climate , of the area. For the reasons discussed above, additional review of the project' s impact on local and regional air quality is ' necessary. ?.ease \oze: 's' :s s. .'_'ca:_ ._ oc•_e^:.:a::y s:c-:r,cap=. s <c: ^s:g^:'"ca - 12 ' *S *I ' water saturated muds, peat and loose sands. Muds and peat are unusual and subject to differential settlement under loads. Muds contain expansive clays, some sands may liquify under earthquake stress. " (Contra Costa County 1 General Plan, Draft EIR, Figure VII-7) . The project applicant has prepared a Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project site (see Section 3) . The purpose of this report was to evaluate the surface and sub-surface soils on the site and to provide general recommendations regarding the proposed project. ' The primary geotechnical concerns identified by this report include: potential liquefaction in near surface sand layers, subsidence and settlement of soils, and ' seepage under proposed levees. The project site is generally flat ranging in elevation ' from approximately -5 feet to -8 feet (below sea level) with scattered mounds reaching an elevation of +25 feet. Excavation for the proposed lakes, construction of the levees and other grading would significantly alter the ' existing topography of the project site. Excavation of the proposed lakes may affect subsurface geology and create unstable soil conditions. The lakes and related ' development would also cover a large portion of the project site' s soils. For these reasons, additional environmental review of the project' s impacts on topography, soil compaction, subsurface soils and potential geologic hazards is necessary. Because the project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat, the potential for wind or water -erosion is generally not considered significant. However, due to the significant amount of soil disruption which would occur with the project (grading and excavation for the proposed lakes) , additional review of potential wind and ' water erosion impacts is necessary . 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? S 1 b. The creation of objectionable odors? I ?_ease %, _e: S' :s s:^ =a:.c-: ._..y f4 Can--; :s :o: _'-s'_cna 11 ' 1 2. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ' Background 1 . Name of Proponent Chartered Land and Cattle Company 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 101 Yanacio valley ' Road, Suite 400, walnut Creek, CA 94596, (510) 947-1047 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4 . Name of Proposal, if applicable Cypress lakes and Country , Club, File # 2918-RZ, D.P. 3032-90, Vesting Tentative Map #7562 Environmental Impacts by Topic ' *S *I 1. Earth: will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes ' .in geologic substructures? S b. Change in topography or ground surface ' relief features? S c. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? S ' d. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as-earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? S e. Disruptions, displacements, compaction ' or overcovering of the soil? S f. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? S g. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or ' erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? I Discussion The project site is located in a geologic area generally ' characterized as modern sediments of the Delta lowlands. These areas have the following characteristics: "soft, * _ _ --ease No:e: 'S' _a ._. .i:^ ....__- .._ -„:�-::.a::� :i::,::::_.a_:: :s `o _'sign:=_cap_ 10 1 to 1/2 dwelling unit per net acre. Acquiring development rights in one acre increments of land in 1 the County with an Agricultural Core designation will increase the base density up to a maximum of 3 dwelling units per net acre. A program for acquisition of development rights shall be implemented by the 1 Community Development Department. The proposed project includes an 18-hole golf course, lakes and a ' swim and tennis club designed to meet the recreational character requirements of both the Contra Costa County General Plan and the Bethel Island Specific Plan for increased residential density 1 within the "Off-Island Bonus Area. " In addition, the project applicant has indicated an overall residential density of 1 . 9 units per acre which falls within the 1 .0 to 2. 9 units per acre. ' Bethel Island Area Snecific Plan, Anril, 1991 The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan provides policies and ' guidelines for development in the project area and vicinity. The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan also designates the land use of the project site as Agricultural Lands and includes the Off- island Bonus Area designation. The Off-Island Bonus Area would allow increased residential density of 1 . 0 to 2 . 9 units per net acre for pfojects which demonstrate a recreational character and/or purchase development rights from Agriculture/Agricultural 1 Core lands in the County. The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the overall planning goals and objectives of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan including: community design in conformance with the designs set forth in the Specific Plan; inclusion of a recreation 1 character (golf course, lakes) ; on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements; clustered development within the allowed density per net acre; internal levee system for flood protection; and provision of limited commercial development area. 1 Discretionary Approvals Required 1 The project applicant has applied for the following discretionary approvals by Contra Costa County: compliance with CEQA; rezoning from A-2 to P-1; Preliminary Commercial and Final Residential ' Development Plan approval; Design Review; and Vesting Tentative map approval. The project may also require LAFCO approval or reorganization and annexation. LAFCO approval may be needed for the reorganization of the Sphere of Influence and annexation of 1 the project site into the Oakley Water District for provision of water; and consolidation of the Oakley and Bethel Island Fire Districts in the Bethel Island Planning Area. Other annexation 1 and/or consolidation may be necessary for other services . The establishment of a park maintenance district may also be necessary. Approvals and/or permits may also be necessary from state and federal agencies (e.g. Department of Fish and Game, 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, etc. ) . 1 9 Proposed Mitigation 1 The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts . ' The primary mitigation measures incorporated into the project' s design include: a levee system around the project to provide protection from flood hazards (FEMA approval necessary) ; storm drainage improvements including a system of underground storm drains and detention lakes to accommodate runoff from up to a 100 year storm event; avoidance of 8 .23 acres of wetlands and creation of a wetland mitigation area to replace 0 . 95 acres of ' impacted wetlands; dedication of land for a day care center and optional school site; off-site circulation improvements; payment of in-lieu fees equal to $3, 333 per unit for affordable housing; payment of in-lieu fees for County homeless fund; provide funding , for a levee encroachment program; and, requirements that project homes exceed energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 100 . Project Relationship to Relevant Plans ' Contra Costa County General Plan, As Amended January, 1991 ' The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project is located in an area designated on *the Contra Costa County General Plan -Land Use Map as Agricultural Land (AL) ; however, the project site is within the County �Urban Limit Line. The project site is located in an area designated as an "Off-Island Bonus Area" which allows increased residential densities under certain circumstances. The Contra Costa County General Plan states the following with regard to residential development on Agricultural Land within. the Off- Island Bonus Area (page 3-29) : A bonus density is identified in the "Off-Island" area of the Bethel Island Planning Area east of Jersey Island Road. The base density of this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 ' acres. This density shall be increased through the bonus program if the applicant participates in one of the . following programs: ' Recreational Projects . Residential projects which include a distinct, identifiable recreational character ' by including substantial recreational facilities shall be allowed a density of 1 . 0 to 2. 9 units per net acre. Recreational amenities may include marinas or launching. areas off the project site on Sandmound or Rock ' Sloughs, a lake- comm"unity, a sailing/boating club on a• project lake, an eqestrian facility, a tennis club or golf course. Purchase of Development Rights. The development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Land designation may be purchased and dedicated to the County to increase the base density up 8 J rSUMMARY OF PROPOSED HND USES Land Use Acres Single-family Residential (1, 301 units) 254 .5 School Site (optional) 7 . 4 Day Care 0.5 ' Commercial 16.0 Boaters Club 3. 0 Swim and Tennis Club 5.3 ' 18-hole Golf Course 178 .2 Park 21. 0 Lakes 63 .0 Open Space 11 . 4 ' Levees 60 .4 Drill Sites (natural gas drilling easements) 10 . 3 Wetlands 9.2 Wetlands Buffers & Mitigation 12. 1 Major Streets 30. 0 TOTAL 662.3 ' The primary entrance to the site would be via Cypress Road at the corner of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. A secondary access would be provided via Sandmound Boulevard. Cypress Road 1 would be extended into the project site as the primary collector roadway. Residential neighborhoods would be accessed via an internal road system consisting of primary roads, secondary loops 1 and cul-de-sacs to provide access to the individual neighborhoods. In addition to the above mentioned facilities, -the proposed project would also include various on-site and off-site storm . drainage, sewage disposal and public utility improvements. On- site storm drainage improvements would include curbs, gutters and drain inlets to an underground conduit system which would -be designed in accordance with Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) standards: The proposed system would pump ' runoff into the existing Reclamation District (RD) 799 ditch system. The project would include off-site improvements to the ditches as well as on-site retention of storm water in the proposed lakes and detention facilities. On-site sewage ' facilities would include a gravity sewer system, lift stations and pumps. Sewage from the site would enter the existing force main in Bethel Island Road. Off-site expansion of the existing' ' wastewater system' s land disposal area would be needed. To provide water to the site, off-site improvements including a pump . station and transmission line from Highway 4 . at Cypress Road would be provided. On-site water facilities would include 6", 8" and 10" underground distribution pipelines. Other utilities, . such as electricity and solid waste disposal would be provided by existing facilities or service providers . The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from approximately 3, 600 square feet to 8, 000 square feet. Residential lot densities would range from a low of 3 . 7 units per- acre to a high of 8 . 0 units per acre. The overall density of the project is 1 . 9 units per acre. The proposed project also includes a commercial development area (approximately 16 acres) located near the project entry at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. The commercial area would be developed in two phases with the first phase being developed ' between phases one and two of the residential development. The remaining commercial development would occur upon completion of the residential development phases . Anticipated commercial uses , could include: grocery store, cleaners, video store, restaurant, professional offices (real estate, insurance, medical etc. ) and a bank. Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) would include two man-made lakes surrounding the neighborhoods to provide a lake-front living environment. One lake is proposed to be approximately 17 acres while the other would cover approximately 96 acres of the site. A swim and tennis club would also be developed in this area to provide reTreational opportunities for project and area residents. In addition, a day care center and public park would be located in this portion of the project site. , The residential development north of Cypress Road would include a 18-hole golf course interwoven among the various neighborhoods. A clubhouse facility would also be located in this area as well as a Boaters Club (RV/Boat storage area) . The project applicant also proposes a wetland mitigation area in this portion of the site to mitigate the project' s impacts on wetland areas . (note: The project site contains approximately 9. 18 acres of wetlands. The project would avoid 8 .23 acres and would mitigate 0 . 95 acres through the creation of replacement wetlands) The major land uses proposed by the project, including approximate acres of coverage, are summarized as follows: - r 6 r HUFF AN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Wetlands Regulntory Consultants f4laln Office Sacramento Office 700 Larkspur Lwrdin9 Circle 4204 Douar Inn Road tulto 100 Sccraaento, [A 9:a26 Lorkspur, CA 94939 (916) 732-2050 (415) 925-20W C916) 732-2051 Fax (415) 925.2CC6 Fax (916) 732-2055 AilgmSt 28, 1.991 r �r Ms. Xaren Shaffer Regulatory Section U.S. army Corps of Engineers 1325 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 ' Bubject: Wetland Boundaries Utilizing the 1987 Delineation Manual - Chartered Land and Cattle Company Property, Contra C*otm County, California r - Dear Ms. Shaffer: ' This is in response to our conversation on August 26, 1991 concerniny recent directives. from Washington requiring that, as of August 17 , 1991, wetland delineations should be conducted and evaluated utilizing the 1987 Waterways- Experiment station Wetland Delineation Manual. he have reviewed our Wetland delineation of the Chartered Land and Cattle Company, which utilized the 1969 Unified Federal Methodology. We-have also reviewed the 1987 manual and determined that the delinuation or wetlands on the property is substantially the same by applying the 1987 manual criteria. Therefore, please ' consider our wetland delineation consistent with the 1987 manual. our client had agreed to this finding. r r 1 Chartorl.ltr _ _ As. Karen Shaffe^ August 28, 1941. Papa 2 WC look forward to conducting our Cleld verification with you on September 4, 1991. If you have any questions, please call me at (915) 732-2054. Sincerely, James C. Gibson Senior Vice President Hurfna.n & Associates, Inc. JCG:b'f cc: V1-is. Lynn Jochin Chartered Land & Cattle Co. 141 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite 400 Walnut Creak, California 94596 Cnarteri.ltr , I' DRAFT HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN FOR THE _ CYPRESS LAKES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECTS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (AUGUST 1992) 1 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to set forth a conceptual plan to com ensate for project-induced P rP P P P wetland impacts associated with the Cypress Lakes Golf and Country Club located in Contra Costa County, approximately 2.7 miles east of the community of Oakley, California. 2.0 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This plan has been designed to conform with Federal and State policies pertaining to compensatory mitigation. It has been designed so that compensatory mitigation would occur on- site and the type of wetlands to be created would be of the same type and value as those which would be impacted (in-kind mitigation). The ratio of wetlands to be created for each acre ' impacted was designed to be sufficiently high to assure that there would be not net loss of functional wetland value. 3.0 WETLA\rD IMPACTS 3.1 Existing Wetlands A wetland delineation of the project area was completed by Huffman and Associates, Inc, on July 17, 1991. Their findings are set forth in "Delineation Report, Chartered Land and Cattle Company Property, Contra Costa County, California, " July 1991. This report concludes that there is a composite total of 9.18 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands, existing on the property. Of this total, approximately 6.52 acres are wetlands while the remaining 2.66 acres is a channel. The Corps of Engineers field verified the wetland delineation as indicated by their letter dated September 27, 1991. The 6.52 acres of wetland is comprised of several different community types. One type is ' dominated by glasswort (Salicornia virginica) and whitetop pepper grass (Lel2idium ffolium) with Russian thistle Salsola kali) and halberd-leaf salt bush (Atriplex patila spp. hastata) becoming dominate near the transition from wetland to upland. Another type is dominated by brassbuttons Cotula coronopifolia), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum hystrix) and purple sand spurry (Spergularia rubra) with bird's foot trefoil Lotus corniculattis) and foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) becoming dominant near the transition from wetland to upland. A willow scrub riparian wetland is located in the southeastern corner of the project area. The vegetation in this wetland is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and yellow willow (Salix lasiandra). Cyprcns.rpL , Co 'd 09699CL916 'ON Rd ippiols � uosq!o eZ:Ci 0?� 1 nit types c ow The first two wetland community ,p an be characterized as alkali mead s dominated with alkalia-tolerant (or halophytic) species. The hydrology which supports these wetlands is predominantly ground water augmented by localized surface water. The willow dominated Nvetland is sustained by seepage of irrigation tail waters from adjacent ditches. 3.2 Wetland lnipacts As proposed, the project would eliminate an estimated 0.75 acre of the 6.52 acres of wetlands currently existing within the project area. The wetlands which would be impacted are alkali tmeadows. The largest of those alkali meadows would be preserved while the smaller alkali meadows would be impacted. A .relatively small area of the willow scrub wetland would be impacted by flood control levee construction. 4.0 PLANT SPECIrICS As stated previously, this mitigation plan provides for on-site, in-kind mitigation of wetland impacts at a ratio of wetland created per acre impacted sufficient to assure that there would be no net loss in wetland functional value. This mitigation plan provides for the creation of 2.28 acres of alkali meadow wetland to compensate for the 0.75 acres of alkali meadow which would be eliminated. These wetlands would be created adjacent to, and in expansion of, the existing alkali meadow wetlands which would be preserved. These wetlands would be created by excavating adjacent uplands to a depth four to six inches lower than the existing wetlands. The top eight inches of soil in wetlands to be impacted will be salvaged and then placed in the created wetlands to serve as inoculant The wetlands to be preserved, as well as those to be created, have been designed with a natural �. buffer to minimize perturbation from surrounding development. These buffers will, as a minimum, be at least 50 feet in width, however, it will range up to approximately 200 feet in width. These buffers will be maintained in as natural as state as possible. Mowing, watering, ' planting of exotic vegetative species, etc. will not be allowed. Figure _ is a plan of the project showing the location of wetlands to be preserved and created along with their buffers. As can be seen in Figure the reserved and created wetlands will be surrounded b golf ____, P Y course. In order to minimize potential impacts which could result from runoff from the golf course it will be designed so that the runoff from greens, tees, and fairways is directed away from the preserved and created wetlands and their buffers. Cypress.rpt t0 'd 0969991916 'ON XdJ JPPJOJS $ u0s9!0 6Z:9! (t?`! 76-91-AON The preserved and created wetlands as well as their buffers will be fenced daring construction activities in order to avoid the possibility of inadvertent impacts from construction in adjacent areas. In addition, a construction-phase sediment control plan will be developed to minimize sediment transport from disturbed surfaces. 5.0 SCIIEDL'LE FOR LIIPLEMENTATION l A detailed mitigation plan which includes construction specifications incorporating the criteria contained in this conceptual plan will be submitted to, and approved by, Contra Costa County prior to beginning any construction activities. The created wetlands will be constructed prior to initiating construction of the developed portion of the project, 6.0 )\10�`\ ITORT;\G All created wetlands will be monitored for a period of five years or until the success criteria have been met, whichever is later. Quantitative vegetation data, as well as hydrology data will be collected and recorded on standardized data sheets. Aerial photography will be obtained for assessing areal extent of created wetlands, In addition, permanent photo points will be established to monitor vegetation trends qualitatively. The preserved wetlands will also be monitored. Monitoring of the preserved wetlands as controls will provide a means of assessing variations resulting from abnormally wet or dry years, should they occur during the monitoring period. Monitoring efforts will serve to: a. determine annually the need for supplemental seeding. If percent cover criteria I are not being achieved, additional seeding may be necessary; b. determine the necessity of weed control. If weedy species are interfering with the establishment of desired species, control measures may be necessary; and C. determine whether there is a need to physically modify the created wetlands or construct additional wetlands. A monitoring report will be submitted to Contra Costa County annually following each growing season. The monitoring report will present the results of the field monitoring, assess the relative cypress.rpt SO 'd 09699CL916 'OH Nd� IEpjolS � uosq,0 0£;c1 01y success of the mitigation to date, and identify any corrective measures necessary to achieve success. Results of tile five-year monitoring program will be evaluated to determined the success of the wetland mitigation effort. If results indicate that the success criteria have been met or exceeded, no further monitoring will be required. In the event.that the success criteria are not bein" achieved and minor modifications can be made to correct the deficiencies, the modifications will 1 be made and monitored for an additional two growing seasons. If the monitoring results indicate that the specification criteria have been met, no further monitoring will be required. 7.0 SUCCESS CRITERLA The following criteria must be equalled or exceeded in order for the mitigation to be deemed successful. 1. At Ieast 2.28 acres of wetlands must be constructed in accordance -with the •� procedures outlined earlier in this plan. 2. At least 2.28 acres will be dominated by vegetative species occurring in the preserved wetlands. 3. The vegetative cover within the 2.28 acres of created wetlands will be at least 805% of that of the preserved wetlands. 8.0 LONG-TEMNIItiIAL\TENANCE This mitigation plan has been designed so that the preserved and created wetlands will be self- sustaining and will not require maintenance to assure their continued viability.. None-the-less, . some sort of maintenance may be required to respond to perturbation by man. For example, if unauthorized dumping were to occur within preserved or created wetlands or their buffers, maintenance would be required in order to clean up the dumping and properly dispose of the material. Following successful establishment. of the created wetlands, a homeowners district or similar mechanism will be established and funded to carry out any maintenance needs that may arise. cypress.rpt 90 'd 09699£!916 'Old XVj [eP1O)S ' uosatL) 1 � II►��I�►� Ill 11/y •� O 1111 • �111► '������♦���� �tt11111111/I��� WEREj��� I �i�i ♦���►� �� �I/1/����� �� .� 111111► �r �� IINIll�1�� ����p���� �� �� 'moi����1111�1 I��rr►r��������•���I/ m am♦ �i�. I��Illlsull uuu�t�/��;I� ��� LANDSCAPE CRITERIA �I Overall Concept The overall landscape scheme shall be in keeping with the existing character of the area. Vegetation shall be kept low and consist predominantly of grass and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. Tree massing will occur where screening is necessary for noise and visual buffer zones (i.e. , around outside of .project levee) . Irrigation shall be kept to a minimum and used only in special areas where increased water is necessary to achieve desired planting effects. Plant Materials The soils in the project area consist mainly of sand and clay. The ifollowing plant materials and tree species can thrive under the existing soil conditions and are recommended: Low Growing Grasses as Legumes Latin Name Common Name Comments Briza maxima Quaking Grass (A) White flower Bromus mollis Blando Brame (A) Good erosion control 1 Lotus corniculatus Bird's-Foot Trefoil (P) Deep rooted Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass (P) Clumping grass Trifolium tragiferum O'Connors straw- (P) Good erosion control berry clover Low Growing Wildflowers Achilles millefolium White Yarrow (P) Fast cover Centaurea cyanus Bachelor Button (A) Tolerates drought Chrysanthemum Ox Eye Daisy (P) Full sun/part shade leucanthemum Eschscholzia California Poppy (A,P) Easily established californica Lasthenia chrysostoma Dwarf Goldfields (A) Fast cover Lupinus bicolor Pigmy-leaved lupine (A) Attractive blue flwrs Nemophila menziesii Baby Blue Eyes (A) Fast cover Oenothera hookeri California Evening (P) Sherry Red flowers Primrose Phacelia tanacetifolia Lacy Teavea Phacelia(A) Hardy, reseeds well (A) = Annual (P) = Perennial i:\vol2\client\19018\dcir\landscap.doc 1 Shrubs and Trees Latin Name Common Name Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Populus nigra "Italica" Lombardy Poplar Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Salix babylonica Weeping Willow Umbellularia Californica California Bay Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon-Scented Bum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red Gum Malus cvs. Flowering Crabapple Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Populus nigra "Italica" Lombardy Poplar Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear Pyrus communis cvs. Common Pear Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Tree Species Trees shall be limited to special areas such as recreational areas, at the project entrance, along the neighborhood park, around the outside of the project levee and as buffers or screens where needed. Tree species shall i not be randomly mixed but reflect an organized, identifiable pattern. ■ Spacing intervals should be no greater than 35 to 40 feet on center. Sight lines at the project intersections shall be kept clear of plant materials that could obstruct vision. Irrigation All landscape areas shall have an irrigation system capable of sustaining good plant growth. The system shall be designed in .order to ensure efficient water management and control. Automatic water conservative system should be considered. Temporary systems may be utilized in public areas to help establish plants. 1 As a mitigation measure state that final landscape guidelines will be prepared consistent with these criteria prior to final map approval. is\yol2\client\19018\dcir\landscap.doc —2— ORDINANCE NO. 90- 59 (Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments) The Conva Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): yFrri(7N I. SUR41.4ARY. This ordinance provides for water conservation landscape requirements in new developments. SE m . Chapter 82-26 is added to the County Ordinance Code to read: CHAPTER 82-26 WATER CONSERVATION LANDSCAPING IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARTICLE 82-26.2 GENERAL 82-26.2Q2 Water Conservation Landscaping. All land within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County shall be subject to the provisions in this chapter. (Ord. 90-59). . 82-26.204 Intent and Findings. (1) Landscaping irrigation accounts for approximately fifty percent of all water used in urban areas. Water conserving landscapes use only about one-third of the water of a traditional non-water conserving landscape. (2) Water in the County is of limited supply. The County is growing in population. In order to meet the growing demand for water supply, water conservation measures need to be implemented. (3) Water, as a valuable and limited resource, should not be wasted. The County has played a lead role in protecting Bay and Delta water quality, and in advocating water conservation before considering new water supply projects. (4) Water conservation measures will save money and can be accomplished without degradation of aesthetic values of developments. (5) For all of these reasons, it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the County to require water conservation methods for landscaping of new developments by regulating turf areas, planting materials, and irrigation practices. (Ord.90-5 9). 82-26.206 Regulations. The Board of Supervisors may issue regulations for the administration of this chapter, including procedures and policies. (Ord. 90-59)• 1 ARTICLE 82-26.4 APPLTCATION AND REOUIREMENTS 2-2 -4 2 Application to New Developments. (1) Water conservation landscape requirements shall apply to all new single family residential developments having common areas, including landscaped front yards, or model homes, and to all other new developments. (2) If a single family residential development has common areas, the water conservation landscape regulations shall apply to all common areas. The landscaping of front yards as part �• of new development will be considered as common area,and will be subject to the requirements outlined in this chapter. (3) If a single family residential development has one or more model homes, at least one model home in the development must be planted in accordance with water conservation requirements. ORD. NO. 90-S� (4) Conditions of approval for new development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall require landscape plans to be submitted to the Community Development Department for final review.and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 90-sq). 226,404RN irements. (1)Turf Maximums. Turf areas shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of planted area in all developments subject to this chapter. Where turf is an essential part of the development,as in school playing fields or in public parks,a higher percentage may be allowed. No turf shall be allowed in median strips or in areas less than eight (8) feet wide. (2) Drouaht-Tolerant Plants. At least ninety (90) percent of the plants in uun—:+rf area shall be low-water-requiring, drought-tolerant plants approved by the Community Development Department. A low-water-using,drought-toleran:plant includes species suited to ,. local climate and requires little or no irrigation in order to thrive. The remaining planted area (up to ten (10) percent) can be used for non-drought-tolerant varieties if they are grouped together and can be irrigated separately. (3) Mulch. A minimum of two inches of mulch shall.be added to the soil surface after planting. Non-porous material shall not be placed under the mulch. (4) Irrigation. (a) Sprinklers and sprays shall not be used in areas less than eight (8) feet wide. Drip and bubbler systems shall not exceed one and one-half(1.5)gallons per minute per device. : (b) Sprinkler heads with a precipitation rate of.85" per hour or less shall be used in slopes exceeding fifteen percent or slopes exceeding ten percent within ten feet of hardscape to minimize runoff. (c) Valves and circuits shall be separated based on amounts of water required . for each area. (d) Drip or bubbler irrigation systems shall be required for trees that cannot be sustained by ground or rain water. (e) Sprinkler heads shall have matched precipitation rates within each control valve circuit. (f) Serviceable check valves shall be required where elevation differentia]may cause low head drainage. (g) Sprinkler head spacing shall be designed for head-co-head coverage. The system shall be designed to provide minimum runoff and overspray onto non-irrigated areas. (h) All irrigation systems shall be equipped with a controller capable of due] or multiple programming. Controllers shall have multiple cycle start capacity and a flexible calendar program. (5) Ornamental Ponds. Fountains, ponds or other water bodies that are part of the landscaping for new developments are discouraged and shall be restricted as set forth in this sub- section. Unless the water body is an integral part of the operation of the new development, the surface area of the water body shall be counted as turf in calculating maximum allowable turf �- for the landscaped area. Where well water or untreated water is used and the water supply is recirculated, the Community Development Department may make allowances consistent with the other provisions of this chapter. 2 ORD. NO. 90-;9 (6) r a o ape Plans. Landscape plans shall indicate the total landscape area,the area and percentage of drought-tolerant planting and the area and percentage of ornamental non- drought-tolerant plantings. The plans shall be certified as being in compliance with this chapter by a licensed landscape contractor,architect or other landscape professional whose qualifications have been approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape plans shall include the following: (a) A water budget which includes estimated annual water use(in gallons)and the area (in square feet)to be irrigated; (b) Precipitation rates for each valve circuit; (c) A monthly irrigation schedule for the plant establishment period and the following year. (7) Additional Requirements in Residential Developments. (a) In residential developments with one or more model homes, at least one model home in the development must be planted with drought-tolerant plans with a maximum of twenty-five(25)percent turf and/or water area. (b) The-developers shall provide each buyer with sample landscape plans using drought-tolerant plants with a maximum of twenty-five (25)percent turf area. (c) Subject to Community Development Department approval, the developer shall distribute outdoor water conservation pamphlets to each buyer at the time property is sold. Such pamphlets may be obtained from local water districts, from the State Department of Water Resources, or from the Community Development Department. (Ord. 90-5�. SECTION M. Chapter 916-2 of the County Ordinance Code is amended by adding Section 916- 916-2.004. 16-916 2.004. water Conservation Landscaping. Landscaping of property subject to this title shall conform to the water conservation requirements of Chapter 82-26 of this Code. (Ord. 90-59) SECTION IV, EFFECI7VE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in the County. PASSED ON July 31, 1990 by the following vote: 1 AZ FS: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, 11cPeak, Torlakson and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT:N o n e ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 1 By Depu Boar Chair 3 — ORD. N0. 90- 59 c;2 hi,0„ CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY CLUB LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES FOR INTERNAL LEVEE These Guidelines shall be utilized in preparing the final landscaping plan for the internal levee proposed by the Cypress Lakes & Country Club project. These Guidelines were prepared consistent with the Interim Guide for Vegetation on Flood Control Levees Under Reclamation Board Authority (September 18, 1988) 1 prepared by the State Reclamation Board. This Interim Guide is still in effect. The Reclamation District-799 is responsible for maintaining the existing levees on Hotchkiss Tract. According to FEMA requirements, a governmental agency or entity must maintain the proposed internal levee around the Cypress Lakes project. RD-799 may agree to accept maintenance of the internal levee. If not, a governmental agency or entity will be formed or selected to maintain the levee. On levees under the authority of a reclamation board, all landscaping projects must have an approved board permit prior to the start of landscaping work. If RD-799 accepts maintenance responsibility for the levee, the final landscaping plan will be submitted as part of the permit application. If responsibility is accepted by another government agency or entity, a final landscaping plan will be prepared prior to the commencement. of landscaping work. A. Trees 1. Trees may be planted on unrevetted levee slopes, and on levee slopes above revetment. 2 . Trees shall be spaced to allow thorough visibility of the levee slope and toe from the crown roadway.. Spacing and number of trees will be considered as it relates to the ability to conduct routine maintenance and emergency flood fighting activities. 3. Factors such as the levee structure and the area of protection will be considered prior to issuing a permit for landscaping. 4. . The lower foliage of trees on the levee slopes shall be pruned and maintained to a minimum of 5 feet above ground level so as to provide visibility beneath the trees along the levee slope for maintenance purposes. j 5. Trees planted adjacent to the 10-foot maintenance zone i at the levee toe shall be pruned to a 12-foot vertical clearance and in such a manner as to allow for the unimpaired passage and operation of maintenance equipment. 6. Species of trees should be selected whose mature height does not exceed 50 feet. 7. No fruit or nut trees will be permitted on the levee slope or within 25 feet of either levee toe. B. Shrubs 1. Shrubs or any other form of woody or herbaceous vegeta- tion which grows in a solid, closedform and which does not lend itself to be pruned into a single trunk will not be permitted on levees. C. Ground Covers 1. Sod, grasses, and other nonwoody ground covers are encouraged on the slopes of all levees under Reclamation Board authority. The height of ground covers shall be low enough to allow for adequate levee inspection prior to flood season, based on local conditions. In most situations, ground cover should be limited to 12 inches or less in height. 2. Thick and/or woody ground covers which may obscure the view of leaks and boils (and make the construction of effective sack rings difficult) will not be permitted. 3. Ground covers or other types of vegetation on/over the levee crown which interfere with maintenance -and inspection activities will not be allowed. 4. Vegetation in areas required for maintenance (which are generally lands within 10 feet of a levee toe) are kept clear for maintenance activities such as mowing or burning, for inspection purposes, and for emergency flood fighting. Therefore, vegetation on these lands shall be limited to ground covers which are compatible with flood fight and maintenance programs. D. Home Gardens Home gardens are considered to be those which supply the needs of the associated residence. Home gardens are not permitted on the levee slopes, toe, crown, or within the flood control project right-of-way easement. i 2 - E. Irrigation 1. Vegetation retained or planted on the levee slopes under a permit may be watered by hand, temporary sprinkling systems, or permanently installed irrigation systems. 2. All permanently installed irrigation systems must have �. an approved permit prior to installation. 3. Any water applied to vegetation on the levee by any means shall be so controlled as to prevent erosion of the levee slopes. 4. No ditches shall be dug in the levee section for the purpose of flowing water or flood irrigating. 5. Excavation into the levee slopes for watering basins around trees will be limited to a maximum depth of 12 inches. 6. Permanently installed irrigation systems may be permitted on the levee slope. 7. Surface drip irrigation systems are considered nonpermanent and may be used on the levee slope. 8. Pipes supplying water to permanently installed sprinkler heads must be of an approved material, such as galvanized iron, plastic or copper. 9. Permanently installed irrigation pipes may be placed in trenches; however, the pipe shall be buried no deeper than 8 inches into the levee slope. 10. An accessible shutoff or control valve is required in the supply line of all permanently installed irrigation systems. The valve must be located a minimum of 10 feet landward of the levee toe and must be clearly marked with a stake, sign or other means to show its. location to levee maintenance personnel. F. Suitable Plant Species There are many species of plants which can grow in the Delta region and on the project site. A partial list of suitable and unsuitable plant species is attached. This list is intended to be used only as guidelines. Species should be selected which will not impair levee maintenance or flood fight operations. For example, plants armored with large thorns are not allowed. Tree species shall be selected which will not present a wind throw or uprooting hazard due to a typically unsuitable root system or which have a capability 3 of reaching great size and weight leading to unbalance. Because of the potential to attract burrowing rodents, species of trees, shrubs or ground covers which provide significant food for squirrels are not allowed. Maximum use of native species, instead of exotics, is encouraged. 1 1 4 TABLE 1 PARTIAL LIST OF PLANT SPECIES SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL LEVEES Trees Alder, white Alnus rhombifolia Box Elder Acer negundo California pepper tree (male tree) Schinus molle Carob tree (male tree) Ceratonia siliqua China-berry Melia azedarach Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis Coast beefwood Casuarina stricta Common catalpa Catalpa bignonioides Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica Dogwood, giant Cornus controversy Dogwood, Western Cornus nuttallii Fremont cottonwood (male tree) Po ulus fremontii Goldenrain tree . Koelreuteria paniculata Hackberry, Chinese Celtis sinenis Hackberry, common Celtis occidentalis Hackberry, European Celtis australis Maidenhair tree (male tree only) Gingko biloba Mayten tree Maytenus boaria 1' Montezuma cypress Taxodium mucrontum Oak Quercus spp.* Pagoda tree Sophora japonica Redbud, western Cercis occidentalis Redbud, eastern Cercis canadensis *spp. = species Suitable Trees (Continued) Sawleaf zelkova Zelkova serrata Silk, tree Albizia julibrissin Strawberry tree Arbutus unedo .or Arbutus "marina" Tallow tree Sapium sebiferum Tupelo Nyssa sylvatica Suitable Ground Covers , Aaron's Beard -'Hypericum' calycinum** Alyssum Alyssum spp.* Basket-of-gold Aurinia saxatile Bermuda Grass - cynodon 'dactylon "tifgreen" Cynodon dactylon "coastal" Cynodon dactylon "Tufcote" Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium bellum California Poppy Eschscholzia californica Cape weed Arctotheca calendula Creeping wild rye** Elymus triticoides English Ivy, miniature** Hedera helix, hahni Garden lippia _Phyla nodiflora. Lippia nodiflora Gazania, trailing** Gazania spp-* , Green carpet Herniaria 21a bra Ice Plant, Rosea Drosanthemum floribundum Ice Plant, trailing Lampranthus, spectabulis Lupine, dwarf Lupinus bicolor Mexican evening primrose** Oenothera berlandieri *spp• = species **These species have specific requirements for being cut back or otherwise maintained on a regular- basis depending-on the species. Suitable Ground Covers (Continued) Palestine orchardgrass Dactylis glomerotoa "Palestine" - _- Salt grass Distichlis spicata Spring Cinquefoil Potentilla tabernaemontanii Stonecrop Sedum spp.* Trailing African daisy _ Osteospermum fruticosum Verbena** Verbena peruviana Yellow-eyed grass Sisyrinchium californicum 'spp. = species _ "These species have specific requirements for being cut back or otherwise maintained on a regular basis depending on the species. i PARTIAL LIST OF PLANT SPECIES UNSUITABLE FOR LEVEES ---- ----------- - --- - -- Trees - .Acacia, .Bailey; _._-Acacia baileyana Acacia, kangaroo thorn Acacia armata Almond, edible Prunus dulcis Apple, crabapple, edible Malus spp.* Apricot, edible Prunus armeniaca Ash, Arizona Fraxinus velutina , Ash, flowering Fraxinus ornus Ash, 'Modesto Fraxinum velutina "Modesto" Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus Cedar*** Cedrus spp.* Cherry, edible Prunus avium Chinese jujube Zizyphus jujube Chinese wingnut Pterocarya stenoptera i Citrus, edible Citrus spp.* Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens Colorado spruce Picea .pungens Cypress*** Cupressus spp.* Date palm Phoenix spp.* Elm Ulmus spp.* Fan palm Washingtonia spp.* Fig, edible Ficus carica Fir*** Abies spp.* Giant sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum *spp. = species ***Conifers whose normal mature height is 50 feet or less may be considered desirable under maintenance conditions that (1) pro tect the tree from drought, and (2) will assure proper pruning of the lower .branches. Unsuitable Trees (Continued) Hawthorn Crataegus spp.* Incense cedar*** - Calobedriis dbcurrens Locust Robinia spp.* Loquat Eriobotrya spp.* Olive Olea europaea Osage orange Maclura pomifera Peach and nectarine Prunus perica Pecan Carya illinoinensis Persimmon Diospyros spp.* " Pine*** Pinus' spp.* "' • Plum and prune, edible Prunus domestica, salicina Pomegranate, edible Punica 'granatum Quince, edible Cydonia oblonga Russian olive Elaegnus -augustifolia Salt Cedar Tamarisk gallica Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima Walnut Juglans spp.* *spp. = species ***Conifers whose normal mature height is 50 feet or less may be considered desirable under maintenance conditions that ( 1) pro tect the tree from drought, and (2) will assure proper pruning of the lower branches. UNSUITABLE_ GROUND COVERS AND MISCELLANEOUS Bamboo _ _ ._. . __ _ Bambusaspp.* Blackberry/Raspberry Rubus spp.* Broom'. : : --Cytisus- spp.* - Cactus Cactaceae spp.* Century Plant Agave americana False Bamboo, Common Reed Phragmites communis 1 Freeway Iceplant Carpobrotus spp.* Honeysuckle Lonicera spp.* Horsetail Equisetum* hyemale Ivy, Algerian Hedera canariensis Ivy, Persian .Hedera colchica Ivy, English Hederal helix except miniature or dwarf varieties Pampas grass Cortaderia selloana Periwinkle Vinca spp.* Perla Grass Phalaris tuberosa var. hirtiglumis Rose Rosa spp.* i *spp. = Species — Appendix E Geotechnical/Hydrology Information Prepared for The Chartered Group, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PHASE I STUDY PROPOSED BETHEL ISLAND AREA PROJECT EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 iDecember 22, 1988 KLEINEELbEER -- - -- - December 22, 1988 i File:11-1956-01 Mrs. Lynn Salomon Jocliim The Chartered Group, Inc. 101 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite, 400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 SUBJECT: ase I Geotechnical Investigation Report Ph. g p Proposed Bethel Island Area Project East Contra Costa County, California Dear Mrs. Jochim: Kleinfelder, Inc. is pleased to submit our Phase I Geotechnical Investigation Report for the proposed Bethel Island Area Development. The enclosed report provides a description of the investigation performed and our findings and preliminary design recommendations as they relate to site planning and development. In summary, it is our opinion that the . site is suitable for the proposed development provided special provisions for ground modification, and levee design and construction are made. Additional information on our investigative methods, proposed ground modification methods and their relative costs and other geotechnical considerations are contained in the following report. Additional geotechnical investigation and studies will be ' required for final design of the project. Our specific ' recommendations for these additional studies is contained in this report. .We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project and trust this report meets your needs at this time. hLEINFELPEF 6860 hall Conte' SLI ilk' 200). Pleasanton. CA 94 5(>6 i-;11;- 4,'i-;-l-00 i i 1 If you have any questions concerning the information presented, please contact this office. sincerely, KLEINFELDER INC. �a� P. Lawrence P. Goldfarb, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer Edward E. Rinne, P.E. , G.E. Principal Terence K. Wang, P.E. , G.E. pZnS� In Office Manager6;-J;91 LPG/EER/TKW/j cyl2-10 sr cFO7E6Ktl\ ' Qrc 0 C AL1F�� KLEINFELDER (,880 troll Center Parkway, Suite _500. Pleasanton. CA 94566 (4151 -4844'00 BETHEL ISLAND AREA EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Transmittal letter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A. Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 B. Purpose and Scope of Services. . .2 C. Authorization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 II. GEOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 A. Regional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 B. Local. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 C. Faulting and Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1. Maximum Ground Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2. Recent Earthquakes and Observed Damage. . . .11 III. SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 A. Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 B. Field Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 1. Phase I Boring Investigation. . . 13 2. Phase I Cone Penetration Testing. . . . . . . . . .14 3. Phase I Piezometers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 C. Laboratory Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 D. Subsurface Soil Conditions. . .15 IV. PHASE I GEOTECHNICAL CONCERNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 A. Potential Liquefaction. . .18 1. Evaluation of Liquefaction (Blow Counts) .19 2. Evaluation of Liquefaction (CPT) . . . . . . . . .20 B. Proposed Levees andLakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .21 1. Lakes. . • . .22 2 . Levees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 _ 3. Borrow for Levees. . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . .23 C. Site Subsidence and Settlement. . .24 1. Subsidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 2. Settlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 D. Levee Underseepage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .26 i V. FEASIBILITY OF GEOTECHNICAL MITIGATION TECHNIQUES. .27 A. Reducing Liquefaction Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 1. Remove and Replace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 2. Construction Considerations for Remove and Replace Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 VI. ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 A. Additional Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 ' B. Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 References - i 1 i BETHEL ISLAND AREA EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS i TABLES Table No. 1 - Regional Faulting and Estimated Ground Shaking PLATES Plate 1 - vicinity Map Plate 2 - Boring Location Map Plate 3 - Geologic Map Plate 4 - Fault Map Plate 5 Liquefaction Potential Plate 6 - Liquefaction Acceleration Plate 7 - Cone Soil Behavior Chart Plate 8 - Delta Subsidence APPENDIX A Plate A-1 - Boring Log Legend Plate A-2 through Plate A-29 - Log of Borings B-1 through B-13 Plate A-30 through Plate A-33 - Log of Borings P-1 through P-4 Plate A-34 - Cross Section A-A, 2-D Profile West Side of Site Plate A-35 - Cross Section B-B, 2-D Profile East .Side of Site Plate A-36 - Cross Section C-C, 2-D profile Center of Site Plate A-37 - 2-D Composite Profile, All Borings APPENDIX B Plate- B-1 - Cone Classification Chart Plate B-2-through B-20 Cone Penetrometer Nos. '1 through 19 i\FEL_.. . APPENDIX C Plate C-1 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-1 @ 11.0 ft Plate C-2 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-1 @ 26.5 ft Plate C-3 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-2 @ 21.0 ft Plate C-4 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-3 @ 11.5 ft Plate C-5 - Grain size Distribution, Boring B-3 @ 31.5 ft Plate C-6 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-5 @ 33.5 ft Plate C-7 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-6 @ 7.5 ft Plate C-8 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-7 @ 11.5 ft Plate C-9 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-7 @ 16.0 ft , Plate C-10 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-8 @ 11.0 ft Plate C-11 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-9 @ 11.0 ft Plate C-12 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-10 @ 3.5 ft Plate C-13 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-10 @ 7.0 ft Plate C-14 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-12 @ 3.0 ft Plate C-15 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-12 @ 7.0 ft Plate C-16 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-12 @ 11.5 ft Plate C-17 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-13 @ 6.5 ft Plate C-18 - Grain Size Distribution, Boring B-13 @ 21.5 ft APPENDIX D METHODS OF MITIGATION OF POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOILS 1. Dynamic Deep Compaction 2. Vibrocompaction and Vibroreplacement 3. soil Mixing 4. Pile Foundations 5. Slurry Cutoff Wall-Permanent Dewatering i i i PHASE I GEOTECHNICAL _NV ESTIGATION REPORT BETHEL ISLAND AREA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION This report presents theresults of a Phase I geotechnical investigation for the proposed Bethel Island Area project in East Contra Costa County, California. A vicinity map showing the location of the site is presented on Plate 1. Our investigation has been coordinated with Mrs. Lynn Salomon Jochim of the Chartered Group, Inc. A. Prosect Description The proposed project consists of developing an area of approximately 681 acres in the Bethel Island Area of East Contra Costa County, California. The project will consist of constructing a ring levee surrounding a development that will be separated into six villages (A-F) . The development will have detached single-family homes, access drives, 23-acres of parkland, a 20-acre commercial and retail center, and an RV storage area. We understand the proposed levee will be approximately 10 to 18 ft in height, 25 to 30 ft wide at its crest, and consist of borrow materials excavated from several proposed lakes for the project. The proposed plans call for the levee alignment to form the perimeter of the six villages as shown on Plate 2. Several walkways and bridges are planned to span the lakes. An executive golf course is planned for the southeastern corner of the property. At this time, the golf course is planned to lie 1 outside the levee. Additional details of the planned deve'_opment , are not .known to us at this time. Purpose and scope of Services B. i T� P - The purpose of this phase I investigation was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface soils at the site and to provide general recommendations regarding the impact of the geotechnical conditions on the proposed development. Our scope of services for this Phase I study included recommendations and ' opinions concerning the following: o Liquefaction potential, r o Lake and levee construction, . . . o Subsidence and settlement and, o Levee underseepage. The scope of services as outlined in our Se tember 6 and P . P September 14, 1988 proposals, consisted of field explorations, laboratory testing, and preparation of this report. C. Authorization This investigation was authorized by our contracts dated September 9, and September 16, 1988, with The Chartered Group, Inc. , signed by Mrs. Lynn Salomon Jochim and Mr. A.J. Salomon, , respectively. II. GEOLOGY A. Regional The site is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, it a thick sequence of sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Jurasic r 2 r N sedi en.a=_' sequence rests On a basement hoer OI metamorphic and igneous rocks in the eastern half of the valley. Along the west margin of the Valley, where the very thick Mesozoic strata . are present, basement has not been observed either in outcrop or in well bores. Studies indicate that in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the sedimentary deposits are thought to be 5 to 6 miles thick (Repenning, 1960, Atwater, 1982) . Structurally, the Great Valley of California, is a large, elongated, northwest trending asymmetric trough. This trough has a long, stable eastern shelf, which is supported by the buried west-dipping Sierran slope, and it has a short western flank that is formed by the steep upturned edges of the basin sediments. The sediments that form the thick valley section were largely derived by erosion of land areas located to the east of the depositional trough. For the major portion of the Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments of the valley, the major sediment source seems most likely to have been the Batholiths of the Klamath Mountains and the Sierra Nevada (Bailey and others, 1964) . During Eocene time, the source rocks are thought to be the highlands on all sides of the basin. B. Local Locally, the site lies near the border of the Great Valley and Coast Range Geomorphic Provinces. The site rests upon deep sedimentary deposits of unknown thickness. Deposits of marine sediments exceed 13,000 feet in natural gas wells drilled in the nearby Dutch Slough Gas field. These deposits consist of iconsolidated, regularly bedded, faulted and folded- layers of sandstone, siltstone, shale mudstone, and conglomerate. The structural features in these rocks form traps where natural gas and oil now occur (Draft EIR, Bethel Island Specific Plan, 1988) . 3 e time the delta area is thought . to have , During Pleistocene undergone several depositional and erosional cycles that were brought about by changes in climate. Sea level changes and glaciation have provided deposition of peat and mud layers and erosion by running water and wind, respectively. . Alluvial deposits of silty clay that underlie the Hotchkiss Tract and . . Jersey Island at 50 to 90 ft below the present ground surface , were probably formed due to a sea level change during a lesser interglacial period about 38,000 to 46,000 years ago (Atwater, , 1982) . Carbon dating has been performed on a soil sample from the site. The location of the sample was approximately 2000 ft north and 600 ft east of the intersection of Bethel Island and ' Cypress Roads. The depth of the sample was 15 ft and its age was found to be 38,100 ± 950 years (Atwater, 1982) . , The site geology has been mapped by Nilsen (1975) and by Nilsen and Sims (1975) . The surficial geology has also- been mapped by Atwater (1982) (see Plate. 3) and consists primarily of eolian deposits of wind blown sand. These deposits are of the Upper ' Modesto Formation and form a large dune field fanning eastward and southeastward from Antioch. The age of the upper Modesto Dune Sands lies between 40,000 and 10,000 years. Locally, these dune sands overlie alluvium of Marsh Creek that in turn overlie San Joaquin River alluvium ranging in age from 38,000 to 46,000 _ years. ' The eclian sand is generally fine grained with intermittent silty sand layers. The sand exhibits a moderate amount of cementation in outcrops observed on the western and northeastern portion of the site. They are loose to medium dense in the .top 10 to 15 ft and generally dense below this depth. Marsh Creek alluvium deposits consisting of silty - clay and clayey silt were encountered in the southwestern and southcentral portions of the 4 site and Y;e-e enerally - o thick. Two sets of black and white, stereographic pair, aerial photographs were examined for this investigation. Those were AV-710-20-22, -23 and -24, dated March 22, 1966 and AV-1700-16-18 and -19 dated May 14, 1979. The photos were examined in an effort to identify the site geologic features pertinent to this study. Surface deposits of sand may be identified on these photos by their light tones. The photos suggest that the areas of overlying sand deposits (which probably surfaced due to the decomposition and deflation of peat, Atwater, 1982) are readily apparent in the photo pairs. The photos also indicate old man-made drainage features that have apparently been filled. One such feature can be -seen meandering eastward from the Dal Porto Property to near Sandmound Boulevard. C. Faulting and Seismicity The site and the entire San Francisco Bay Area is seismically dominated by the presence of the active San Andreas Fault system. In the theory of plate tectonics, the San Andreas Fault system is 1 the boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the southward moving North American Plate (east of the fault) . In the Bay Area, this movement .is distributed across a complex system of strike-slip, right-lateral parallel and subparallel faults which include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Concord and San Gregorio, among others. A map of the faults showing quaternary displacement is shown on Plate 4. 1 5 1 := =_cs lies in an area near Several faults that have a potential for generating major earthquaIzes that might affect the site are the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras Faults. These active faults lie approximately 52, 34 and 24 miles to the west, respectively. Other local . active faults that may have a potential for affecting the site include: ' 1) the Concord, located 16 miles to the west, 2) the Greenville, located 17 miles to the west and 3) the Antioch, located 8 miles , to the west. Historically the area has been subject to intense seismic activity. Several historic earthquakes have been associated with the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. Of . these, the . ' April 18, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, with an estimated Richter magnitude of 8.3, is the most famous. The San Andreas , Fault extends roughly northwestward from northern Mexico throughout California, where it can be traced for more than 590 miles from the head of the Gulf of Mexico to Point Arena. The San Andreas Fault has a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 8.5 (Wesson and others, 1975) . The Hayward Fault trace lies approximately 34 miles west of the site and extends northwestward from the cities of Warm Springs on the south to San Pablo on the north. There is abundant evidence , of tectonic slippage or a seismic creep, along the Hayward Fault, where movement. of 0.2 to 0.76 cm/year has been measured (Herd, 1978) . Based on the postulated maximum length of rupture, an upper bound magnitude- of 7.5 is generally used in seismic design for this fault. ` The northern portion of the Calaveras Fault lies approximately 24 miles to the west of the site where it trends subparallel to the San Andreas Fault. The Calaveras Fault is thought to be the cause of the July 2, 1861 earthquake which reportedly generated 6 % aln intensity si.aking In =+-e San Ramon Valley. _.. 1015 Si^j of activity along the Calaveras Fault are confirmed by the .Coyote Creek earthquake of August 6, 1979 and through conspicuous seismic creep, which ranges from 0.2 to 0.7 cm/year (Herd, 1978) along certain segments of the fault. The Concord Fault extends about 15 miles south of Suisan Bay. It ' is a predominantly right-lateral strike-slip fault which has a recent history of seismic activity, and has clearly offset ' Holocene land deposits (Oakeshott, 1980) . The Concord Fault expresses itself north of Suisan Bay as the Green Valley Fault, although the two faults may not be related. The Concord Fault is thought by several seismologists to have an upper bound magnitude of 6.25. In the vicinity of the site the active Antioch Fault has been described by Berke and Helley (1973) as displaying active creep within Antioch. A study prepared,.by the California Department of ' Water Resources (1978) , concluded that the Antioch Fault was a nearly vertical to steeply westward-dipping fault that possibly shows right-lateral strike-slip movement. Earth Science Associates (1982) concluded that the age of the last offset (on the Antioch Fault) must be Post-Pliocene and is most likely Holocene. Other investigators have also found evidence of Holocene movement on the Antioch Fault. Antioch t o s Historically, the Anti h Faul r an extension of the Antioch - Fault to the north was thought to have been a likely source for some small to moderate earthquakes that occurred in 1866 and for the Collinsville earthquake of May 19, 1889, which was apparently felt throughout most of Central California (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973) . An earthquake swarm which occurred southwest of Antioch was recorded in 1965, and appeared to be centered about 9 miles west of the site. The maximum credible earthquake for the 7 nt_och Fault is thought to be about 6. 6, =_c;n and others (1975) . The inferred trace of the Midland Fault is mapped as lying ' approximately 0.5 miles to the east of the site. The northern section of the Midland Fault was thought to be the source of the April 19 and April 21, 1892 Vacaville and Winters earthquakes which caused several stone and brick buildings to fall. The ' shock was apparently felt as far east as Reno, Nevada. The Midland Fault is not shown as an active fault on the Fault ' Map of California (Jennings, 1975) or on the regional Fault Map (Helley and Herd, 1977) . Further, recent studies by Bolt (19 85) ' have indicated that the Midland Fault is not a likely source of significant earthquakes: , There is no surface expression of this fault system as one might expect if continuous major displacements (largely dip-slip) had- occurred during Quaternary time. Further, there is little doubt that the dominant tectonic forces now deforming the whole region about the site are large-scale horizontal right-lateral shears related to straining of the San Andreas fault systems. Thirdly, there is no evidence from the seismicity of the region of significant earthquake activity associated with the Stockton or Midland faults. (From Draft EIR, Bethel Island Area , Specific Plan, 1988.) Based on the seismic record, it does not appear likely that ' strong ground motion will be generated by this fault. A list of active faults along with their maximum credible and probable earthquakes and expected range of Peak Horizontal Accelerations on Rock is shown in Table No. 1. Please note that the maximum credible earthquake is the largest seismic event that appears capable of occurring along a recognized fault or seismic 8 ,: n own or The maximum credible acceleration represents an upper bound estimate of the ground shaking that could conceivably affect the site as a result of the postulated occurrence of the maximum credible earthquake. It should be noted that the maximum credible earthquake implies a irare but physically possible earthquake occurrence. While such a level of motion is normally considered for design for large safety-related structures such as nuclear power plants and hospitals, it normally is not used in ordinary residential or commercial structures due to its low probability relative to other natural or man-made hazards. The maximum credible acceleration depends on numerous factors such as source and site conditions, transmission path characteristics, and to a greater extent, the fault to site distance and magnitude of the event. Several attenuation ' equations have been developed to evaluate the ground accelerations over the past 10 to 15 years. The values shown in Table 1 are derived from relationships formulated by Joyner and Boore (1981) , Campbell (1981) , Seed & Idriss (1982) and Sedigh (1983) . r The site proper is not crossed by any mapped active faults; however, it will likely be subjected to a high degree of ground shaking from earthquakes generated on the Antioch, Greenville, as well as other active faults in the Bay Area, 1. Maximum Ground Motion A probabilistic study was performed to provide information related to the return periods of earthquakes. Probabilistic analyses are considered reasonable since they are concerned r . 9 1 ff­ _imarily o:_��. _- peyouds tzat do not d_ er significantly with the length .of the earthquake record. Recent statistical studies have proven the applicability of probabilistic earthquake studies. The analytical procedures used in this study take into account the assumption that the seismic record surrounding the site is sufficient and that there is a logarithmic relationship between ' the acceleration, earthquake magnitude and distance from the epicenter to the site. Calculations are directed towards , evaluating the expected annual rates of occurrence of peak horizontal ground accelerations due to the earthquake events accounted for in the record in the geographical area. For this ' study, approximately 1,000 earthquakes generated on the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Greenville, Green Valley, Rogers ' Creek, Concord, Antioch and Midland Faults were used. These statistically documented events are used to postulate future occurrences. The attenuation relations used in the probabilistic analysis were from McGuire (1978) and Joyner and Boore (1981) . , The results of the analysis indicate that there is a 50 percent probability that a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.18 0.20g will be exceeded at the subject site over a 50 year exposure. The results also indicate that there is a 90 percent probability of non-exceedance of a 0.308 acceleration occurring at the subject site over a 50 year exposure. Please note that ' the record used to evaluate these probabilities did not include. - the 1868 Hayward earthquake, the 1861 San Ramon Valley earthquake, and perhaps most importantly the 1889 Collinsville earthquake. Use of these earthquakes would likely increase the above accelerations. Further, these accelerations are not site- , soil specific and do not take into account potential amplification or damping that may occur due to the deep sediments in the Delta area. i 10 . 1 1 2. Recent Earthcruakes and Observed Damage Perhaps the most important aspect in investigating the seismicity of the Delta region deals with reviewing the effects of past earthquakes. Until recently -the earthquake safety of the Delta Region was largely ignored. This was due primarily to the fact that there were no reported levee failures or levee damage that could be directly linked to earthquake activity. Although there was no reported levee damage during the 1906 earthquake, several bridges sank in the Delta area. The Santa Fe Railroad bridge at Middle River sank 3 ft and twisted out of line 1 (Salinas Daily Index, 1906) . According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the bed of the Molkelumne River near Lodi sank 12 ft. These embankments were similar in composition to the present day levees. ' Recently, levee damage was reported on Webb Tract after the May 2, 1983 Coalinga earthquake. Fourteen other reports of earthquake related damage have been linked to five separate events with earthquake epicenters ranging from 15 to 150 miles jfrom the area. Damage was reported on the Mandeville Tract minutes after the Coyote Lake Earthquake of August 6, 1979. A 250 ft rotational slip-out was observed on Bacon Tract by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as possibly being earthquake - related damage due to the January 24, 1980 - Livermore earthquake. A 200 ft landslide slip-out dropped 6 inches on the Empire Tract as a result of the 1980 Livermore earthquake. Damage was observed on the Webb and Venice Tracts due to earthquakes generated by the Coalinga, Pittsburg and Morgan Hill earthquakes. Most of the levees that were damaged due to the earthquakes 11 contained large amculn'z= of sand wiz.. Genera=-_ (Finch, 1985) . Although there has been several accounts of varying amounts of damage to Delta levees, it appears that there were no recorded failures. Those damaged appeared to have been repaired and it r appeared that the- Delta Levees as a whole were not largely impaired. ' Further, the literature suggested- that those islands where levee , damage did occur generally have soft deposits of peat and consisted of loose sand with little clay content. These ' conditions are not similar to those found on the Hotchkiss Tract. A review of the literature following the historic ground shaking events indicates that ground failures are common but occur in , close spatial relation (approximately 10 kilometers) to the ruptured fault trace. III. SOIL A. Site Description - i The project has an approximate area of 681 acres, and is located in the Bethel Island Area of East Contra Costa County, California. The site is located on a portion of the Hotchkiss Tract. The site lies to the south of Bethel Island proper, and is bounded by Sandmound Boulevard to the north and east. The -- southern boundary of the site lies approximately 2,800 ft to .the south of Cypress Road. A site vicinity map is shown on Plate 1. The site is generally flat ranging in elevation from approximately -5 ft to -8 ft, with scattered mounds reaching an elevation of 10 ft. The north central portion of the site is covered by areas of fine-grained,wind-blown sands that exhibit 12 slight Lo moderG-�_ cementation. The size used predc:•_: =iy as rangeland and is covered by short and tall grass. The site is ' divided by fences and certain areas were in the process of being irrigated during our field visit. rThe southern portion of the site lies primarily on the lands of Leo Mantelli. These areas have been recently plowed and disced. A high voltage pow erline crosses the southwestern corner of the site on the Dal Porto property. The interior of the site ' contains several shallow drainage canals used for irrigation. ' B. Field investigation 1. Phase I Boring Investigation Our phase I boring exploration started on September 16, 1988 and was completed on September 22, 1988. . It consisted of drilling and sampling 13 test borings at the approximate -locations shown on the Boring Location Map, Plate 2. The borings were drilled with a Failing 1500 ,truck-mounted rig equipped with wet-rotary drilling equipment. All borings were drilled in the dry to a depth of three feet, prior to placement of casing and use of wet rotary techniques. All test borings were logged by our field engineer. ' The borings were advanced at wide spacings primarily along the proposed levee alignment to a maximum depth of 126.5 ft -- Materials encountered in each soil boring were visually classified in the field and a continuous log was- recorded. Visual classifications were made in accordance with the Boring ' Log Legend presented on Plate A-1 of Appendix A. Soil samples were obtained by driving a 2-in.-ID, 2-1/2-in.-OD modified California Sampler, containing thin brass liners, into 13 the bottom of the boring. Tine number of :.lows reaui_ed .o drip the last 12 in. of an 18 in. drive with a 140 lb. donut hammer dropping 30 in. is recorded as the Penetration Resistance , (Blows/ft) on the Boring Logs. When the sampler was withdrawn from the boring, the brass liners containing the samples were removed, examined for logging, labeled and sealed to preserve the natural moisture content for laboratory testing. Granular samples were typically obtained with a 1-3/8-in.-ID, 2-in.-OD ' Standard Penetration Sampler. Undisturbed samples were .typically obtained by pushing a 3-in. Shelby Tube or by using an Osterberg Sampler. 2. Phase I Cone Penetration Testing ' The phase I cone penetrometer program started on October 5, 1988 ' and was completed on November 9, 1988. The program consisted of performing a total of 19 soundings at the approximate locations ' shown on the Boring Location Map, Plate 2. Soundings were made along the levee alignment and in the lake areas in an attempt to "fill-in" large spaces between borings. A Hogentogler Piezocone having a tip area of 10 cm.2 and an apex angle of 60 degrees was used in this program. The cone contains a friction sleeve on its side having a standard area of 150 cm 2. The cone penetrometer has separate load cells that record the tip resistance (Qc) and the side friction (Fs) as the cone is pushed through the soil at a rate of approximately 2 cm/sec. A continuous log of (Qc) , (Fs) and pore pressure (Pw) were recorded. Soil classifications were ' - interpreted using the Simplified Classification Chart for the Standard Electric Friction Cone shown on Plate B-1 of Appendix B. ' Continuous logs of the cone penetrometer soundings are shown on Plates B-2 through B-20. The cone penetrometer was advanced to a maximum depth of 28.5 ft. The underlying very dense sands encountered at depths ranging r 14 30 ft prevented the cone penetrometer fr=. weeper investigation. 3. Phase I Piezometers Four piezometers were installed at the site on September 22, 1988. The piezometer locations are shown on the Boring Location ' Map, Plate 2. The piezometers are 15 ft in depth and consist of a 10 ft section of 0.20-in. , slotted, PVC Schedule 40 pipe, and a 5 ft section of a PVC, Schedule 40 riser. The piezometers were backfilled with 12/12 sand in the slotted portion, followed by 3/8" diameter ' bentonite pellets and sealed with a cement grout. The logs of the piezometers are presented on Plates A-30 through A-33 of Appendix A. C. Laboratory Testinci The laboratory testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of the gradation and strength characteristics of the subsurface soils. The laboratory testing program consisted of unit weight and moisture content, Atterberg Limits, unconfined ' compression, and percent passing the #4 and #200 sieves. Most of the laboratory test results are presented on the individual logs _ of the borings. Graphic presentations of the gradation analyses performed are shown on Plates C-1 through C-18 of Appendix C. D. Subsurface Conditions 1 - The soil conditions at the site are dominated by loose to dense ' sands and silty sands to a depth of 120 ft. Sands in the upper 10 to 15 ft are generally loose to medium dense and dense below 15 ==o,., about 7--40 to El-60, a very stiff zo haro layer of silty clay was encountered in most borings. This layer appears to be continuous across the site; however, the thickness , and presence of this layer should be further classified by additional exploration for groundwater hydrology and cut-off purposes. ' .The near surface soils consist of a thin topsoil layer underlain ' by a 1 to 2 ft thick layer of sandy clay and clayey sand. A thicker sandy and silty clay layer was encountered in the borings , and cone penetrometer soundings across the center of the Mantelli property, south of the proposed Cypress Road Extension (see B-5, , B-7,B-8, B-9, CPT-17, CPT-18 and CPT-19) . In this area the sandy and silty clay layer appears to be about 5 to 9 ft thick. Some organic material was observed in Boring B-5. According to our , cone penetrometer soundings, some organic material (peat) may be present in the area where CPT-4, 9, 13 and 19 are located. The ' interpretation of organic material was made from 'abnormally high friction ratios recorded at these locations. The peat appears to ' be limited in thickness and generally occurs in. the top 5 ft. Generally, clays across the site are of low to medium plasticity and are stiff to very stiff. The findings in the borings and ' cone penetrometer soundings are in general accordance with the surficial mapping by Nilsenland, Nilsen, and Sims (1975) and , Atwater (1982) in which these soils are referred to as Alluvium of Marsh Creek. , Underlying the sandy and silty clay layer are fine grained, loose to medium dense sands and silty sands. Underlying areas where the Marsh Creek Alluvium is found , (Borings B-5,. B-7, B-8 and B- 9) the sands are generally medium dense to dense. In the other , nine borings, these sands are loose to medium dense to a depth of 15 to 20 ft and dense to very dense below 20 ft of depth. i 1 16 IL .. A light brown sandy and .._ay laver was encountered at a depth of 48 to 56 ft below the existing ground surface in most ' borings. An exception to this was observed in Boring B-13, where this clay layer was encountered at a depth of 36 ft. The clay layer is very stiff to hard and ranges from 8 to 20 ft in thickness. Underlying this clay layer are dense sands and silty sands containing thin intermittent hard silt and clay layers to ' 128.5 ft, as observed in Boring B-1. Groundwater levels were read for the first time on September 29 and October 5, 1988. They were read a second time on November 9, 1988. The watertable elevations observed and the dates that they were measured are as follows: ' Piezometer Approximate Static Water Elevation (in feet) ' P-1 (9/29/88) -10.5 P-1 (11/9/88) -11.5 ' P-2 (9/29/88 -4.8 P-2 (11/9/88) -5.2 P-3 (9/29/88) -4.6 ' P-3 (11/9/88) -5.0 P-4 (10/5/88) -6.8 P-4 (11/9/88) -7.0 The above is a general discussion of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the 13 borings, 19 cone penetrometer -- soundings and 4 piezometers at. the site. Two-dimensional profiles of select borings are graphically presented on Plates A-34 through A-38 of Appendix A. A fold-out soil legend for the ' two-dimensional profiles is on Plate A-39. For a more detailed description of the Phase I boring logs and cone penetration soundings see Appendices A and B, respectively. 17 The soils ao=_ngs and cone penetrom==_- t____ W_=e per= _- at widely spaced locations for this Phase I study. Soil and groundwater conditions can be expected to deviate from these t conditions encountered at the piezometer locations. Additional monitoring of these piezometers should be performed to help evaluate these potential deviations. ' IV. PHASE I GEOTECHNICAL CONCERNS Based upon data collected during this investigation, we note the ' following four geotechnical concerns relating to the feasibility of the project. They are: ' A. Potential liquefaction in the near surface sand layers, ' B. Lakes and levees, C. Subsidence and Settlement, and ' D. Levee Underseepage. A combination of research and preliminary analyses were performed for each of the above considerations. The results of our findings and analyses combined with our experience in the area ' were used to provide recommendations for mitigation of these concerns. , A. Potential Liquefaction Liquefaction includes all phenomena - involving excessive deformations or movements as a result of transient or repeated ' disturbance of saturated cohesionless soils. The liquefaction potential was assessed based on the soil boring blowcounts, the , cone penetrometer resistances and friction ratios, correlations between the CPT and SPT data, the results of the laboratory tests and the site seismicity, and historical data. 18 The results of the Phase I field investigation boring and cone penetrometer data indicate that there are areas that are considered to be potentially liquefiable. There is insufficient data at this time, to indicate whether these areas are localized or whether they occur over a larger area. For development purposes it should be pointed out that areas of the site appear to be potentially liquefiable. The location and ' severity of the liquefiable areas can only be further characterized by performing additional borings and laboratory gradation analyses. Details of the analyses and results of the boring logs and cone penetrometer tests for the Phase I investigation are contained in the following two sections. t1. Evaluation of liquefaction using Boring Blow Count Data The potential for liquefaction of the soils encountered in the ' borings was evaluated using the procedures established by Seed and Idriss (1982) and Seed et al. (1984) . The number of blows per ft recorded in our field boring program and the results of laboratory gradation analyses were used to evaluate this potential. Soil borings exhibiting low soil blow counts were evaluated. Penetration resistance values (blow counts) were standardized with respect to overburden, fines content and reduced hammer '- energy (donut hammer) . The standardized blow counts were then used in the analysis. ' Based on the blow . count data measured during our field investigation and the results of our laboratory tests, it appears that a magnitude 6.75 earthquake creating peak ground acceleration of 0.2g or greater would probably result in 19 . 1 liquefaction of the near-surface sands and silty sands over of the site. s a chart for the evaluation of potential Plate ,5 show p 1 liquefaction for sands for earthquakes of different magnitudes. Lines showing the standardized blow count for observed ' liquefaction for a ground acceleration of 0.2 and 0.3g are shown for a magnitude 6. 0 and 6.75 earthquake. The blow counts ' presented on the plate are considered a good approximation of the minimum blow count to resist liquefaction. ' Plate 6 shows the estimated peak horizontal ground accelerations ' which will induce liquefaction at select boring and CPT locations. Based on a 0.2g acceleration at the site, soils encountered in Borings B-1, B-2, B-10 and B-12 would probably r experience liquefaction. Boring and cone penetrometer locations not having numbers are not considered to have a high potential for liquefaction. In summary, it is our opinion that portions of the proposed development would be expected to experience ' liquefaction should a ground acceleration of 0.2g or greater _ occur at the site. , 2. Evaluation of Liquefaction Using CPT data - r The potential for liquefaction at the site was also evaluated using the continuous Cone Penetrometer records. Correlations ; between cone penetration resistance (CPT) and standard penetration resistance (SPT) were made using the chart shown on Plate 7. Typical mean grain sizes were used from the grading ' analyses performed on the near-surface soils and are graphically presented on the Plates in Appendix C. 1 20 . 1 !-- La Based on the CPT data, the near surf=c= soils at CPT-2, 3, 4, E , 7, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 16 may be expected to liquefy if a peak ground acceleration of 0.2 g was experienced at the site. Plate 8 shows a proposed zone of potentially liquefiable soils utilizing the cone bearing and friction ratio of the soils. Soils that lie in Zone A are considered to be potentially liquefiable. There is reasonably good agreement between this and the Seed method of evaluating the liquefaction potential on this project. Liquefaction of the near-surface soils could cause severe levee damage and damage to structures and utilities. Some spreading of the loose soils adjacent to the Sandmound Slough could occur, causing a block of soil to flow toward the Slough. A resultant graben could form in the vicinity of the new levee. Also, differential compaction of the underlying loose sands could occur causing differential settlements across structures. Due to the relatively thin, non-liquefiable clay layer overlying the liquefiable sand and silty sand layers at the site, differential settlements would tend to manifest itself at the ground surface. Recommendations for mitigation of these settlements are given later in this report. B. Levee and Lakes Design plans for the proposed lakes and levees at the project are still in the preliminary stage. We understand that preliminary ' design plans call for a ring levee to be constructed about the inhabited portion of the site. Several large interior connected lakes are also planned. Soil material from the excavated lake regions are planned for use in the construction of the levee. i 1 21 1 - it-e unde:s_and that the levee will be about 25 to 30 at ' the top with 3:1 horizontal to vertical side slopes. At this time there is a proposed commercial area that will rest on top of the levee near the intersection of Cypress and Bethel Island , Roads. Here the levee may be up to 400 ft wide. To our knowledge no other structures except for a bicycle or walking ' path are planned to be placed on top of the levee. ' ' We understand that the depth and dimension of the lakes will be based on the amount of soil material needed to construct the ' levee. These quantities are not known to us at this time. 1. Lakes ' It is assumed that the lakes will be constructed with .a 1 ft high , freeboard, with slopes of approximately 5 to 1 horizontal. to vertical, to a depth of 3 to 4 ft or about 20 ft from the shore. ' From this point the slope and total depth of the lakes have not yet been determined. Based on the boring and cone penetration logs the lakes will primarily be excavatedthrough fine grained, poorly graded, silty ' sands and sands having generally 5 to 15 percent fines. The near surface sands are loose to medium dense to a depth of 15 ft. For ' this reason the lake slopes should be planned to be as flat as _ possible and be lined with a shotcrete or cement slurry coating to prevent disturbance. We understand from our conversations with Mr. Harlen Glenn of Harlen Glenn Consultants that the lake slopes will be grouted or stabilized up to 20 ft from the shore. ' The depths of the lakes should be kept to a minimum to increase ' the stability of the excavated sands and to reduce the risk of lateral spreading of the sands into the deeper portions of the excavation. Further, special provisions should be made where 22 a=a _ :awned. Due to the excavation, added potential for piping or seepage forces may be created. Steeper slopes will tend to cause higher seepage gradients. Additional investigation and stability analysis should be performed to evaluate the effects of the lake and levee slopes, the watertable level and the minimum distance between the lakes and the levees. This should be performed once design lake levels and grading plans are more complete. 2. Levees ' In the i3 borings and 19 cone penetrometers performed for Phase I of our investigation, we encountered organic material, generally a peaty sand, in B-5 and in CPT-4, 9, 13 and 19. Generally the peaty soils were encountered within 5 ft of the existing ground ' surface. Some excavation and replacement with suitable materials may be needed in soft or potentially liquefiable areas. ' It is our opinion that the subsurface soils should provide ' adequate static stability. However, it is our opinion that ground modification will be necessary to provide adequate stability under dynamic conditions. Modification measures are 1 proposed in later sections of this report. 3. Borrow for Levees Based on the results of the borings and cone penetration tests it appears that the on-site soils should be suitable for the levee construction. Our borings indicate a strong potential for a clay - and silt source South of Cypress Road on the Dal Porto and Mantelli properties. Cone penetration tests performed in the ' southcentral and southeastern portion of the Mantelli property, and borings in the southwestern portion of the Del Porto property 1 23 _...._cate 5 �o C =t of s=__z_ __-- -aYey _-- --h sand lie in , this area. An estimation of the- quantity of this material available is beyond the scope of our work. We recommend that ' several backhoe test pits be excavated to supplement the cone penetrometer soundings and further evaluate the extent and thickness of this material. ' It is our opinion .that the fines in the southern portion of the , site can be excavated and used for levee construction in proportion with the sand materials. The exact use of the fines ' and the process of construction will largely be controlled by the particular design of the levee, which should be further investigated in Phase II of the geotechnical engineeringfor this project. C. Site Subsidence and Settlement 1. Subsidence Subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal- motion. There are several causes of subsidence including natural processes such as oxidation, solution, thawing, drying, wetting, subsurface compaction, tectonic downwarping or a combination of these factors. ' Man-made subsidence includes removal of solids, liquids and gas from beneath the ground surface. Subsidence caused by these processes may be rapid and may have significant impact on the development site. Oxidation of clay-rich peats, the withdrawal of groundwater and the extraction of natural gas trapped in tertiary rock units are primary reasons for the large amount of subsidence in the Delta region in the last 60 years. The proportion of subsidence due to each of these causes is not known. However, peat oxidation is thought to be proportionately 1 24 I ' high on some of =h e Del-tea Tr a, t-. Three =c= __::d adac_ to Contra Costa County (Bacon _island, Mildred Island and Roberts Island) which were originally at or slightly above sea level, are now at 10 to 11 ft below sea level. Between 1922 and 1946, these ' three islands have subsided at rates of 0.2 and 0.3 ft/yr (Weir, 1950) . Plate 8 shows the maximum amount of subsidence on individual islands in the Delta Region. According to the Delta Subsidence Investigation, Progress Report ' 1986, subsidence may be as high as 0.25 ft/yr in peat areas and as low as 0. 007 ft/yr in areas with little to no organic soils. Based on the relative subsidence shown in Plate 8 and the lack of thick peat deposits on the site, we anticipate that the subsidence at the site should be in the lower portion of this ' range. However, deep subsidence could still continue depending on the production of the area's gas wells. A subsidence measuring program was spearheaded by the Department ' of Water Resources primarily to study and attempt to differentiate the effects of gas extraction and near-surface organic oxidation. We understand that the compaction monitors ' for the study have been in place for only a couple of months and that it will be several years before sufficient data will be available (Personal Communication with Mr. Todd Nelson, Contra Costa County Planning Geologist, 1988) . It may be prudent to ' assume that the area will continue to subside over the life of the project and special provisions should be made to accommodate this subsidence. The provisions should include an allowance of increased freeboard on the levees and/or a monitoring system to provide site-specific information on levee and structure subsidence. 25 2. Se=-_ -rent 1 Based on the results of our boring logs, the subsurface granular ' soils at the site are medium dense to dense below a depth of 15 ft. Provided special provisions are made to densify the near surface sands, settlements due to the levee . or single-family i structures, should be similar to what is normally expected on well consolidated alluvial sites. Most settlements should be ' elastic in nature and should occur rapidly upon fill or structure placement. ' The southwest portion of the development appears to contain a silty . and sandy clay layer that generally ranges in thickness ' from 2 to 5 ft. The clay was encountered in Borings B-4, B-5, B- 6 and CPT-10 at a depth of 21' to 26 ft below the existing ground surface. This clay layer appears to be very stiff and confined to the southern portion of the proposed Commercial Site and ' Village F. A surface clay layer approximately i2 ft thick was encountered in CPT-13 in the southeast corner of Village F. Based on the cone data, settlements should be small.. A settlement ' analysis should be performed in these areas during Phase II of this study. D. Levee Underseepage ' Considering the preliminary development plans and due to the nature and relative elevation of the site to the Sandmound Slough, hydrologic impacts due to changes -in static groundwater level, lake level, slough level and flooding on adjacent Tracts ' should be investigated. Based on our experience in the area and discussions with the , farmers in the site vicinity, seepage and boiling has not ' appeared to be a major problem. Groundwater level readings 26 indicate that there _s a head loss of up to 11 ft from she Sandmound Slough to Piezometer P-4, located in the east-portion of the site. The reason for this head loss is not known, however it may _ stem from a combination of natural thick peat layers adjacent to the levee on Sandmound Boulevard and silt deposits in the Slough. Considerable dewatering will be likely to allow construction in the dry. Because of preponderance of sand at "the site, the toe drains can be planned ahead of time to "double up" for both temporary and permanent dewatering. Further evaluation is needed in the Design Phase (Phase II) to assess levee underseepage. V. Feasibility of Geotechnical Mitigation Techniques ' The primary geotechnical considerations regarding the proposed development are: A. Reducing the potential for liquefaction and, B. Controlling levee underseepage. Possible mitigation schemes are presented in the following paragraphs. A. Reducing Liquefaction Potential ' Several methods are available for treating the near-surface loose to medium dense sands and silty sands. Generally, in the Delta area liquefaction of near-surface deposits has been mitigated by removing the liquefiable material and recompacting it by conventional means. This method is described in the following paragraphs. Additional methods that wereevaluated for the purpose of reducing the potential for site liquefaction are as contained in Appendix D. For the purposes of this study, the 1 27 Remove and Replace option is discusses:. b=low. Other site ' improvement techniques, along with the Remove and Replace option, described in Appendix D will be evaluated in the Phase II study. , 1. Remove and Replace Using Temnorary Dewatering ' The liquefaction potential in the top 10 to 15 - ft of soil can be mitigated by removing the soil and recompacting. This has been ' achieved on other projects where high water was a problem by excavating deep trenches and dewatering. The subsurface silty sands and sands are anticipated to have a relatively high permeability. Advantages of this method are (1) no potential damaging effect on adjacent properties from vibration, (2) soil densification and , lake construction can be performed in the dry and, (3) the. construction can be staged, with the exception of levee , construction and (4) its relatively low cost with respect to other non-conventional improvement methods. The cost of this , method is dependent to a large extent on the cost of dewatering and the water content and workability of the soil. 2. Construction Considerations for Remove and Replace Alternative The top 2 to 3 ft of clayey soil can be removed and laid out to dry in an adjacent village. The underlying sands may be removed from one area and immediately replaced as construction progresses. Historically, levees and lakes in the valley areas ' have been constructed using native soils. If clays are desired to be mixed with native sands, then the surficial clays could be stockpiled for mixing. ' Provided the excavated material can be readily removed, placed in ' a staging area, replaced and recompacted, we were informed that 28 ' she esz_mated cost would be about $1.20/cy. or about ;?:). 60/sf. for a depth of 15 ft. Temporary dewatering costs are not ' included. For the Discovery Bay project, the approximate cost for grading, including dewatering, was $1.00/c.y. For ' preliminary cost purposes assume that the top 13 ft of soil would have to be removed and replaced in the non-lake portion of the villages. VI. ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS A. Additional Services Based on the findings of this Phase I geotechnical Study we recommend that the Phase II Geotechnical Investigation include but not necessarily be limited to the following: 1. Additional borings and/or cone penetration testing should be performed to further identify the soil conditions at the site. In particular, a combination of additional borings and/or cone penetration tests should be performed in an attempt to identify specific ' areas .where liquefaction mitigation may be necessary. 2 . Several tests pits should be excavated in the Mantelli property (southern portion of the site) to evaluate ' the quantity and quality of the clay materials in this area. Specifically, the material should be examined for peat or organic content, hydraulic conductivity and moisture content for use in levees, landslide seepage berms and as a lake liner. 3 . Additional investigation concerning the groundwater ' hydrology should be performed to obtain a more approximate estimate of the permeability of the 29 -cr=_ ng s::t_; sand and sand soils and -he hydrology ' of the Sandmound Slough area. 4.. It is our opinion that the Phase II Geotechnical 1 Investigation should include but not necessarily be limited to be (1) additional borings for evaluation of ' liquefaction potential, (2) specifications for design of levees, (3) static and dynamic slope stability , analyses for levees, (3) application for FEMA approval of levees and (4) settlement analysis for levees. 1 5. specific recommendations for (1) site improvement, (2) ' lake excavation and construction, and (3) building foundations, pavements, and retaining structures, should be developed in a separate report from that of ' the levees. The Phase I ground improvement options* should also be evaluated by the design team and by Kleinfelder ' mutually to obtain a workable, feasible and viable solution as a part of this separate report. B. Limitations ' The services provided under this contract as described in this ; report include professional opinions and judgements based on the data collected. These services have been performed according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in The San Francisco Bay Area .at the time the report was written. No other warranty is expressed or implied. This report is issued ' with the understanding that the. owner chooses the risk he wishes to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction ' alternatives and scheduling that is chosen. 1 30 Ll The conclusions and recommendations of this report are for the Bethel Island Area project, as described in the text of this report.. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are invalid if: o the assumed preliminary design plans change, ' o the levees, lakes and/or structures are relocated, o the report is used for adjacent or other property, ' o the Additional Services section of this report is not followed, o if changes of grades and/or groundwater occur between the issuance of this report and construction, or ' o any other change is implemented which materially alters the project from that proposed at the time this report is prepared. ' The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and are based on a limited amount of information obtained from a Phase I Investigation which included the following: 0 13 borings, 19 Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT's) , and 4- Piezometers! o the observations of our geotechnical engineer, o the results of laboratory tests, o verbal communication with contractors and, o our experience in the area. The boring logs, Cone Penetrometer Tests and Piezometers do not ' provide a warranty as to the conditions which may exist at the entire site. The extent and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations may not become evident until construction begins. It is possible that variations in soil conditions 31 1 between borings, C-T's and Piezometers could 1be..-ween c= ' beyond the points of exploration or that groundwater elevations may change, both of which may require additional studies, ' consultation and possible design revisions. If conditions are encountered during the Phase II Geotechnical Investigation which ' differ from those described in this report, the feasibility of the above outlined options could change accordingly. As a result, revisions to these recommendations may bd necessary. , It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the ' project including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc. , are made aware of this report in its entirety including the ' Additional Services and Limitations sections. 1 I 1 1 32 - 1 1 TABLE 1 REGIONAL FAULTING AND ESTIMATED GROUND SHAKING Approx. Max. Cred. Max. Prob. Peak Horiz. ' . Fault Dist. (mi) Earthquake Earthquake Bedrock Accel.** ' San Andreas 52 8.5 8.25 0.05 - 0.15 Hayward 34 7.25 6.75 0.05 - 0.20 ' Calaveras 24 7.25 6.5 0. 05 - 0.30 Concord 16 6.25 5.5 0.10 - 0.30 Greenville 16 6.25 5.5 0. 11 - 0.25 Antioch 8 6.6 5.5 0. 15 - 0.40 ' * From Revisions of Portions of Contra Costa County Seismic Safety Element by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, January 1986 ** Estimates based on relationships by Seed and Idriss (1982) , ' Joyner and Boore (1981) , Campbell (1981) and Sadigh (1983) . 1 1 REFERENCES ' Army Corp of Engineers, 1978; Design and Construction of Levees, Department of the Army, engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1913. Atwater, B. F. , 1982; Geologic Maps of the Sacramento - San ' Joaquin Delta, California Department of the Interior, USGS Map MF-1401. Bailey,' E. H. , Irwin, W. 0. , and Jones, D. L. , 1964; "Franciscan ' and Related Rocks and Their Significance in the Geology of Western California; CDMG Bull. 183. Burke, D. B. and Helley, E. J. , 1973 ; "Map Showing Evidence for Recent Fault Activity in the Vicinity of Antioch, Contra Costa . County, California, USGS Map MF-533. California Department of Water Resources, 1978; Preliminary Report - Fault and Seismicity at Los Vequeros Dam Site. ' California Department of Water Resources, 1980; Seismicity Hazards in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta. Campbell, K. W. , 1981; Probabilities of Earthquake Occurrence on the San Andreas Fault Based on Geologic Data: EOS, Vol. 62, No. 17, p. 332. Draft EIR, Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, Prepared for Contra Costa County, February 1988, LSA H EDA 602. Earth Science Associates, 1982; Seismotectonic Study of Contra ' Loma Dam and Vicinity. Report to the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Finch, M. 0. , 1985; Earthquake Damage in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta; California Geology, Vol. 38, No. 2. ' Helley, E. J. and Herd, D. G. , 1977; Maps showing faults with quaternary displacement, Northeastern San Francisco Bay Region, California, USCG Map MF-881. ' Herd, D. G. , 1979; Neotectonic framework of ' Central Coastal California and its Implications to Microzonation of the San I Francisco Bay Region USGS Society Circular 807. j Jennings, C. W. , 1975; Fault Map of California with locations of Volcanos, Thermal Springs, and Thermal Wells, CDMG, Geologic Data ' Map Series. Joyner, W. B. , and Boore, D. M. , 1981; Peak Horizontal ' Acceleration and Velocity from Strong-Motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California Earthquake Bulletin of the Seismological society of America, Vol. 71, No. 6, December. . ' McGuire, R. K. , 1978; Seismic Ground Motion Parameter Relations, ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 104, ' No. GT-4 April. Nilsen, T. H. , 1975; Preliminary Photo Interpretation Map of Landslide and other surficial deposits of the Brentwood 7-1/2 ' ' Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California. Prokopovich, N. P. , 1985; Subsidence of Peat in California and Florida, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol. XXII, No. 4. Repenning, C. A. , 1960; Geologic Summary of the Central Valley of ' California with Reference to Disposal of Liquid Radioactive Waste, USGS TEI Report 769. ' Salinas Daily Index, 1906; Latest Earthquake news., the Santa Fe's Condition, April 20, Vol. 19, No. 124, p.3. San Francisco Chronicle, 1906; "River Changed by Trembler", May ' 1, Vol. 88, No. 106. - Sedigh, K. , 1983 ; Considerations in the Development of Site Specific Spectra, Proceedings of the XXII Conference, USGS Open File Report 83-845. Seed, H. B. , Tokimatsu, K. , Harder, L. F. , and Chung, R. M. , ' 1984 ; the Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, Report No. UBC/EERC - 84/151, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. ' - Weir, W. W. , 1950; Subsidence of the Peat Lands of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, California, Hilgardia, Vol. 20, No. 3. ' Wesson, R. L. , Helley, E. J. , Lajoie, K. R. , Wentworth, C. M. , 1975; Faults and Future Earthquakes in Studies for the Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region. USGS Professional ' Paper 941-A. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1986; Revisions of Portions of Contra . Costa County Seismic Safety Element, January. 1 1 -- ------=7-77- -- — �: GO F n COURSE '••���,0 1y1 filer •�—_._1__.._` „—�. __1 �.\t`) \ ;�J• I"'a 1 AT 'fPv ' Trailerl't.1 a � GA IEMY - RCRO7 CA O D i r. Ve�j -1 rte` ``\•. �c �f0 /: 0- Bethel Islan =: Rao •:; _ M. — St�E• 8M 10 WI ...SLOUGH PutnpinB.__ •ROAD '0_< O �i/ __- ,q. ro I •��%'� \0 X•'aM 7 ' sta • �%!7'..\ -�S's�ce_y •era a a'�`"Trall �� ```` _ `..����i /�: Park �� ` i: •i�'` ar• x >:::.: �- PROJECT SITE Rik # ' / _ o: `.L 0 U H O' GAS �....£ 'I3. 11 I .1, . ' 7 l W J 1 l__ O I h - n 0 1 1 1 \ 1 ,.�. �,?:: i:i�"4i:,�i:1.::.: is;:::;:•::�:' — ..._ 1 -- — V ..;:..:X G FIELO ::: ::.:::.. ...: . .::::..:::.......::::: 1 . \ SLOUGHS I A _ � _.. .. 1 1 1 -X- ................ 1 1 0 1 xx O W 1 :;iir:: B •• I: A I OL i H n I i --_ \. I. TL 'l1 r�- r- .. 1�� 1: t. a x 1 J as , ------------ Gas Well Fish Screens t l Tale Gage_i_•_ SCALE LANE . • _--_ — - ---- 0 2000 4000 ft J Pock Slot(gh _ Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA VICINITY MAP ' PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 1 I "- Zi . 'I��•. ►� i;;1 Kong r nldlnt r� N iQQ�� �����`�� rr►:� �Illlr y. AD El. ! N,UPh. a �p J. CPT-17 �r C' G - • r •�.� �Q► �1 _ • o A LN•• Bethel • AreaProject t: �:i , • East Contra Costa County, CA BORING LOCATION • . ••1 1 • • 1 .A '• G o •^ a p u u � o• n 0 Qu d S t V'OVSP O,JQ �'wo N OU c, .� • •ten• wG°tl?i.+ ' • �-` LOO N Y U ✓ W �o�v+s+^ p z EE�4P •' ` c Nom J � 11 O � to• � .,..i. , •. � .. ao L 4Eu o\ 'o Y''In •� oa '�, � i i � n i T �•���° p'O ` ~•`tom war of rf t •% •i �_i �' _ fit•, �JJd.•f ; •L'a •� . tort µ`rt ` a / -•- 1�.. r+•"•'. i t !f � SSP j "� O � - " _ =•ii s s. • sl it r -,i' `;•�/�� a to d Vis : � ' � � _ _ � - � r cl _ o ' s c e`5= 3 V a j 71 is �: � a 3; � •ge��b•u_ Y d j CY E ! St .9• 2 �.... I_� �! C 5• u' 2 a ate ! a5- =fit• �b i d m W 9 -S• E :! 8 J m W U uj ai 3 :S dla� n s � bCebEs� XO z Lu W • � ��s- bby YylaR E:S l: W Y� 05: 309 3 i<� 3 �- 9�5 ► J `„� Lu LL W = Y o Cr z ' � W _ a _�.•• - _ • •1`1Cd�l �.rd �i f'�I.n •I�` _ ji. :1 Hwy. IZ It -TZ ;� .'� 1 ' lCt ;�a 9`Y `%1::•:''” cs •%x:.,11 .r' �l �,v= .. �•../,� lr nal• j� � � i - •ft.T _ - ' U r • I� I 1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 1 MAJOR DIVISIONS LTR DESCRIPTION MAJOR DIVISIONS LTR DESCRIPTION Gw We11-gradedgravels or gravel sand ML Inorganic silts and very fine ' mixtures, little of no fines. sands, rock flour, silty or GRAVELSILTS clayey fine sands or clayey silts GP Poorly graded gravcis or gravel with slight plasticity. AND sand mixture, little or no fines. AND CL Inorganic clay: of tow to medium GRAVELLY GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-clay CLAYS plasticity. gravelly clays, sandy SOILS mixtures. LLc5O clays. silty clays, lean clays. COARSE GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay FINE OL Organic silts and organic silt- mixtures. clays of Iw plasticity GRAINED GRAINED SW well-graded sands or gravelly SOILS MN inorganic silts, micaceous or sands, little or no fines. SILTS m SOILS diatomaceous fine sandy or silty _ soils, elastic silts i SAND SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly AND sands, little or no fines. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. AND CLAYS fat clays. SANDY SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures. LL>50 ON Organic clays of medium to high ' SOILS plasticity. SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures. HIGHLY Pt Peat and other highly organic ORGANIC SOILS soils. Piezometer Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler Concrete Modified California Sampler 1 3/80 Bentonite m Shelby Tube Sampler Pellets 1 �I Water level first observed in boring ;x2/12 Sand T 1 Water level observed in boring following drilling NFWE ho Free Water Encountered NOTE: Blow count represents the number of blows of a 140-pound hammer falling.30 inches per blow. required to drive a sampler through the last. 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration. NOTE: The line separating strata on the logs .represent approximate boundaries only. The actual transition may be gradual. No Warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil strata between borings- Logs represent the soil section observed at the boring location on the .date of drilling only. Bethel Island Area Project PLATE , K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA A-1 'ruo�ECT No. II-19x6-ol B_OR1NG LOG LEGEND 1 Date ;c: • c. in. _.%w +Goldfarb =2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in_ LD., Shelbv Tube Lagged By: Larry Sampler - 2.8 in. dia. ' Total Depth: 128.5 ft Hammer We 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION k a L � ■ aid 11� 3 ■ ■+1 C o ■ i+ u a -4 L d u a o o 4J i � i 1 Surface Elevation: A o N m o o sox o N +� o ►- a Approximately -7 ft TOPSOIL: VERY SANDY CLAY (CL) - 10 2.5 black, low plasticity, very moist to slightly SILTY SAND,(SM) - loose, gray grown, fine 1 sand, wet 5 *3 17 - medium dense, blue-gray, fine to medium grained coarse sand, 7 to 7.5 ft ' 10 15 -#4=100% -#200=32% - very clean sand 12 to 15 ft - slightly cemented layer at 13.5 ft 15 79 -#200=124'0 - very dense, fine to medium grained with t pyrite, saturated below 15 ft 20- 60 - brown, with a very silty clay layer, from 20-3 to 21 ft 25 89 -#4=100% - slightly silty below 25 ft ---200=646 30- 35 No recovery Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 A-2 i .--IELD LA$O}:�.TORY I 4. 4J E R t w D Z SCIR.1 P T 10 N ■ \ 41 4.3 41 7 C s O + t •r r -4 4.+ ■ t c t ■ 41 C1 M E a a L 4-- 4 0 10 C E i r ■ -+ cru o a a �+ ■ ++ r ■ (Continued from previous plate) O N m OD.. EU\ U N .v O _ F- d ' 40 I00/ 106 21 -#200=9% 8" - sandy clay layer 42 to 43.5 ft 45 , SILTY CLAY (CH) - hard, light gray, high plasticity, slightly wet 50 54 95 30 1.7 2.5 55 VERY SILTY SAND (SM) - brown, fine sand, lots of pyrite, saturated 47 'SANDY SILT (ML) - medium dense, brown, some mottled staining, wet, lots of pyrite 60 SILTY SAND (SM) - dense, brown, fine ' sand, wet, pyrite 65 70, 87/ SAND (SP) - very dense, gray, medium 4" grained, saturated 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 A-3 ' PROJECT' NO. I1-I956-01 n it t L C a � R i L J • (J y s -+ • ..t .0 • L C L R e ° L i o o 0 0 .4J 3 41 IL u o � o • (Continued from previous plate) n m ❑a snx o m -w o a SAND (SW) - dense, well-graded, est. 5% fines $0 85 ---200=5% 94/ 4" 90 SILTY SAND (SM) - blue-gray, fine sand, saturated 95 100 - very silty below 100 ft 105 I10 58 115 Bethel (stand Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 A-4 PROJECT NQ. 11-195E-01 1 i Fly w +� c t DZS',._... _:i1N 4 ]I L� ■ ■ i tl \ + J C ■ Q t —I ■ --+ +� tl L C L M 41 CLE. a 3 C C E ■ C o ■ + t ■ v 0 o a ■ .+ r ■ (Continued from previous plate) 0 y m oo snx o N s., o a ' 1 120SILTY CLAY (CH) - blue-gray, high plasticity, wet 125 SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, blue-gray, fine sand, saturated, lots of pyrite 98 ' 130- 135 140 -� 145 150 ' i 155 I Bethel Island Area Project. PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' i LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 A-5 ' PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 I . -1.2._ 1✓L4Q1leL{ ..nit::,rni2 Jamalc' - _ 0.T1 Date Completed: 9/16/99 2.0 in. ED- Szan::a-.g Snlii Logged By: Larry Goldfarb - 2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. - Total Depth:. 54.5 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY w � M a t DESCRIPTION k. 7 L 4.1 p +� i 1 a -4 Ja a C AJ s I e.0 n. i s 41 d E 0 a C 4. 4 C E L w t M C o a° 4 o o u 0 a x a w o a Surface Elevation: Approximately -6 ft TOPSOIL 12 1.5 CLAYEY SILT (ML) - stiff, dark brown, low to medium plasticity, very moist to slightly wet, iron stained, roots VERY SILTY SAND (SM) loose, brown, 5 6 fine to medium sand, wet 20 -#200=24% - silty at 5 ft ' - medium dense, silty below 7 ft 10 14 -#200=22% 24 15 - slightly silty below 14 ft r 20- 57 -#4=100% - very dense below 20 ft -#200=7% 25 30 86 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 I A-6 - i n4-1 Ai r t �i a -moi f L C L M y E a.a a C 4 --,i C E L i- t q C ■ A -+ S. r Ela a o 4J a •� ■ Continued from previous late O co C3 Do SU\ a in 4J O F- a. ( plate) - increase in silt content at 37 ft 40- 45 50 SILTY CLAY (CH) - very hard, light brown, high plasticity, slightly wet 65 TV=1.2 tsf 3.2 55 60- 65 70- 75 0 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA , LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 ( A-7 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 ' 1 _.J in I.D.. S:2.^.darn Jolt Spoor. Sampler ILogged By: Larry Goldfarb - 2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. Total Depth: 54.5 ft Hammer Wt: (40 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY 4 ai r r DESCRIPTION -C 4 7 L M a.+ M r +-13 C r a 1 y 3 0 a� a n i 0 E 0 a C w -i C E L 4 t M C ■ o -. L r u o 0 0 U+ n y r ■ Surface Elevation: Approximately 0 ft o N m oo. Fox v +� o' a p Y SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, brown, 59 fine sand, no cementation, dry, some iron staining - well cemented at 2.5 ft $ 61 - fine to medium grained, very moist - dense from 6 to 20 ft ' 44 - slightly wet at 8.5 ft 70 43 -#4=100% - gray, saturated below 10 ft -#200=6% - slightly silty below 10.5 ft 15 39 20- 61 -#200=6% - dense to very dense below 20 ft 25 30-- 0 47 -#4=100/% - medium grained sand below 30 ft -#200=10% 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. I1-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 A-8 '.FIELD LABORATORY iDN �- w OR L+i a y ' .0 -4 w -moi 4J i L c L M �' 4.1 M E O 7 C w -44-J El 8 C E L i t / C VA. � -, L • u n a o 4J M -0 V 0 Continued from revious late ❑ N m ❑❑ r-U ❑ w V o H a ( P P ) 40 - sandy silt layer from 42.5 to 43.5 ft 45 SILTY CLAY (CH) - hard, brown, high 50 plasticity, slightly wet 62 I04 25 2.5 3.2 55 6D 65 70 i 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 A-9 . PROJECT NO. I I-1956-0] Date Completed: 9/1� �• '.v - --_ Logged By: Mel ah Ashford Sampler -2.8 in. dia. Total Depth: 74.5 ft Hammer W 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY 4 • �- DESCRIPTION +J r L m Jc i a .613 ■ Mu 0 r■ + IL e o a C r 0 c e t L r o 0 • c Surface Elevation: Approximately -6 ft 0 0 +J ■ +� • • o w m a sox o N Z o a SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown, low plasticity, moist 16 117 18 1.2 3.0 22 SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, gray, ' -#200=20% fine to medium grained, saturated, some comented nodules SAND (SP) - dense to very dense, gray, fine 10 36 grained, saturated 83 j, 15 75 -#200=8% j20 - slightly silty at 19 ft SANDY CLAY (CL) - hard, gray, low plasticity, moist 25 SAND (SP) - very dense, brown/gray, fine to medium grained, saturated 30- 8 6 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 A-10 FIELD LABORATORY y ■ M r 4 DESCRIPTION i J ,J r L c M E 03C4 -�i C E L 4 t ■ C ■ a 4 L r u 0 0 o y ■ o N m oo Enu N y o F a (Continued from previous plate) 40 68/ 10. 45 SILTY CLAY (CL) - hard, brown and gray, 50 low plasticity, moist 55 2.0 55 60 .� 65 3.7 3.0 97 30 70 SAND (Svery dense brown, fine to 83/ medium grained, saturated 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 A-11 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 1 0.5 40 1 cr Q. i i vc � u 0.3 a b' N � a a c 0.3Q b' a 0.2 c o 'v a a0.2p `C N V N d L v E 0.1 •V L U 3 i0 0 101.214 16 18 20 30 40 Modified Penetration Resistonce, Ni-blows/ft Chart for evaluation of liquefaction potential of sands for earthquakes of different magnitudes. Source: Seed and ldriss(1982). Bethel Island Area Project f PLATE = st Contra Costa County, C_. . II ' - iii ►�// �I/// - s obi/L{�►��� ''e � 'f�'.i►e1��Ya� •���' �\\\\\ems �s ��p � wE 1� . ... .. s 1 ♦ P. r1 • p� •moi= = ►I,I,�! IBJWAR ! `��1.y��iC •���`����'�•! : . JA 31;tArw 9. , /�y►���� �' =�'�`�+,�4►`,`,,♦�,ll� . 1 fir`, gt� LY ilk 17 • R 1 bar: 100 kPa 1.02 kg/cm2.-1 tsf 1CaD 10 12 11 � 9 L � 300 v M ONE L A 6 L 5 0 ° 4 f M - 10 C 3 0 U 1 2 1 O 1 2 9 4 5 O 7 8 Friction Rot 10 M Zone Soil Behaviour Type Qc/N 1 1) Sensitive fine grained 2 2) ' Organic material 1 ) clap 1 4 - 4) Silty clay to clay 1.5 5) Clayey silt to silty clay 2 6) Sandy silt to clayey silt 2.5 7) silty sand to sandy silt 3 8) Sand to silty sand 4 9) Sand 5 10) Gravelly sand to sand 6 11) Very stiff fine grained (*) 1 12) Sand to clayey sand (*) 2 * Overconsolidated or cemented UBC Simplified Soil Behaviour Type Chart for Standard Electronic Friction Cone Showing Proposed Zone of Potentially Liquefiable soils (After Robertson and Campanella, 1983) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA CONE SOIL BEHAVIOR CHART PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 iSACRAMENTO J 20 km W St tib'+1 N \ 0 S 10 km 1 qq s CIN a 0'OJ STOCKTON PROJECT SITE 2 : som - 6 0 CALIFORNIA AOuEOUCT e .►� 7 DELTA PUMPING PLANT (DWR) 'I a.TEU S TRACY PUMPwy. PLANT(Us9R) OELTA-MENDOTA CANAL Map showing maximum amount or subsidence on individual islands (based on an interpretation or USGS topographic Quadrangle maps). Maximum subsidence: I)less 1.5 m;2) 1.6 to 3 m;3)3.1 to 4.5 m:41 4.6 to 6 m;5)over 6 m;6)not reclaimed. permanently flooded islands(excluding purposely flooded Clifton Court Forebay orthe sw?),and 7)geneniizcd•'0"elevation contour. Source: Prokopovich - -- . (1985) - Island Bethel 1 d Area Project PLATE an � K L E I N' F .E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA DELTA SUBSIDENCE 8 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 Sar-'--:: :ified Caiifornia Sanr.ier Da:e Completed:_ 9,!9/JE _.0 in. I.D., Standard S21it Spoor. S rrpier - 2 Logged By: Meleah Ashford .0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. Total Depth: 60.0 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4 ,, r ■ L w ■ L C L ■ ♦J 3 ■ ■4J 0_ r r EL E a 3 c -4 c E L k c ■ c a N -4 o o u 0 0 x a (A ° o r°- 5 Surface Elevation: Approximately -4 ft n F_ a. SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, brown, 7 fine-grained, dry to moist - 5 SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff, brown, with 10 some organics, moist i -#200=33% 10---- 23T -#200=44% VERY SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, brown, fine grained, saturated 15 32 - decreased silt content at 15 ft 20 SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff, brown, moist 9" SAND (SP) - very dense, brown, 25 fine-grained, saturated 30 1 79 -T4=100% _ slightly silt), ft -;x200=9% sl g y at 33 ' 35 1Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA 1 PROJECT NO. ll-196-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 A-12 - LABORATORY � M t DLJCRI:i. _. aJ ■ 3 n ■� 0. Iii CL C F 0 C a E i w t M C r ■ -4 i r0 0 0 0 ++ M 4J r r (Continued from previous plate) D N M00 FU\ U N �+ O F a 40- 73/ 12" 45 50 55 72 A - hard, brown, moist 60- 65 70 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R. East Contra Costa County, CA j LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 A-13 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 Sampie Modified California Sampler - 2.5 in. O.D. Date Cornpieicd: 91119/88 2.0 in. I.D.. Standard Split Snaon Samnler Logged By: Meleah Ashford - 2.0 in, O.D. 1.4 in. I.D., Shelbv Tube Sampler - 2.8 in. dia. Total Depth: 65.0 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION d \ ] C L c Y S ~ 3 a ai a L 2 E t7 C C E L 4 t I C 8a -+ a ❑ o a o .0 • 4J r • Surface Elevation: Approximately -3 ft a m m as a EoX o w o F a SELTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, dry 25 1.5 3.5 SANDY CLAY (CL) - very stiff, brown, fine-grained sand, moist $ SAND (SP) - medium dense, brown, fine grained, saturated 15 -#4=99% -#200=11% - slighty silty below 6.5 ft 10 31 -#200=8% 15 20-- 35 SANDY CLAY (CL) - brown, fine grained sand zs SAND (SP) - very dense, brown, fine grained, saturated 1 i 30- 73/ — I2" 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K LEIN F E LID ER East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 A-14 tlROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 r - -- ----- - SES::;:.:'-::J.� L 4-J C siC1 Z a a 4-1 CL 00 ■ Q. E O 71 C i- •a C E L i- M C Y a -+ L r o 0 0 0 V r +� r ■ (Continued from previous plate) - - D 71 m 00 E L) U N cL 40- 88/ 9" 45 50 55 SILTY CLAY (CL) - hard, brown and gray, 4.5+ saturated - some silty seams 60 - silt seam 61 to 61.5 ft 65 70- 73 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E l N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County', CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 A-15 a j Date Co:r.p:�:_c: 2.0 in. i.ti.. Standarc Soli; Snoon Samoier Logged By: Tim HunttinQ - 2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. ; Total Depth: 66.5 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY � 4J ; r w DESCRIPTION Ir a L 41E aJ C ■ C 11 1 3 in a ami a lu �+ Q E 0 3 C r- -r C E L SL A C o 10 -4 o 0 °0 v v tq o H a Surface Elevation: Approximately -6 ft SANDY SILT (ML) - soft to firm, dark brown to black, fine grained sand, dry 21 108 19 1.5 1.0 SANDY CLAY (CL) -very stiff, mottled 5 gray, dark brown, orange and tan, trace fine gravel, moist 35 2.2 LL = 40 PI = 22 - wet at 7 ft - blue-gray at 8 ft 10— 12 SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, blue-gray, fine to medium sand, saturated 15 37 -#4=100% SILTY SAND (SM) - dense, gray brown, fine -#200=24% to medium sand, saturated 20 55 - very dense, brown, increased silt below 20 ft t 25 - light brown tense of clayey sand at 25 ft 30 S 75 ' 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E IN F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. I1-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 A-16 - - LABOR.-TORY DESCRIPTION a L 4J / di ■ t .rt -moi 4J tt, EL C i4J a ■ y Q. E 0 7 C 1- -� C E L w t M C r r -a LS u 0 0 0 4J ++ r ■ Continuedrom frevious late n m oo �nx o N +■� o �- a ( P P SILTY SAND (SM) - continued 40--s94/ 10" 45 - intermittent lenses of silty and clayey sand below 45 ft 50 SILTY CLAY (CL) - hard, olive brown. mottled w/orange and light tan silt, trace 55 concretion, trace fine to medium sand, 39 2.5 saturated 4.0 60- 65 82/. SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense, brown and blue-gray . 70- 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, 'CA PROJECT NO. 1LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 A-17 1-196-01 Date Cor„pietea: - --- -_ Logged By Tim Huntting - 2.0 i ' Total Depth: 61.0 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. ' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION u a 3 M 11 4J 0.0 0. E 0 aCi •+ C E L 4 t 11 C o a -+ L m u o o a y n 4-1 ■ ■ Surface Elevation: Approximately -7 ft C' N m C M SU n to .6.+ o a SANDY CLAY (CL) - firm, dark brown, dry 13 CLAYEY SAND (SC) - stiff, dark brown, gray and orange mixed, medium plasticity, $ moist ' 1+6 29 1.3 SANDY CLAY (CL) - stiff to very stiff, brown and blue gray, low to medium plasticity, fine sand, moist SAND (SP) - dense, blue gray, fine to 4 medium grained, saturated -#4=100% -. 200=4% 15 SANDY CLAY (CL) - light brown, low plasticity, fine sand 75 SAND (SP) - very dense, blue gray and brown w/trace of orange, fine to medium sand, saturated 25 3Q i ' 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K LEI NFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 A-18 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 ,-ORATORY � 3 M a o r r 'J CL E 0 aC4 •a C E LL r C r ■ -. L r 0 0 0 0 +i r +� ■ r (Continued. from previous plate) N m oa r-U U N +J o a 40 SANDY CLAY(CL) - light brown, l.ow M plasticity 45 6 8 SAND (SP) - dense, brown, fine to medium grained, some silt, saturated so SANDY CLAY (CH) - light brown, trace 55 fine sand, medium to high plasticity 60 SAND (SP) - brown, fine to medium grained, saturated 65 70- 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE IH KLEINFE L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 A-19 i. i Sampler. Modified California Snmoie- - 2.5 in. O.D. Date Completed: 9/20/88 2.0 in. I.D., Standard s.':; Swoon Sampler Logged By: Tim HllnttlnQ - 2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. Total Depth: 67.5 ft Harnmer Wt: 140 lbs. ' FIELD LABORATORY r DESCRIPTION r r •. L JJ r JJ r Z C CA -4 1 -/ 4 v L C L r .11 a E 4 71 C U -0 C E 1 t- t r c Surface Elevation: Approximately -6 ft ■ ■ -•� L ■ u o0 o +J r ++ r r O N m 00 CLEU U fN 4-J O F a SILTY SANDY CLAY (CL) - firm, dark ' brown, dry 32 98 27 1.2 1.5 - very stiff, moist below 2 ft ' - stiff, blue gray, orange and brown, low j plasticity, fine to medum sand below 3 ft 15 - increased silt, firm, some concretions, 1 e light blue gray below 6 ft 18 10 -#4=10046 -#200=1846 SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, blue gray w/trace orange and brown, fine to medium sand, trace silt, moist ? IS 38 - dense below 15 ft 20 25 - sandy clay layer between 24 to 24.5 ft 77/ - very dense below 25 ft 12" 30 1 35 . Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K LEIN FELDER East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-9 A-20 1 F1 LABORATORY I L7'SCRIPTION 3 • 0Z 0. r r a+ 0_ E 0 aC4 -� C E L 4 L ■ C ■ ■ •-r L r o 0 0 0 Ai ■ + r rCid from l O N m Q sUx o of ++ o 4 ( ontnuerom Prevplate) 40- 41 55 50 SILTY CLAY (CL) - hard, olive brown and tan w/some orange, some fine sand 55 64/ 3.0 - clayey sand tense between 55.5 and 56 ft 12" - lense of sandy clay/clayey sand, very dense. brown and rust 60- 65 70 i 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-9 A-21 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 S£C ':..- -.n:ji?!1 liii:r.- .i•c _rile; _ -1 Completed: '21/88 _ (-•r= - _- Logged By: Tim Huntting - 2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. Total Depth: 56.5 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY �. 4J v w t w DESCRIPTION o J W i t -101 o a o N ° e E : :+ Surface El -6 ftm ao E n o N o a evaon: Approximately SANDY SILT (ML) - dark brown, dry 7 SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, brown to dark brown and orange, fine to medium grained, $ dry to moist _ 4 -#4=100% - blue gray with little grassy fibers, ---200=10% saturated below 6 ft - slightly silty at 7 ft - medium dense below 8 ft 10 16 ---200=12% - trace concretions below 11 ft 15 48 - dense, gray to brown below 15 ft 20-- 4 - 8 very dense below 20 ft ' 25 . 30 ' 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ! I ' LOG OF BORING NO. B-10 A-22 PROJECT NO. I1-1956-01 1 I t -) r X,= FIEL_ . 1 y I a z DESCRIPTION k 7 L 4J P M � 3 M 0 41 n. r + 0. E 0 3 C s- -4 C E i w t ■ C n rn m a o` u E U x v v"i " o t'- a (Continued from previous plate) 41- 78/ - light brown at 40 ft ts 11" 45 - increased clay content below 46 ft SANDY CLAY (CL) - hard, olive and light 50 tan, some silt and brown and orange sand 78 4.2 SANDY SILT (ML) - medium dense, y 55 medium brown w/orange multicoloring I8 60- 65 J 70- 75 .I Bethel Island Area Project PLATE !� K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-10 A-23 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 Completed: e _I "88 _ _ 3:; c ---� Logged By Tim Huntting - `2.0 in. C.�. ? Vin. I.D. Total Depth: 70.0 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY w a+ r ■ t DESCRIPTION � a L aJ ■ JJ ■ s+ CL a 3 M ■+i 0. r In a+ EL 0 —4i Lr U 00 0 sJ ■ 4J r r ❑ o m Q o s o x ❑ N +� o r a Surface Elevation: Approximately 7 ft ' SII,TY SAND (SM) - very dense, gray, fine to medium grained, dry 53 orangish brown below 2.5 ft 1 5 29 - medium dense, wet, 6 to 15 ft 10 26 15 36 - dense below 15 ft 20-- 45 - medium brown multicoloredbe o 1 w 0 f t 2 1 25 . - sandy silt layer 27 to 28 ft 30- 35 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-11 A-24 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 f i L a L i ■ �L.J N o ++ C a C r .. � .•1 ■ -.� y ■ i C L M +� 123 M M+) 4 ■ r y 0. E 0 a C L. -4 C E L 4. t ■ C ■ ■ -A L ■ u o 0 0 sJ ■ 4J r r (Continued from previous plate) n to m Cl O L U 'U N +i 0 F- 1 40- 78/ - very dense, blue gray below 40 ft 12" 45 _ 50- 55 SANDY SILTY CLAY (CH) - hard, olive brown w/dark brown and orange, blue gray and light tan mottling, medium to high plasticity, little concretions, moist to wet 60 58 3.5 65 70- 75 Bethel .island Area Project PLATE K LEINFELD E. R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. B-11 I A-25 PROJECT NO. 11-196-01 pLe: f".1od,i�'i: - iornir S: - Dat= Completed: 9/21/88 2.0 in_ I.D.. Standard Sri*-.- Sy-or.. Logged By: Tim Huntting - 2.0 in. O.D. 1.4 in. I.D. Total Depth: 56.5 ft Hammer Wt: 140 lbs. ' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 41 0 C 41 4J CL 3 W My n. Y m 1 0. E 0 7 C 4 -4 C E L 4 L M C 1 4 4 o CID u 0 c0 x c0 J 2 o H 0 Surface Elevation: Approximately -7 ft ' a. SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, gray, fine to medium grained, dry 15 _ 20000 - orange grading to light brown, dry to moist - slighty silty at 3 ft 5 15 -#4=100% - blue to dark gray, wet, trace concretion -#200=15% ' 10- 7 - very silty, loose, 10 to 15 ft i 15 69 - very dense below 15 ft 20 86/ 12" 1 25 - brown below 26 ft 30 55 J 35 l Bethel Island Area Project PLATE � K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' PROJECT NO. Il-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-12 A-26 ON we r DESC? I i< < / t 7l L AJ q AJ M 4J 3 M M iQ ■ +J Q E O 7 4• N■ -m ❑L orC iu.. -o-i C0p L 4 t ■ aC (Continued from previous Plate X:nx o m + o - increased clay content below 36 ft SANDY SILTY CLAY(CL) - hard, olive 89/ 12" brown to tan, moist 40 45 89/ - layers of sandy clay and clayey sand below 10" 45 ft 50 SANDY CLAY (CL) - blue-gray, medium plasticity, fine to medium sand } 55IN 51 CLAYEY SILT (ML) - very stiff, greenish brown, very fine sand, moist 60- 65 70- 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E l N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-12 A-27 Dale Compierez:: Logged By: Tim Huntting - 2.0 in• 2'•D• 1.4 in. I.D. Total Depth: . 61.5 ft Hammer Wt 140 lbs. FIELD LABORATORY e M t a DESCRIPTION w a z i) n +J ■ y � 3 n M� a d r 1 o a:o o a o .0 a -0 : 1 Surface Elevation: Approximately -8 ft o E m ❑o row o m .0 o F- a ' SILTY SAND (SM) - medium dense, brown and orange, medium to fine sand, moist 12 - wet below 2 ft 5 15 -#4=100% ---200=9% - slightly silty at 6 ft 1 10 15 - very silty 9 to 1I ft ' - very dense below 13 ft 55 15 y 20 2 _y4- 0°/ — 9 10 0 -#200=8% - slightly silty at 21 ft 25 .30- IN62 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT i\O. ► 1-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-13 A-28 r -- FIELD LABORATORY :.J...7 _...Gl.. p 11 L 6 4 J i�:1 Cr 01M i7 N 3 M M 41 CL, Q. E o a ` -'.c E 4- c r c (Continued from previous plate) * r zu oa a +, r + r r o N m ooro �� u r a SILTY CLAY (CH) - hard, light brown, medium to high plasticity, wet 40 38 2.7 45 54 CLAYEY SILT (ML) - very stiff, brown, medium plasticity, some pyrite, wet 55 60 31 65 70- 75 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L Q E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 LOG OF BORING NO. B-13 A-29 Zr..- ' Logged By: Larry Goldfarb Total Depth:. 15.0 ft Hammer WL Wet Rotary ' FIELD LABORATORY 4 ++ r ■ t w DESCRIPTION L 4-1 ■ 41 ■ ' 4 -' 3 i M.0 a i a 0. e a �ci- -+ c e L 4 L ■ c ar (n m o o EL F v v o 4J a a Surface Elevation: Approximately 4 ft SILTY SAND (Sl) - medium dense, brown, ` Log of orange sand, moist Boring - medium to fine sand, wet 5 10 - very silty from 9 to I I ft ' Piezometer Backfill - very dense below 13 ft 15 ' 20- 25 ' ' 30 35 six Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-196-01 i LOG OF BORING NO. P-1 A-30 Date Completes: 9/=-%0"S i Logged By: Larry Goldfarb Total Depth: 15.0 ft Hammer Wt: Wet Rotary FIELD LABORATORY , DESCRIPTION ~ w a L 4 : J i r -■i a -moi 4J a i C s ■ C 52 0 7 C�- a C E i w t p [ , W N m n`o° ° E o x v vii o a Surface Elevation: Approximately -2 ft SILTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, fine to Log of medium sand, dry , Boring - slightly moist, gray brown below 3 ft 5 ' 10 - some cementation to 10 ft Piezometer - very silty below 10 ft , Backfill 1 ' 5 20- 25 0 25 30- 35 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE k" K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa .County, CA r PROJECT NO. 11-196.-01 LOG OF BORING NO. P-2 A-31 . Logged By: Larry Goldfarb Total Depth: 15.0 ft Hammer Wt: Wet Rotary FIELD LABORATORY 4 ar ■ 4 DESCRIPTION ■ t t -i ■ L 41 4J --4 ++ ■ L C L ■ 41 11 3' 0 -4 C E L w t b . E C 3C 4 - C V A ., L ■ 0 0 0 0 i+ ■ 41 ■ ■ Surface Elevation: Approximately -1 ft o N m ❑o sow U N ,� 0 1- a SILTY CLAY (CL) - dark brown, medium Log of plasticity, moist, some coarse sand Boring - mottled gray below 2 ft 1 5 SILTY SAND (SM) - brown, medium sand, saturated 10 - gray, decreased silt content below 9 ft ' Piezometer Backfill ' 15 i 1 20- 25 0 25 i 1 30 r 35 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA LOG OF BORING NO. P-3 j A-32 PROJECT NO_ 11-195 i-01 j Logged By: Larry Goldfarb Total Depth: 15.0 ft Hammer Wt: Wet Rotary 1 FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4 4 7 L41 M • 41 X -tll a --4 V % - L C L R E O 3C4 -fit C-Ii E L 4 t i c ' n N m a o o E v x o u�i o ►01- a Surface Elevation: Approximately -7 ft SILTY SAND (SM) - dark brown, fine to Log of medium sand, moist Boring , - brown, very moist to slightly wet below 3 ft - gray, decreased silt content below 7 ft 10 Piezometer ' Backfill 15 r 20- 25 30 35 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA , LOG OF BORING NO. P-4 A-33- PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 ' 1 POINT TO POINT PROFILE LINE 'JINT B-12 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 'FSET 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 - r -10 1 -20- -4 0 20-40 . r 1 , -50 i; ' -60 1 -70- -go- -90 70-80-90 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 DISTANCE, feet Bethel Island Area Project PLATE KLEINFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA �OJECT NO. 11-1956-OI 2-D PROFILE ALONG WEST SIDE A-34 ' r —_ --- _ _ POINT TO.POINT PROFILE LINE )INT 13-13 B-11 B-10 B-1 B-8 ' -SET 0 0 0 00 20 r r � r _20 � -40 r r -60 ' -80 1 1 -100- -120- 1401 1 1 J I I I I I I 100-120140 , 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 DISTANCE, feet r Bethel Island Area Project PLATE KLEINFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA , OJECT No. 11-1956-Oi 2-D PROFILE ALONG EAST SIDE A-35 ' ' r POINT TO POINT PROFILE LINE )INT B-13 B-2 B-9 B-7 FSET 0 0 0 0 0 - r -10 r r -20 rJ. -30 r , i ' -50 i -60 r -70 r ' r -80 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 DISTANCE, feet Bethel Island Area Project PLATE KLEINFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA �OJECT NO. 11-1956-01 2-D PROFILE ALONG CENTERLINE A-36 ' r i 1 • I - POINT TO POINT PROFILE LINE DINT B-12B-13 B-11 B-3 B-10 B-4 B-1 B-2 B-5 11-11-7 B-6 B-8 ' =FSET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 . 1 0 1 -20 ' i -40- -60- -so- -100- -;120- 40-60-80-100-120 r -140 r 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 DISTANCE, feet ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' k" KLEINFELDE R East Contra Costa County, CA 2-1) PROFILE - COMPOSITE A-37 OJECT NO. 11-1956-01 ' 1 1 POINT TO POINT PROFILE LINE r.INT B-5 B-7 B-8 B-9 FSET 0 0 0 0 r ° r _10- -20- -30- -40- _50- . 10-zo-30-40-50 1 - ' _60- -71- -Sol 60-70-8o 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 DISTANCE, feet Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County. CA I ROJECT No. 11-196-01 2-D PROFILE Central Mantelli Prop. A-38 r m Laa Q ' V Y 4 W av L A ;? W � w J Q V O L Co fi 44" C M U (n w J Y {j i 0 N U N H N Inuj Q L6 0 w _ J Y � i C G • i 1 bar = IOOkPo = 1.02 kg/Cm2 400 SANDS / 200 / SILTY SANDS/ !00 ' 0 80 / SANDY 60 / / SILTS 40 AND SILTS / /CLAYEY / SILTS / Z AND ' Ir 20 / / SILTY CLAYS a /W CLAYS m i 18 w / z 6 - 0 v / / / PEAT 4 ' 2 / r1 •r ! I I f 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' FRICTION RATIO , FR , SIMPLIFIED CLASSIFICATION CHART FOR STANDARD ELECTRIC FRICTION CONE FROM ROBERTSON AND CAMPANELLA, 1984 ' Bethel. Island Area Project PLATE k;qK L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA . i PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 CONE CLASSIFICATION CHART �i ---- (4881) H1d34 1 LO O b O b O b O b ti W W aCn o . ti d m Nto o m rn o � m m -+ E i F Of IL m o C IL ZO a L.d — _ — — — — — — — — — C A W — — — Q I _ O "f NO 6 n N v i O w o_ W C XCL ' .. w IL _ _ _ _ — — _ _ — _ _ — _ _ a o CL 0 m , I o 0 O in o m I N O O + T + � W O Y ❑ ❑ �n� E W F- O Cv O L ' CL U C 6. V O U O o U C C x Oo an c E W to O L m 2 O J LL[ C V 1 �❑ O a IL a . U J W L C h Q � O V w � L <n L a O C O J a u • ..4 (sJagaw) H1d30 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E 1 NFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA CONE PENETROMETER NO. 1 8-2 Pi:oJLCr No. I1-19-56-o1 r i (39a}? t0 O N t I 0 `�W J t ti ' IWC � a 1 1 1 IDin vi I I m 0 I o h o of i n + ccv n I C ! C I o eo _ 1 � o ^ 1 u C a x Cr 4 O m � S w d — H CJ + n i m ! To n o ' ml � o a to I 1 N ' Q a I Wt E �- a ff j Lal 1 - !1> o C Y a t a L v I N J O u I o U J w 0 < I n a o : o � L 11 O U Z (s-iozaw) H1d30 1 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA CONE PENETROMETER NO. 2 B-3 PROJECT. NO. 11-1950-01 I o o h o w o In t � r cm r a 4 Q O a o = 1 0 N o n Q1 ❑ r -+ a 1 m m -. 0 E t In En m C 0 a o Vj 7 O ❑ N � ' M ioo O_ - Q z O x — — — — — — — — — — — -'- — — -- H 0 ^ m 1 0 m O O ID � I 1 N q 0 x m W WSM 't:N W ti u U �� C Woo In o E ' te l 02 z - U N nl a` a tL 2 1- ❑ 7 U J 4 a 000 � o Z `< La a a 1q 1 0 w (sja4aw) H1d30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE MIK L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' 1 i��:o.rccT No. � �-t9so-ac CONE PENETROMETER NO. 3 B-4� 1 I 'i O to O to 1 O b N N Cl) 0 � et 1 � IOW W= 1 �+ In Crto ' 1 tL ❑ �Z 4. 1 r, N O? W , n OrD w - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — —o ? E I 1 K�O � � C � d 4 ❑ z c a � N L ✓ m rl W o _ O w q O ( tn Iq m 40 m m to o m ❑ 1 = N I om x W ry� U o e 1 O � I vl c E 1lil W F U 0 ^ O i !> j C Li o W a Y t++ L t o m U o ^ N L J �4 � ✓ v I I o o i a to • > IL r QO N O N L C a O O !a i ✓ 4. 1 04j L O Q.� o uCL 0 z I f t ' I (sJa-4aw) H1d311 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E 1 N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA I PROJECT No. 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 4 B-5 (3891) Hid3a 1 1 O to O b O to O LO 1 N N M (9 q I O 'W ~ d W I In W� a o z ' i I — t e m I17 O yt o w OI m M E r .. w In O O C O a ti ff7 w Z 4 d ' l O o to N ' L a• a W II ,x O X W a O to r m W tL . 0 I m 4 C3 I o E3 to IN O q � W m � b 2N EJ m CL a CL c o u o c it G O E E O C o a C N rr { 1 ' d� L t1] a V I J O �-. to o • > ti o 1 � r f O y N O .. L 0 O a u o . . aa o IL„ i C t +4 � IJI O I O N O of (S-Oadlu) HJJ30 i Bethel island Area Project PLATE �ll K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' CONE PENETROMETER NO. 5 B-6 r�zo��c-r nn_ 11-1956-01 ' ' I C; e!) H1d3C i I p ,p O b O 1+') O Lo 1 ID r N C4 CO C1 'a I a a< ^ w W 1 m o n o O 1 m m .r m -• E r- N QI a u O a v z jo1.a o — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ' C L 1 7 a o N N L o ✓ Io a 0 x m ■ W 4 0 m o I o to o 4^ , 1 N O O 2 I M u ✓ O tl a o � Z,� E ' w o Ipp, o C In m. U ► d 1> r u 7 � t 1 ✓ u , J� O 1 > u — 0o N ^ t C In O y I o ' l O O U a a +o O J c L� (sJalaw) H.Ld30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' PIzU.ii.CT n0. 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 6 B-7 1 i paa{) Htc3a 0 to o M 0 , � Or b .W..W W Cr lL O un W d a o � 1 1 la RI 177 o n o QI W O f h C3 -� C3 E tz Ix N L c c o ri V Z a aLn L o v CL W 0 �n N x , VI a QI HtLn gaG3 0 >n o at 1N O O 2 w ' m W a • ❑ 7 in� E 7- a to ' a c a: o U a F 0 U > Li N c a: a oo of 121: W • Y L mU m Z sa .' I EE C y 1 a - C IL u �. d o • Li J LL a a o a ✓ . O U ' (SJaIaw) H1d30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE kHK L E 1 N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' I PROJECT ho_ 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 7 B-8 O LO O to O b O IO r CV N C7 C) r ` C3 W J r CL a o = 1 YNin W •• n — O 1 ^ m m _ m o E Cr" O in r Z a C J2o 7 O N Ln O o N o ^ L o E e a ' _ o w a a W L m m O _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ ..... _ — _ _ r H -- a N C3 m I O In o a Io I N r o 0 x ry� W u O = a O u , p r W oN o Q E Y Y O] zo N CUL r z� « J. m o I L U I o m �- o r JL: � 0Ir� 0 L C N 0 0 0 r L 0 L O ar� D U 4 O o O J � u { ^V I K 1 r O O N O N (s-1a-4aW) H1d30 r r Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA i rCONE PENETROMETER NO. 8 B-9 1,1Z0JL•'CT no. 11-1956-01 r I i o b o L0 o In o a b N N t7 G7 tY a . 1 D 1 l CC J 1 L f � O z , to O C" o N o O OI CD « m ' 1 m a E � m I [ D I^` 0 iO o O N � a W d ? N - X 1 >n W 4_ ma 0 m N , b I i fD O ID 1 I fV ' O O ' S 1 E W o ' ►- d o N R. CiLO U U O 1 ~ d p L CD _ u t i t; L 1 I U I t"• - a ~ lL J 4 > U ,I pp �n o o v d L 0 t d r y I! da o LL p O O ICs-10-.�aw) H1 J30 ' L.._ Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' P>zwLcz No., r�-i9so-oi ONE PENETROMETER NO. 9 B—10' j Taal) F:1cG o ,o o to o U) o w 1 ^ yyy{{ 1 L, CLo m Y OI ^ ^ 0 1wr co Co — — — — — — — — — — — — — th a - D o 0 o 41 - 1� • X O ^ � 2 H m — — — - -- — — — — — — ^ 1 9 ca C. 0 a n W N • _b r O • F- ••t `z t r1 ^ ~ c w ^ � Y • < L yv i �t • CL 0 > u L t O O o N � ' l O O J o �i H1830 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA CONE PENETROMETER NO. 10 B-11 PROJECT NO. 1 I-19-56-01 j (lael) H1d3Q ' 1 to o to o U3 o to o to N N W O7 Q I �W - W I [. o =_a If!1 a h a O m C00 m .. ... — — — — — — — — — — — — — — E �K I m I M o as � 71 4 y O h N L � a W�6 0 '0 - i4 � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ,a � o 1 m I o a � N O O i U Ln Y O O O - '- C j N j O U G U { I I I C I w E i ` C L F a i „ I J � 0 - O U J LL U ' � O Y1 o Ill L C I U w 1 Q I Y � 1 O u I CL iso f !I OO ✓ 1l V Uf ^ ' LM I j (s-JO-40w) Hi830 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' KLEINFEL D E R I East Contra Costa County, CA. I !'l20JECT NO_ 11-1956-01 ' CONE 'PENETROMETER NO.. 11 B-12 ' 1 O r0 Lr) LO O h N N (7 C7 ? 7 ' ^ B r M d O b mh Y O ^ O 1 Z a$C g t` tl L a x 0 N � Z .� 10 H ^ .. m CY as o ro W V • w` ' > v Wn .p. .�•. ■ Y • C13 C ' C < t� t ;' r AL i > � g` ^ < < 0 o e a o � O J �3Jo�ow� H1d30 1 ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 12 B-13' Vaa;) U'� o ,n o to v N N 8 H CL o o n . o o � m -+ n m co2o $� ri 0 C2 L . o Y H e m A A o C n m ' � a 1- • in ' Cca th di • ' W .+ �+ • Y • oh � L m a a ti < u r L a v r � • L c .. 0 0 0 L O a�e ' O J ^ ra o _ �s�e�ow d H1 30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ` K L E l N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA , PROJECT No. 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 13 B-14 . I ' - f ' (3823) F:_cE i ' ^ r N N co N R `7 io t 'W^ d 4 In.. W m I N N o N O ^ 1 m m t ' m - — — — — — — — — — — t m to ^ 1 o E Q1 i ct: N C o i CL\ m C D t o41 to o to L Lm 1 W a O r am _ t m W — — — — — — — — — — — °H O �a C3 t o vt o I o n O 1 0 O 10 ' - N 1 O O_ lLl o a ' ❑ 7 �, V E I W � { a Or o i U o U c W Ygo ° • < I � U N ° a 2 o r 7 U IJt. mo rt o ^ L o 0 0 I, L O 1 °a o I O J o ,/— j u • J I I V C O N O ^ 1 f HIJ30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE KLEINFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA i ' PROJECT NO. 11-196-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 14 B-15 — 06FI) :-UdS3 i o Ic o to o to to I r N N N N ! ZZ ZZ i a m i to w oCD m 1 CrO to G1 (a u to C Z I C D N L i w U I W a o yr j W — — — — — — — — — — — — — _' I� IH © �a i 1 Lh pl �m � o 1 p a CC E !W O v / C oo o o w E. Y i a CL th V 1 4 1. C a o ;o •. n i o { a u l o= \ i a o � 1 1 (S1a-4aw) H!jK 1 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE HIK L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 15 8-16 ' i 11 10 O b O b O 1O O LO 7 r N N C7 (� 'Q 'f O W ct r 1 - 0 0 W m 1 � m W) ❑ m tn m m o E C n • C!1 [ o ao Ip C1 `1 i o In o .n o r a W 4 to r C to W a N ■ — — — .— — — — — — — — — — — , O ,H : d m 1 0 1 O o O ID . 1 N i O O - - W 0 4 [ n O L, O i o U ' 1\ ✓ w s o � U ✓ � L ` n a u i � J t ❑° - m 1•- „ 1 PU- L o r > U �v ' O O O O ✓ K L O O U Z �n 00 N O r (sJa�aw> H lc�3Q L. Bethel Island Area Project PLATE RIK L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' I PROJECT NO. I 1-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 16 B-17 ! r H1d30 ! 0 o to o to { � to � � W i 4 O to I m in o N o h — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y m c o l a s r . � q I j 0 C q r a '11 N I L a u '(W d 0 i Y � — — — — — — — — — — — — — :q ' m I O h P ^ D r t I N Z O 9 N I � 4 L �-�. v I ❑ I _ W Y D Q UE I` Q - U I 0_ F- v V ❑ > uT-- I o In o ^ L C N 0 0 o y ✓ � r i o u Y A I I V F; -J (s-ja4aw) H1d30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE KLEINFELDkn E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECr NO. t 1-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 17 B-18 ` VSai) Hld3Q I ,o e o ,n o .. N N N N � 7 I a 4 r In I p N 0 0 m CD K CO aa.o D 4 a � v 3 O N ti I I p 1A ^O ^ j " CL 0 I� ❑ � x W 6 O W d p p f 1 m , G , YI O^ 67 CT I 1 p r o � Q to ' IN O C z W mu� o � 1 C. Z. uOa I O U I� I 1 ' " Wpp v, E 1 O U m o C ...N - < " a O ' I > U o v1 C ^ O ° ;o - -- -- -- ----T- - " C3 " L O ! A a 4 N '- —• r Q • W L_ i �sJa�aw) H!d30 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' K LEI NFELDER East Contra Costa County. CA l']20.IECT NO. 11-196-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 18 B-19 i (1800 H1d30 O i0 O b O co O iq t0 N N co W O♦^ O A o ^ w O 1 wr m w �ao - - — — — — — — — — — m in o _ S ~ a . • N s m t ^ w m C, o 0 0 1 N w O W • v A 41 • + D 7 � ■ 1— • �t h g' u> Lh tr c ' • W .. w ■ Y • t m < u L a' v 1t • 0 0 4 a ^ 0 O J ti u_ �s.la�ely) H1d30 ^ , Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA , PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 CONE PENETROMETER NO. 19 B-20 E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y D R O M E T E R 5 Z 3/4" 3/6" #4 #a #16 #a0 #So #lee #290 100 90 ' 88 70 Z 60 ' M N N Q a � se Z w a a 40 ' 30 ! 20 10 1 6 10 1 0.1 0.91 0.601 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION ❑ B-1 11.00 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND (SM) 1 � Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. II-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-1 S I E V E A N A L' Y S I S H Y D R O M E T E R 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 450 #100 #200 100 , 90 ' 80 70 o ' Z 60 M N Q ' H 50 Z !tl , U C C. 4 30 20 10 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES ' coarse fine coarse medium fine I SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION I ' ❑ B-1 26.50 TAN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) • I • � t Bethel Island Area Project PLATE , K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa. County, CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-2 , PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 S I E V E A N A L Y S I S Fi Y D R O M E T E :c 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 48 416 930 #50 #100 #200 ' 100 se 80 70 = 60 N N Q a. 50 Z W ' U Ir a 40 30 20 10 1 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 _ 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SANG FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION B-2 21.00 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE kHK L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' PROJECT NO. 11-196-0I GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-3 S I E V E A N A L Y S I S I H Y .O R O M E T 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 100 ' 90 ' 80 �e Q - i Z 60 H , N , U1 Q IL 50 Z W LU U ' C EL 40 30 20 10 -� 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND 'coarse fine coarse medium fine FINES SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION 0 B-3 11.50 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N E E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA I ' PROJECT \O. 11-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-4 � ' ( S I E V E A N A L Y S I S I H Y D R G M E T E R � 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #e 416 X38 use #Lee #200 100 90 80 't 0 Z 60 H N , N Q F 60 W U IL W 40 30 20 10 ' 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.801 PARTICLE SIZE GRAUEL SAND FINES ' coarse tine coarse medium Tine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION 0 B-3 31.50 TAN GRAY SILTY SAND (SP-SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-5 S I E V E A N A L Y 5 1 S ' I D R O M E T E R 1.6' 3/4" 3/8" #4 #S #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 ' 100 90 Be 70 1 IL H N C1 C H 50 2 W U a 30 20 10 0 10 1 e.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND , FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION ' 0 B-5 33.50 LIGHT BROWN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-6 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 i ' S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y O R O H E T E R 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #3e #6e #100 #200 ' 10e 90 80 70 Z 60 M N N Q IL F- Se z LU U 0: L 40 30 20 10 e 1e 1 0.1 0.el 0.eel PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES coarse Fine coarse medium tine I SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION 0 B-6 7.50 GRAY TAN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE � K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA j I � ' PROJECT NO. 11-196-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION I C-7 S I V E A N A L Y S I S H Y R O M E T E R ' 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #S0 #i00 #200 10 0 ' 90 ee �e H to KLQ � se Z w ` i � 40 i 30 , 20 ' 10 • 0 _ 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES ' coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION ' 0 B-7 11.50 GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA . �L _ PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C_g ' i S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y D R O M E T E R 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" .84 iib #16 #30 950 #100 ii200 100 90 ' 80 70 Z 60 M _ N N Q I- 50 2 W ' U UJ 40 ' 30 i 20-- 10 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ' PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL 5ANO ' FINES coarse tine coarse medium tine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION B-7 16.00 GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K LEIN FE LD E R East Contra Costa County, CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-9 PROJECT NO. 11-19x6-01 S I E V E A N A L Y S I S I H Y D R D M E T E R I , 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" 44 #8 #is nae #se #100 X200 ' 100 90 ' . 80 TO z Be M C N Q b S0 F 2 lU U Q: A 40 30 2e 10 0 l ti I 10 1 0.1 0.01 e.e01 , PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND ' FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION ' B-8 11.00 LIGHT BROWN SAND (SP) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K LEI N.F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-10 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 I 1 ' S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y G R O M E T E R 3" 1.6' 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 lee j 90 i ,� 70 ' Z 60 H N N Q r SB Z w U tU 40 30 - Z0 1e ' e 10 1 e.1 0.01 0.091 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SANG FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine ' SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION B-9 11.00 GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E 1 N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-11 S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y D R O M E T E R 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 iib 416 ii30 #50 #100 X200 90 ' 80 70 Z Be N N N Q � 50 F Z V. U V. UJ'Z 4 0 i 30 20 - 10 el- le 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND 'coarse fine coarse medium I fine FINES SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION ❑ B-10 3.50 RUSTY BROWN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) I Bethel Island Area Project. PLATE K L E I NFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-12 ' PROJECT NO. 11-19-56-01 i S I E V E A N A L Y S I S I H Y D R O M E T E R 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" 94 #8 #16 #30 #60 #100 #208 10IN0 90 80 ?0 Z 60 H (n 1 a � se z w U a ae 30 ' 20 10 0 18 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine ' SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION B-10 7.00 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) 1 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE k" KLEINFELDER East Contra Costa County, CA ' GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-13 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 , i L S I c V E A n A L Y S I 5 I H Y D R O M E T E R 1 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/6" #4 iia #is 930 #58 #100 9280 ' 100 90 80 ' 70 z 60 r{ _ N ' N ' Q IL F.se z LU ' U D: W 40 30 lam 20 ' 8 10 1 0.1 9.91 0.901 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND ' FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION , ❑ B-12 3.00 BROWN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) 1 Bethel Island Area Project PLATE ' K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-14 ' S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y D R O M E - E R r i 3" 1.6" '3/4" 3/8" #4 iib *16 930 #68 0100 #200 188 90 80 Z0 r Z 60 H N N -r n. Q � 50 Z W U 1 CL a 4e 38 20 10 - r 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine ' SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION 0 B-12 7.00 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND (SM) 1 r ' Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N FELDER East Contra Costa County, CA r PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-15 1 S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y D R O M E T E R � 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" 294 tib 2916 430 #60 V100 4200 100 • . 90 80 ' 70 it I s Z 60 M N _ UI Q D. se F Z W 'U IU 4e 30 20 10 0 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND ' FINES coarse fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION , ❑ B-12 11.50 GRAY GREEN SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-16 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 5 I E V E A N A L Y 5 I S H Y D R O M E T E R 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 114 1111 1116 11,311 1"511 4180 1"208 100 F-Th 11 � � 1 I I I 90 80 Z0 Z 60 M N Q a se z w w Q: a 40 ' 30 ' 20 30 e ' 18 1 0.1 8.81 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GSAND ' ' FINES coarse RAVEL fine coarse medium Tine ' SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION B-13 6.50 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND (SP-SM) Bethel Island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County, CA ' PROJECT NO. 1I-1956-01 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-17 I 1 S I E V E A N A L Y S I S H Y D R O M E T E R _ 3" 1.6" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 100 90 60 ' TO Z 60 H N ' N Q a Sa I- z eu U a 40 30 20 ' 10 e 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE - mm GRAVEL SAND FINES ' coarse I fine coarse medium fine SYMBOL BORING DEPTH CLASSIFICATION ' B-13 21.50 GRAY GREEN SILTY SAND(SP-SM) 1 Bethel island Area Project PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R East Contra Costa County; CA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION C-18 PROJECT NO. 11-1956-01 APPENDIX D METHODS OF MITIGATION OF POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOILS ' This section of the report outlines several ground modification techniques that may be used primarily to mitigate liquefaction or the effects of liquefaction. These are: 1. Dynamic Deep compaction. 2. Vibrocompaction and Vibroreplacement. 3. Soil Mixing. 4. Pile Foundations. 5. Slurry wall cutoff and permanent site dewatering. The above ground modification alternatives are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Several contractors were contacted and have provided rough estimates of the anticipated unit costs ' for performing these services. The anticipated relative effectiveness, difficulties and estimated construction schedule based on our and the contractor's experience for each of the alternatives are also discussed. ' 1. Dynamic Deep Compaction Dynamic deep compaction consists of a large crane dropping a weight in freefall. Weights generally range from 15 to 30 tons and are constructed of box-steel and concrete, sheet-steel or mass reinforced concrete. The purpose of dynamic deep compaction is to increase the relative density of granular soils containing ' less than 20 percent fines. The treatment is achieved by performing a series of heavy tamping passes to. provide improvement to the soil base layers. These drops are generally wide spaced and are performed with a heavier weight. Subsequent to these, a series of closer spaced, lighter weight drops are made to improve the .shallower layers. For this ' project, use of a lighter weight may be appropriate throughout the improvement process. The use of- dynamic compaction on soils containing higher percentages of silt and clay must be phased since there must be ' time to allow pore water pressures that have built up to dissipate. At the site, fines contents are generally below about 15 percent and pore water pressure dissipation should occur rather rapidly. Further, larger areas aid in providing continuity to the project and reduces costly down time. We have discussed the soil conditions encountered with representatives of GKN-Hayward Baker and Geo-Con, Inc. , . specialty contractors in ground modification and site improvement. Based ' on preliminary discussions, we were informed that the cost of this method would range from $0. 60 to $0.80 per square ft. This does not include backfilling of the depressions nor follow up testing and monitoring to evaluate the improvement. We were informed that this typically costs an additional $0.20 to $0.40 ' per square ft. Therefore, total costs for this method of improvement may range from $0.80 to $1.20 per square ft. Maximum ' anticipated costs for this method .are estimated to be $1.50 per square ft. Please note that these values are rough estimates and , the actual cost may vary according to the abundance of fill material at the site and the size of the area that is to be improved. , Large vibrations produced due to the dropping of the weight could , affect adjacent structures, buildings and the existing levee. According to recent measurements , . peak particle velocities of 1.5 ' in/sec at 100 ft. , and 0.4 in/sec at 200 ft. are common. our concerns deal with shaking the existing levee and possibly causing damage. Liquefaction could also occur under adjacent homes. Evaluation of the effects of these peak particle velocities on the existing levee and. powerlines is beyond the scope of this report but should be investigated prior to ' implementing this method. This can be done by performing a test section away from structures. ' Densification should be performed laterally outward from ' protected areas to guard against potential progressive liquefaction. Progressive liquefaction occurs when high pore pressures in the liquefied soils generate high enough pore pressures to liquefy adjacent densified zones. ' Dynamic deep compaction may serve to reduce liquefaction potential, however it should only slightly aid in controlling levee underseepage and landslide pressure head. 2. yibrocompaction a. Vibrofloatation This method consists of using a vibrator, extension tubes and a supporting crane. The vibrator is electrically or hydraulically driven and utilizes eccentrically loaded weights that produce high centrifugal forces in a horizontal plane at a frequency of ' 1800 to 3000 rpm. The tip of the vibrator is pointed and may contain nozzles for jetting of water for easy penetration. 1 This method is generally used in densifyng clean sands to depths ' of 15 to 50 ft but can be used in shallower sand deposits. Sand backfill is usually used during the process. Vibrator diameters ' are in the range of 14 to 18 .inches in diameter and the zone of improvement ranges from 4 to 12 ft based- on the soil type and , vibrator power. The advantages of this system are that it generally. does not produce vibrations harmful to adjacent structures. The disadvantage of this method is that it is , usually not very effective on sands with silt contents greater than 15 to 20 percent. A few areas of the site may have greater ' than 15 percentfines and may not be improved by this method. The cost of this method is estimated to be about $2.00/sq.-ft , Trial areas should be performed to see if this method is applicable to the site soils. b. Vibrorenlacement Stone Columns This method is similar to that described above except that during the withdrawal of the vibrator, the resulting cavity is filled ' with a course-grained material such as crushed stone or gravel. The stones form a compacted column that acts as a support for ' structures. as well as a drain. The columns act as a drain to relief excess pore pressures that may develop during seismic events. , For improvement purposes, stone column spacings are generally , range from 4 to 10 ft. Capacities are generally on the order, of 10 to 40 tons depending on the soil conditions. The cost of the method is approximately $11/linear ft of column or $2 to $13/sf. 1 1 ' ' 3. soil Mixing This method involves the use of a crane-supported set of leads which guides a series of hydraulically driven mixing paddles and ' augers. As the ground is penetrated, stabilizing agents and other fluids are introduced to the soil through the center of ' each shaft. When the desired depth is reached, the augers are withdrawn leaving a stabilized soil mass behind that has reduced ' permeability, improved bearing capacity and structural support. This method is generally effective on fine grained, soft .soils ' but has been adapted for use on silty and sandy soils. The method is most effective in reducing permeability by construction of a continuous wall. Advantages are that there is little to no damage to adjacent structures, and there is no need for excavation and backfill. Cost of this method however, is considered moderate to high based on the type of stabilizer used. ' 4. Pile Foundations ' Precast-prestressed concrete piles can be used to support pertinent structures at the site. Piles will reduce the ' potential for distress to building structures in the event of site liquefaction, by transferring structural loads to an underlying non-liquefiable soil stratum. Disadvantages of piles are that they do not provide support for the levees, roadways or roadway utilities. Costs of concrete piles including installation range from $12-$16/linear ft. For the purpose of preliminary cost estimation, a minimum length of 30 ft./pile or $420/installed pile may be used. A pile design would have to be performed to obtain the actual lengths. Each building would require several piles. 5. Slurry Wall Cut-off and Permanent Dewatering As an alternative to in-situ densification and pile support, the ' potential for liquefaction may be reduced by permanently lowering the watertable elevation below the depth of the liquefiable. , soils. This may be accomplished by a combination of construction of an earth-bentonite slurry wall and by implementing a permanent , dewatering system to lower the water table. The slurry wall can be constructed about the proposed levee perimeter. ' Advantages of the slurry wall include: 1. Reduction of underseepage under the levee. 2 . Elimination of pressure head on landslide soils, . , 3 . Reduce the potential for liquefaction, 4. Site and lake construction. can be performed in the dry and, 5. Construction can proceed in phases by cutting off and dewatering a single village at one time. ' Use of a slurry wall and permanent dewatering has some disadvantages. These are (1) the short and long-term costs of dewatering, .(2) the need for lining or sealing the lakes, and (3) ' shallow subsidence and increased settlement as a result of the dewatering. Of these disadvantages, the most prohibitive is the ' cost of dewatering which is expected to be-very high. The boring logs indicate that there is a clay layer which may be , used as a cutoff, that ranges from 48 to 56 ft below the present ground surface. Mr. Rick Hanford of Geo-Con, Inc. , a specialty contractor, informed us that the slurry wall may be constructed using a long-armed backhoe, for about $2.00/sq. ft. The total area is calculated by taking the linear length of the trench and multiplying by the depth of trench. For preliminary calculation r purposes, a nominal slurry wall depth of 53 ft may be used for estimating the construction cost of the wall. Additional borings would have to be drilled to confirm the extent and thickness of the clay layer. Based on our conversations with the contractor, it appears that construction of the slurry wall would progress at about 120 to 150 linear ft/day. rDewatering would require well points or deep wells. Long-term dewatering might include the used of gravel drains and sump pumps. There are several factors affecting the costs of dewatering, and a dewatering specialist should be contacted if this method of construction is considered. ' We were informed that the cost of a placed synthetic liner for the lake areas would be about $0.30 to $0.40/sq. ft. As an alternative, clay may be placed as a liner for the lakes. The rrelative cost of the clay liner is estimated to be about $1.00 to $1.20/cy. provided on-site material is available. These ralternatives should be discussed with Harlen Glenn & Associates for compliance with their specifications, as well as with local ' earthwork contractors. r 1 r 1 i r i _ 1. . Bohley/Maley Associates Engineering•Surveying•Planning 5 t�►+t" ���x' CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY CLUB IDformational Report for THE PROPOSED LEVEE SYSTEM 1 August 20. 1992 + Pi-e-pare.d by: c J :�� • BOHLEY/MALEY ASSOCIATES 1875 South Grart Street Suite 550 .r '� San Mateo CA 94402 �= �-3GS•� 3 1875 South Grant Street Suite 550 San Mateo California 94402 • 415.358.1487 Fn-, • 415.358.1484 1 LOCATION The Cypress Lakes &. Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Centra Costa County. The project site, ' approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley, is bordered by Bethel Island Road to the west, Sandmound Boulevard to the north and east, and approximately Rock Slough to the south. See the following page for a location map. EXISTING SETTING & HISTORICAL INFORI.IATION The site, situated in the Hotchkiss Tract, is surrounded by approximately 6.7 miles of levees ' with all but the Contra Costa Canal levees maintained by Reclamation District 799 (RD-799). The existing levees do not meet the standards-of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) criteria for either the Short Term Hazard Mitigation Plan Levee (HMP) or the Urban Standard Levee. The project area,as well as the Hotchkiss Tract, is classified as "Zone A22" under the FEMA Flcod Insurance Rate Map and is susceptible to inundation to a deptli of seven feet above mean sea level. The existing levees are subject to tidal events of approximately one foot below the 100 year flood elevation, on an annual basis. FEit1A REQUIRI-:NIENTS ' In order for the development to occur, the project mist provide protection from the 100 year flood event occurring both interior and exterior to the project. The three alternatives to providing such protection are: 1. constructing'raised homes, 2. elevating the entire site to ' above projected flood elevations, or 3. building a new levee system to FEMA Urban Levee Standards to protect the site from exterior flooding, and constructing on site storm water disposal systems to protect the project from interior flooding. Considering economics, local, ' state, and federal requirements, we have determined that the most effective solution is to construct a zrew levee system around the project itself. FEMA requirements for such an Urban Standard Levee System are sumrnar.izcd as follows: , Provide sufficient. freeboard above the 100-year identified flood hazard elevation, incorporating storm surges and wave runup. ' Evidence that all structure.-. r:r pipes that penetrate the levee are fitted with closure devices are structural parts of the levee and have been designed according to sound , engineering practice. An engineering analysis demonstrating that no appreciable erosion will occur during the 100-year design event. An engineering analysis that evaluates the stability of the levee embankment and ' foundation, both statically and dynamically. An engineering analysis demonstrating that the design freeboard is maintained after ' settlement. An engineering analysis of the drainage internal to the levee system. t- wOf Z ¢ OH EL V5 0 o a- d LLIZ x m m m d02i QN`JISI 3RI38 W s �L z c? 'Q z � W J Ne'Oz �� D Q J m Cn O CD � to t.l W LJ n W i � 7 1� d z _ w � x a � a 0 z ' 3 BETHEL • ISLAND DUTCH """SLOUGH O Q O [C O. Z � V) 0 W m PROJECT z SITE o HOLLAND CYPRESS ROAD z TRACT , PROJECT , LEVEE RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 799 BOUNDARY PROJECT LOCATION ' NO SCALE PROPERTY LINE PROJECT SITE ' I HEIGHT OF LEVEE VARIES 2:1 DEPENDING ON EX GROUND ELEVATIONS. MW 10' ! MAX}7- TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION , NO SCALE 1 c 0 v Q' c � 0 _ Ln N 1 - Cm 1 c N 'N N 1 Li W J 1 O O cnN O T 1 zU U 1 a w O (/) O N O y W Z II 1 Q' w O J G c7 ai N O J , O 1 -X I V w -0 .6 U cn c > ~ m c O 1 u � � C N uJ O N 'J D_ O N ZY- C O a 1 ° 1 1 1 A formal operations and maintenance plan for both the levee and the internal storm drainage system. Technical documents that are sent to FEMA, are reviewed by Michael Baker & Associates who are under contract to FEMA to advise the Agency regarding the technical :merits of the data submitted. In general, the Army Corps of Engineers standards for levee structural ' stability and protection are the criteria used by the Agency's consultant. PROPOSED LEVEE CONSTRUCTION ' The project levee will be designed with a crest elevation of 110.2 (MSI. + 100), which is consistent with the ultimate required elevation of the RD-799 levees, and which is 0.2 feet ' higher than the FEMA required levee The proposed project levee will parallel the existing Sandmound Slough levee approximately 200 feet to the west of the Sandmound levee for approximately two thousand feet. A setback easement will be provided along the outboard side of the levee for raising of the crest elevation if so needed in the future. Material for construction of the levee will come from the excavation of on-site soils for the proposed interior lake/channel system. A report entitled "Evaluation of Proposed Levees" prepared by kleinfelder, Inc., and dated August 1992, provides measures to minimize the affects of subsidence and liquefaction as well as recommended techniques for stabilization and densification of soils. ' RD-799 LEVEE FAILURE ANALYSIS Types of levee failures iii the Delta region have included overtopping, foundation failure, and piping due to burrowing rodents. Generally, levee 'ailures have started small but then erode to sizeable magnitudes. This analysis assumes a levee failure occurring on the Sandmound Slough levee adjacent to the project site, and would essentially be a woist case scenario. Other assumptions contributing to this scenario include a tidal/flood event to elevation 4-7.0. The purpose of die following analysis is to evaluate drainage patterns of.flcod waters in dee event that the project levee is built and the Sandmound Slough levee undergoes a major failure. However, because of the cormlex nature of-a levee breach and the-fact=t a number ' of variables corn e in to play, our sn.-lysis has been simp;ified by holding certain variables cons tani. For e-ample, under all possible scenarios (overtopping, piping, slumping, etc.), erosion will occur which will allow more water over/through, which will then increase the , erosion rate, and so on. For this reason, erosion is not con3idered to occur. other than as discussed below. A second variable (slso connected to erosion) is that the area through which the water is flowing over/through •Hill constantly cliange due to erosion. To simplify this ' second variables, we have elected to assume a breach 50 feet wide through the entire Sandmound levee, with the bottom of the breach at mean sea level (elevation 0.0). This may t appear to be a doomsday approach to c analysis, however we beli;ve it recognizes the fact tl:at erosion,would occur, without tri:ng to quantify the erosional rate. With this geometric configuration, the breach would esser.tially act sirrlar to P.ow over a weir. The next consideration is that the ow through th13 breach will vary as the tide vzr:es, which ' 1 ' I ' for simplification purposes°will be assumed as'a sine curve. Depending on the stage of the tide, there will be a specific volume of water going through the breach per unit of time. For our case, the maximum overflow rate would be on the order of 2,435 cubic feet per second (almost 1,100,000 gallons per minute), which occurs when the tide is at its maximum stage. For one tidal cycle, therefore, a total of 670 acre feet of water will flow through this ' theoretical 50 foot wide breach. Of interest is that the backwater curve that occurs upstream of the breach (within Sandmound Slough) requires that the water accelerate tc 11.6 feet per second (FPS) to flow through the breach. Under any circumstance, this is a highly erodible ' velocity. Appendix A shows the relationship of flowrate and cumulative flow versus time for the theoretical 50 foot breach. Appendix B is a compilation of peak flowrate and total flow over ona tidal cycle for breaches of varying lengths. Since the existing RD-799 acreage is approximately 3,000 acres with an average elevation of mean sea level (0.0), to flood the ' entire Hotchkiss Tract to this elevation would take on the order of 10,500 acre feet of water, or, as shown in Appendix B, a breach of approximately 800 lineal feet. By removing the volumee of the project area from the Hotchkiss Tract floodzone, the breach length required to flood the reduced area to mean sea level reduces to approximately 400 feet After the water has pass;d through the Sandmound levee, it would tend to spread southerly, westerly, and northerly, if there were no project. For his pa-iicular example, the rate of spreading would he dependent on the specific flowrate at any particular point in time. An analogy wouldbe an alluvial fan, in that the waters wculd generally spread out in the form ' of a fan. Th: direction of spreading would be along the path of least-resistance. Under the project scenario, the top of the fan would be cut off by the project levee with the water flowing in both a northerly and southerly direction. The worst case, from a water velocity ' standpoint, would be for the theoretical 50 feet by 7 feet levee breach to occur at highest tide. At this stage, there would be maximum volume of flow along with maximum velocity of flow close to the breach. For discussion purposes, the "channels" to the north and south would each be on the order of 200 feet wide. As the water spills out of Sandmound Slough, it will go through critical ' depth which will put the water into a supercritical flow regime. As it flows down the Sandmound levee face, it will remain-supercritica,' (unless interrupted by a house, trees, etc.) until reaching the level area at the base of the Sandmound levee. At this or some other point, ' the water will go through a hydraulic jump which will release energy, raise the water surface, and decrease its velocity. Because of the above mentioned 11.6 FPS, substantial erosion may occur reasonably close to the base of the levee. This erosion will have the effect of ' increasing the depth of the water, thereby continuing to cause, and also containing, the hydraulic jump. Appendix C is a listing of the velocity of the water within the "channel" for various depths. The reason the velocities are so much lower than the water coming through ' the Sandmound levee is because of the width between the two levees within which the water can spread out. ' Focusing in on the area between the two levees, we find that it is on the order of_9 acres (200 feet wide by 2,000 feet long). Under the "Cumulative Flow" column in Appendix A. we note that a total volume of 1 acre foot of water has gone through the breach after a 15 minute ' period; 6 acre feet after 30 minutes; and 15 acre feet after 45 minutes. An approach to . 1 - r quantifying the depth of flow (and the velocity) is to assume that the total amount of water 1 that has gone through the levee during a chosen period of time will have some depth at the middle of the 2,000 foot reach between the levees, and zero depth at each end of the 2,000 ' foot reach. This approximation results in a depth of about 1.3 feet after 30 minutes and 3.3 feet after 45 minutes. The commensurate velocities are approximately 5 FPS and 2 FPS respectively. Although this approximation appears to provide answers, in reality the form of r the water surface profile between the two levees is rather complex. However, the one known is that wherever a breach occurs, there will be substantial velocities that would probably destroy any structure in its path. This is due to the fact that the greatest velocities occur at r the breach itself and would occur whether or not the project'is built. The likelihood of a failure of the Sandmound levee is a function of the type of failure. For 1 example, if adequate vector control is performed by RD-799, the chances of failure due to piping in the next 100 years (the 1% occurrence) is estimated at 1 chance in 20 (or, a piping occurrence happens once every 20 years). If the height of the levee is consistently maintained 1 at elevation +9 by RD-799, the chances of overtopping are considered nil since there would be two feet of freeboard at all times within an area that has minimal, if any, wave runup. The most probable failure mode is slumping of the levee due to failure of the foundation soils due to liquefaction or loss of strength of the levee soil itself. The possibility of this happening is a function of when the next major earthquake occurs. LEVEE ACCESS 1 The levees will be constructed with a top width which will allow access for maintenance and emergency vehicles. This will also allow the use of the levee top as a recreational path 1 interconnecting with other trails and paths within the project. Three points of access are provided into the project site, Cypress Road to the east and west and Sandmound Boulevard to the north. Access to the levee top for maintenance purposes.will be gained at these three 1 points as well as at a number of other locations within the project. r 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 t Bohley/Maley Associates Engineering•Surveying•Planning ' APPENDIX A ' FLOWRATE vs TIME iBreach length = 50 feet Breach elevation =0.0 (MSL) Height of Tide above Cumulative ' Time MSL Flowrate Flow (HRS) (FT) (CFS) (AF) 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.25 0.91 115 1 0.50 1.81 321 6 0.75 2.68 577 15 1.00 3.50 861 30 1.25 4.26 1,157 51 1.50 4.95 1,448 78 1.75 5.55 1,721 110 2.00 6.06 1,953 148 2.25 6.47 2,163 191 ' 2.50 6.76 2,312 237 2.75 6.94 2,404 286 3.00 7.00 2,435 336 3.25 6.94 2,404 386 3.50 6.76 2,312 435 3.75 6.47 2,163 481 4.00 6.06 1,963 523 ' 4.25 5.55 1,721 562 4.50 4.95 1,448 594 4.75 4.26 1.157 621 ' 5.00 3.50 861 642 5.25 2.68 577 657 5.50 1.81 321 666 5.75 0.91 115 671 6.00 0.00 0 672 ' 1$75 Smith(runt Street Srrire SSn . Snn N1.0co C-dirnrni.1 O.t,ino tic ^'^ '•^' Bohley/Maley Associates Engineering•Surveying•Planning 1 APPENDIX B ' BREACH LENGTH vs FLOW ' Breach Total Peak Length Flow Flow (FT) (AF) (CFS) 50 672 2,436 100 1,344 4.871 ' 150 2,016 7,307 200 2,688 9,742 250 3,359 12,178 , 300 4,031 14,613 350 4,703 17,049 400 5,375 19,484 ' 450 6,047 21,920 500 6,719 24,355 550 7,39 i 26,791 600 8,062 214,226 650 8,734 31,662 700 9,406 34,097 ' 750 10,078 36,533 800 10,750 38,968 850 11,422 . 41,404 , 900 12,093 43,83E 850 12,765 46,275 1000 13,437 48,710 ,1. 1,975 South Crant Street finite 550 San Mateo California 9.1.402 .115.3SR. 1.t R7 P, . Alq-3511. MR-1 , Bohley/Maley Associates ('+ Engineering•Surveying•Planning i � 1 APPENDIX C 1 WATER DEPTH VS VELOCITY (north or south) 1 Q= 2,435 CFS •1 Depth Velocity 1 (FT) (FPS) 1 0.5 12.2 1.0 6.1 1 1.5 4.1 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.4 3.0 2.0 3.5 1.7 1 4.0 1.5 4.5 . 1.4 5.0 1.2 1 5.5 1.1 6.0 1.0 6.5 0.9 7.0 0.9 1 i 1 1 - 1 1875 South Crant Street Suite 550 San Mateo C.•ilifornin 9.140'' . 15•358 1.131 115.358. 1487 Fax l • o Y� v x n r+rl r O a. 7 � N O j p Y Od .n a � ' V J c7 > w a 3 d x o o m a Y � r YV N U v u• � r„ d Z U O d 3 ¢ w W Y N 7� r •� 1 U N 7 0 a � o o C6 o CL p¢ � ?j• d U� c � �t c'f � L ? 9 i W da 7 Ur N L m s V orz� U� pC. ' �^ 0 o ca ,U 2 m u1 d r Q R v✓ o O N t7 � `� � � o 1N1� V d o 2 0 o o m Q Z o �p o• m. r w N Y� o U. 7U Y OCT 21 '92 16:38 027 P02 ' File No. 20-3179-01 October 30. 1992 Lynn Jochim Chartered Land and Cattle Company 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suito 400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Subject: TNI ORMAMN ON EXCAVATION TECHNIQUES, GROUNDWATER MONITORING, AND SUBSIDENCE CYPRESS LAHM PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA At ycnlr requaat, presented in this letter are comments regarding excavation techniques, groundwater monitoring, and subsidence to be used in response to concerns by adjoining property owncra. EXCAVATION TF,CENIOUES Due to the preser= of loose clean and silty sands to depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet along the perimeter of the project, It has been proposed to use Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) techniques to dvn ify tLow ivatcriala wxl thus, mirdmiz,C the risk of liquch ction within this zone. DDC is a technique that involves dropping a heavy weight, in this case approximately 10 to 15 tons, repeatedly at a given location. The energy transmitted to the soil causes the.underlying loose materials to densify. The weight can be either concrete or heel and is usually dropped approximately b to 10 times at the same location. no weight Itself Is '. usually square or rectangular in shape and on the order of 2 x 2 or 3 x 3 feet in dimensions. The crater left by the repeated drops of this weight may be 4 to S feet in diameter. Tie weight is dropped on an approximate 8 to 10 foot grid. We have enclosed actual measurements by Hayward-Balser regarding the magnitude of vibrations normally caused by this technique as well as the "safe" criteria established by the 1 Bureau of Reclamation and others. It is apparent that the accepted vibration limit corresponds to an approximate acceleration of 0.1g or a peak velocity of 1.5 to 4.0 inlsec.(at a frequency of 10-30 cps). On projeata with similar soil conditions, vibrations measured 80 feet from the ' point of contact by a 10 ton weight were considered acceptable by current standards. Using a heavier 14 ton welot increased the "safe" distance to approximately 150 feet. By this criteria, it is unlikely that homes situated east of Sandmouad Boulevard would be significantly ' affected by the DDC operations where a smaller weight is used. Copyright 1992 Kleinfelder, Irc. Page 1 of 3 OCT 21 192 16:39 027 P03 File No. 20-3179-01 M L E I N F E L D E A October 30, 1992 , As a procaution, however, instruments will be positioned at the property line closest to an adjoining residence. or with approval of the residents, adjacent to the home,and the vibrations monitored_ If,for some reason, the level of vibration exceeds accepted criteria,>h=either the size of weight or height of fall may be reduced to ensure that vibrations will be within the auzptable range. As an alternative, the loose clean and silty sands can be removed with heavy construction equipment and recompacted. Because of the granular nature of the excavated soils, it is very likely that a vibrating ships foot or pneumatic roller of some kind will be employed by the contractor to achieve requited compaction. Some vibration therefore, should still be anticipated although to a lesser degree than with DDC. We also note that additional noise and a longer construction period would result if heavy used to compact the underlying loose materials. GROUNDWATER MONTI`d'Rls"fG In order to accomplish the DDC work around the perimeter of the project, it will first be necessary to lower the existing groundwater depth. It is tentatively planned to install a dewatering wench on the inboard side of the proposed dry land levee. The depth of Buse ' dewatering trenches will likely depend on ground surface elevation and depth to groundwater, It Is possible that the dewatering trench might be 15 to 20 feet below grade. Concern has been expressed that dewatering operations would significantly lower the depth of groundwater in the vicinity of adjacent rmidencec 'alnng Sandmound Boulevard. 1t has been proposed that monitoring wells be installed on an approximate 200 foot spacing, as close to the existing residences as possible. It is prefcrrod that these monitoring wells be locked and located to tlm east of Sandmound Boulevard, closer to the residences. These monitoring weil�+ould be monitored daily for approximately one week to establish a trend and whatee�ru&faffects may exist, and ttsereafter on a weekly basis. The monitoring wells would be installed prior to the operation of the dewatering system in order to provide background level water dcpea3. Should di= n unhuring wells indiuttc a drop in groundwater depth of approximately 3. to 4 feet adjacent to the existing residences, then water will be discharged into the ditch that exisM approximately 20 feet from the outboard toe of the new levee. The purpose for&scharging into the ditch would be to create an artificial mound of groundwater adjacent to the perimeter of the site. This should stabilize and eventually restore the groundwater levols east of Sandmound Boulevard. In our opinion, gubsidetice monitoring involves a collection of survey measurements along , sensitive arcas. Since adjoining property owners appear most concerned, we suggest that survey hubs be positioned near the eastern property line and monitored on a monthly basis. The titne between readings can be further expanded should no movement be detected. In our ' opinion, because of the dense underlying arils, the likelihood of auhcidence is very remote. Copyright 1992 Cleinfet*r, Inc. Pepe 2 of 3 OCT 21 '92 16:40 027 PO4 • � File No. 20-3179-01 K1.EiNfEtDEB October 30, 1992 i We mist this provides the information requested. If you have any questions or need additional iinformation, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, KLF Elt, C. Ron Heinen., G.E. Regional Manager RH:md Copyright 1992 Clainfelder, Inc. Paw 3 of 3 OCT 21 192 16:40 027 P05 CCT-30-1992 11:46 FROM HAYWARD BAKER INC. TO 12099.86621 P.03 ' I ,o T III1 BLAST VIBRATIONS NIIH SOUND, rBIASEOr OBSERVER �. 5 TRANSIEIT NOTION, NO BOUND, 'IMPARTIALI 09SERVER Cr �1 a a rrnI cc( r 5 1 N � Q 0.5 r. o KANTELA IK J \• per. W CANIMO DEL REO \ 10 +of) Q 0.05 ti { UNION 61T.Y \ ' H g � ►O �-o n v.o1 1 10 100 h 1 twu DISTANCE - ft Fig.3 Vibration amplitudes from dynamic soil-compaction and ' human. response thresholds. TOTAL P.03 OCT 21 192 16:41 027 P06 DCT-30-1992 11 45 FROM HAYWRRD BAKER. INC. TO 12099480621 P.e2 23 r _ pYti�o. uAF a CYQ�0 i0 aq Al te Et a. t4t 1 y C a79 f E Y yvc '> vp `O O 'Ets wx w yux( Op►. G x+ m �6 eq a • ' Fi }, w I w vcik ' E psi bi .+ •���EOOO a r 1 -p = '+ s � � �' C � �8 � � •y � for � 1g$r M � g ��. G~ ,-p •G �•a u l: �^' N •Q iv 4 s C �• u O `,Cy= , •E aC�.s N •• C Fj 1 � A, or G .+ L4 O h S n:;; . p g . .+ w 1 .6 -� ° ■ '� b t. is p `a i� i+ O O ■ 'CLO Q N C • M! U .n N N U O_ "G �C too 4 .G�• i " =y S •.Yo` ~ sn. R � ,O 2 —� g p c •�� � ;� y 'ID wor ' -ul,su G �v p^a=V 109d N o eo g E a o 8 �� ��• OHO �Q •P �'�Y� 0 u ��,,. � � � w •'�'; ' yr o • w 3 �F. O P 'Z M L If �atrul`�11�1M�ovd oho� � OCT 21 '92 16:42 027 P07 146 glutin`Operations have very responsive overburden, wts uluMpIy 0.0055 lu by 3. Taklug this figure(0.0163 In)and looklug al Tablet 10.3 givcb tint accclerati a and its safe limits.Using the ground conditions of Table 12.2,we have for average over- burden 15 Hz,for abnormal overburden 5 Hz,and for rock outcrops 20 to 80 Hz.With the same overburden as in Table 10.2,the value to 5 HL.Interpolat- i11g between 4 and 6 Hz on Table 12.3 and comparing the displacement we find that it is a safe level. The Scaled Distance Formula: Another method for determining the safe limits for ground vibrations is the scaled distance formula. V� •, iD,) • where D. = 60, D - distance, and W s maximum axpin.iva wright, lb. Using the previous example. 50 lb at 400 ft, we find W = (400160)=. This would indicate that the blaster should not use that much explosive. Using the tables we found that this amount is acceptable,but the scaled distance formula does not permit it.Obvioualy the tablas are more accurate;however, TABLE 10.3 Acceleration . Frequency,Hz Pt) Ihsplaw- =W,in 2 4 6 8 1 0 15 20 0.24 0.1 0.38 0.86 1.s 2.4 5.4 9.8 0.22 OD9 0.35 0.79 1.4 2.4 5.0 8.8 0.20 O.Oeo 0.as 0.72 1.3 2.0 4.6 8.0 0.18 0,072 0.29 0.55 1.2 1.8 4.1 7.2 1 0.16 0 064 AIR MR 1.0 1.8 W, 3.5 6.4 0.14 0.055 0.22 0.50 0.90 1.4 3.2 5.6 t 0.12 0.046 0.19 0.43 0.77 1.2 2.7 4.8 t t 0.10 0.040 O.i6 �v� 0.36 064 t.0 Z.2 4.0 0.08 0.032 . 0.13 0.29 0.51 0.8 18 3.2 U.06 0.024 0,10 0.22 0.36 0.6 1.3 2.4 0.01 . 0.015 0.06 0.14 0.26 0.4 .9 1.6. 0.02 0.001 . 0.07 .0.07 0.11 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.01 0.004 0.018 0.036 0.064 0.1 0.4 0.008 0.0032 0.026 OA29 0.051 0.06 0.3 0.006 0"0024 0.010 0.022 O.Oa6 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.004 0.0018 0.006 0.014 0.026 04 0,09 0.2 ' 0.002 0.0006 0.0t7S U W7 u.uis U. 0,04 0401 `V/e Q0004 0.0016 0.0036 0.006 0.01 0,02 0.� nG/e 0.0008 aoaoa 0.0012 0.0020 o.00s 0.006 0. 0.03 /Q Gly 0.0006 0.0002 0.0010 0.0022 0.004 0.005 0.01 ux" 00002 0.0006 0.0014 0.0025 0.004 0.01 0.01e 0.0002 ' 0.0001 0.0003 0.0007 0.0013 0.002 0.004 0.008 • r 0.0001 .0.0000 0,0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.001 " .6.002 0.004 SOURCL Seismic Effects of Quarry Blaatin=,Bureau of Mines Bulletin 442,1942. Appendix F Will Serve Letter from Oakley Water District OAKLEY WATER DISTRICT P,OBox 127 April 30, 1992 3100 Alain Street.Suite 278 Oakley.CA 94561 510.625.3798 Fax 510.625.0814 Ms. Lynn Jochim Directors. Chartered Land & Cattle Company V.Wallace Allen 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 400 Bill E.Brandt Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Kenneth L.Crockett Howard Hobbs Robert Wightman Re: Cypress Lakes, Subdivision 7562 General Manager Dear Ms. Jochim: &Secretary: Leonard Celoni This is to inform you that Oakley Water District will supply water to the above referenced subdivision providing Attorney. all the District's regulations and specifications are met. Frederick Sold The area is not presently within the boundaries of Oakley Water District and would have to be annexed not only to Oakley Water District but Contra Costa Water District as well. Enclosed are copies of the District's regulations numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 109, Request and Consent to Annex Land to Oakley Water District, Procedure for Annexation of Land and a Schedule of Processing Fees for Local Agency Formation Commission. There will be proposed amendments to some of the District's regulations for the Board's consideration at the May 27, 1 1992 meeting. If there are amendments, we will send you copies after the meeting. Should you need more information, please let me know. Yours truly, (Mrs. ) Bonnie McLain Administrative Aide :bm cc: Jon Toyoda, Camp, Dresser & McKee REGULATION No. 1 L RATES AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE Section 1. Monthly Service Charge A monthly service charge shall be paid for each connection to the District's water distribution system as follows: Size of Meter Service Charge 5/8 x 3/4 inch ; 6.00 1 inch 15.00 1-1/2 inch 30.00 2 inch 48.00 3 inch 105.00 4 inch 189.00 6 inch 420.00 8 inch 720.00 10 inch 1,140.00 12 inch 1,500.00 14 inch 2,160.00 16 inch 3,000.00 Section 2 . Quantity Charge A charge of $1.68 shall be paid for each 100 cubic feet of water delivered by the District. Section 3. Payment of Water Service Payment for water service and water delivered shall be net cash on receipt of bill. The District reserves the right to add to any bill unpaid 30 days after mailing an additional charge equal to 2% of the amount of the bill but not less than $1.00, and to add the same amount each 30 .days thereafter that the bill remains unpaid. Section 4. Charge for Returned Checks If any check tendered as payment to the District is returned to the District unpaid, a charge of $20 shall be added to the payor's account. Reg.No. 1 page l of 2 Amended eff 1-1-92 Section 5. Reconnection of Service If a service is disconnected for non-payment of a bill a charge of $20 shall be paid in advance for the reconnection of the service. �. Section 6. Security Deposits a . A deposit with the District of cash to secure the payment of the District's rates and charges shall be made at the time application is made to the District for water service. b. The amount of the deposit shall be $50 or two times the - estimated bimonthly bill for water service, whichever is the greater. C . The District may apply the security deposit to any account owing by the depositor to the District that is delinquent for more than 30 days. The customer shall restore the deposit to its original amount upon receipt of notice of such application. d. The security deposit shall be refunded to the customer without interest upon termination of service or at such earlier - time as the District determines that the credit of the customer is satisfactory. The customer's credit shall be deemed to be satisfactory if during 24 consecutive months recently past during which the customer has received water service from the District all correct invoices received from the District were seasonably paid and no more than one notice of delinquency in payment was given by the District to the customer. If after refund of the security deposit the customer's credit shall be deemed to be unsatisfactory, the customer shall make a new security deposit within 30 days after a demand therefor is mailed to the customer. Reg.No. 1 page 2 of 2 REGULATION NO. 2 FIRE SERVICE Section 1 . Definitions As used in this regulation the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "fire hydrant" means a standard type 6" fire hydrant; (b) "fire hydrant connection" means all the facilities from the Water District's main to- the fire hydrant , including i the connecting line, riser and gate valve assembly; (c) "fire hydrant assembly" means a fire hydrant .and its connection; (d)_ "local fire district" means either the Oakley Fire Protection District or the Riverview Fire Protection District within their respective territories; (e) "private fire line" means a connection to the Water District's water main with a detector check assembly and extension to a private hydrant or sprinkler system by which unmetered service will be provided for the sole purpose of fighting fires and from which no other connection or use will be permitted. . Section 2. Installation of Fire Hydrant Assemblies (a) Fire hydrant assemblies shall be- installed and con- nected to the Water District 's water distribution system, and may be relocated, at such times and. at such locations as shall be determined by the local fire district. - Regulation No. 2, page 1 of 4 Amended 6-26-86 (b ) The installation and relocation of fire hydrant assemblies shall be done under the direction of the local fire district by a licensed contractor approved by the Water District. The installation and the materials used in the fire hydrant connection shall conform strictly to the water District 's standard specifications. The fire hydrant connection shall not be covered until it has been inspected, tested and approved by the Water District. (c ) The installation and relocation of fire hydrant assemblies shall be performed without cost to the Water District. Prior to installing or relocating a fire hydrant the local fipe district shall pay, or cause the land developer to pay, to the iWater District its estimate of its costs thereby incurred including engineering, supervision, inspection and administrative expenses . Upon completion of said installation the Water District will determine the actual cost thereby incurred . If the actual cost exceeds the estimated cost theretofore paid, the local fire district shall pay, or cause the land developer to pay, such excess to the Water District promptly on demand. If ' the actual cost is less than the estimated cost theretofore paid , the Water District shall refund the difference to the payor. Section 3. Ownership and Maintenance of Fire Hydrant Assemblies (a) The fire hydrants shall be the property of the local 1 fire district and shall be inspected, tested, maintained, Reg. No. 2, page 2 of 4 Amended 6-26-86 repaired, painted and, as necessary, replaced by the local fire district. (b) Fire hydrant connections shall be the property of the Water District and shall be inspected , tested, maintained , repaired and, as necessary, replaced by the Water District. Section 4. Private Fire Lines (a ) The Water District will provide unmetered water i service for .fire fighting to private fire lines of its customers who have separate water service connections. Said service shall be provided at the discharge flange of the detector check assembly . The detector check assembly and the connection therefrom to the Water District's main shall be installed by the Water District in accordance with the Water District's standard specifications provided that the Water District 's estimate of the cost thereof is paid by the customer in advance and the actual cost is .paid when it is determined. (b) The detector check valve assembly and the connection thereto shall be 'the property of the Water District and will be operated and maintained by the Water District. The portion of a private fire line from the discharge of the detector check valve assembly shall be paid for, installed, owned, operated and maintained by the customer. (c) Private fire lines shall be disconnected if any water therefrom is used for any purpose other than fighting fire or for testing such service in the presence of a representative of. the Water District. Reg. No. 2, page 3 of 4 Amended 6-26-86 �I I (d) Unmetered water service for fire fighting shall be � . provided at the following rates per month irrespective of the quantity, if any, of water used: Size of Detector Assembly Rate per Month 2 inches (minimum size) $ 14.00 4 inches 6.00 6 inches 10.00 8 inches 20.00 10 inches 35.00 Section 5. Non-Liability of District. The District shall provide water service to hydrants and private fire lines at such rates of flow as may be available from time to. time as a result of the operation of the Dist- rict 's treatment plant , storage facilities and distribution 1 system. The District does not warrant or guarnatee any pres- sure, range of pressures or any rates or duration of flow. The District shall not be liable for any damage in any manner 1 arising out of the non-availability of water, or water pressure at any hydrant, private fire line or other facilitiy used for fire fighting. 1 Reg. No. 2, page 4 of 4 Amended 6-26-86 Reg2 REGULATION NO. 3 CONNECTION CHARGES AND REIMBURSEMENTS Section 1 . Charges for New Connections (a) Main Extension Charge. Each applicant for Water service shall pay all the District's costs for necessary right of way, engineering,. labor, materials, inspections, administration and overhead in any extension of the District's facilities required by Sections 2 and 3 of Regulation No. 7. (b) Service Line and Meter. Each applicant for water service shall pay all the District's costs for necessary right of way, engineering, labor, materials, inspection, administration and overhead for installing a service line from the District's water main, a meter and a meter box for each water service. , (c) Facilities Reserve Charge. Each applicant for water service shall pay a Facilities Reserve Charge determined by the size of the meter installed as follows: Size of Meter Facilities in Inches Reserve Charge_ 5/8 $3,063 1 4,597 1-1/2 5,746 2 8,964 Charges applicable to larger meters shall be established by the District on receipt of application and shall be proportionally , greater than those for smaller meters with consideration being given to peak flow requirements. (d) Main Extension Reimbursement Assessment. Each applicant for water service shall pay a Main Extension Reg.No. 3, page 1 of 5 Amended effective 7-1-91 i Reimbursement Assessment determined by the size of the meter installed as follows: Main Extension Reim- Size of Meter bursement Assessment 5/8 $ 365 1 433 1-1/2 47.9 2 536 3 1 ,020 4 1 ,558 6 2, 561 8 5,374 10 7, 082 Assessments for larger size meters will be established by the 1 Board of Directors on receipt of application. (e) Surcharge for facilities in substandard streets. ( 1) As used herein the words "substandard street" mean a street or portion of a street in- the District that will ultimately be regraded by raising or lowering the existing surface elevation by more than 36 inches. The General Manager shall maintain a current list of all substandard streets that the Public Works Department of Contra Costa County determines will ultimately be regraded. (2) Whenever pursuant to section 3 of Regulation No. 7 the District solely determines that it is necessary, in order to furnish water service to an applicant, that a facility be installed in a substandard street, the District shall estimate the current cost of relocating the facility to accommodate the 1 regrading of the substandard street. The facility shall not be installed unless and until the applicant for water service pays Reg. No. 3 Page 2 of 5 Amended effective 7-1-91 the District the amount of the estimate. (3) If' thereafter the District solely determines that the substandard street will not be regraded in the foreseeable �. future the amount of said payment shall be refunded to the applicant or his assignee without interest. (f) Payment of Charges. All charges for new connections shall be paid in full at the time water service is requested or on the due date, whichever first occurs. The due date shall be 90 days after the execution of an agreement for installation of District facilities for water service, except that if the agreement provided for more than twenty new connections to the District's distribution system the due dates shall be as follows: ' - 90 days after execution of the agreement, the charges for one-fourth, but not fewer than 20, of the new connections provided for in the agreement shall be due and payable; - 180 days after execution of the agreement the charges for one-third, but not fewer than 20, , of the remaining new connections provided for in the agreement shall be due and payable; 270 days after the execution of the agreement the charges for one-half, but not fewer than 20, of the remaining new connections provided for in the agreement shall be due and payable; 360 days after the execution of the agreement Reg. No. 3, Page 3 of 5 Amended effective 7-1-91 i the charges for all the remaining new connections provided for in the agreement shall be due and payable. The charges paid shall be those in effect on the date of payment. Section 2. Enlargement of Connections. Upon enlargement of a pre-existing connection the customer shall pay the difference between the Facilities Reserve Charge and Main Extension Reimbursement Assessment then in effect for the new meter and the amount of said charges then in effect for the meter replaced. Section 3. Reimbursements. (a) Entitlement to Reimbursement. Each person who pays the cost of an extension of the District's water distribution system (herein called the "extender") shall be entitled to be reimbursed the amount paid pursuant to subsection (a) and (e) of Section 1 of this Regulation No. 3 without interest, less the cost of acquiring necessary right of way and less the costs of engineering, labor, materials, inspection, administration and overhead that would have been incurred for installation of facilities sufficient to serve only the extender's land. Facilities sufficient to serve only the extender's land shall be conclusively determined by the District, and in the case of pipes, shall be those in, abutting and within 100 feet of the extender's land of a size of not less than 6 inches inside diameter. ' Reg. No. 3, Page u of 5 Amended effective 7-1-91 (b) Limits on Reimbursement. The maximum entitlement to reimbursement shall be computed by the District on the basis of the maximum potential benefit to be derived by other potential users of the facilities paid for by the extender. (c) Reimbursement Payments. The District shall pay to each ' extender in January of each year following the first full year after completion of the extension that portion of the total i amount of all main extension reimbursement assessments, without interest, received by the District during the previous calendar year as the extender's reimbursement entitlement bears to the total of all unexpired reimbursement entitlements. (d) Expiration of Reimbursement Entitlement: An extender's entitlement to reimbursement shall expire and become invalid upon payment thereof by the District in full or on December 31 of the tenth full year after completion of the extension. Section 4. Facilities Reserve Fund. All Facilities Reserve Charges received by the District shall be placed in the Facilities Reserve Fund. Disbursements of ' principal and interest of said Fund shall be made only to pay capital costs of facilities that increase the capacity of the District's water treatment and distribution system or the capital costs of relocating facilities required by a change of the grade of a street as a result of new development. Reg.No. 3, page 5 of 5 Amended effective 7-1-91 REGULATION NO. 4 WATER METERS Section 1. Meters Required All water service connections to the District's water distri- bution system, except fire water service furnished in accordance with Regulation No. 2, shall be metered by meters owned and maintained by the District. Section 2. Location of Meters The District's meters shall be located opposite a District water main in or immediately adjacent to the portion of the street or easement which abuts a principal boundary of the land to be served. Section 3. Each Premise To Be Metered Separately A service connection and meter will be established for each premise to which water service is provided by the District. No more than one premise shall be served through a single connection and meter. As used herein "premise". means a parcel of real property, or any dwelling unit, store or improvement thereon which the District solely and conclusively determines as a separate unit for receiving, using and paying for water service. In making said determination, ' the District will consider such factors as whether the premise is used for more than one enterprise or contains more than one dwelling unit, whether it is susceptible of subdivision, and the plumbing that would be required if more than one meter were installed. Reg. No. 4, page 1 of 2 Amended effective 1/1/84 Section 4. Meter Readings Each meter will normally be read bi-monthly during the last week of the month, however the interval between readings may .vary. ' Meters will also be read between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days of commence- ment or termination of a service and when necessary due to special circumstances. Section 5. Meter Testings The District will test the accuracy of. any of its meters whenever a customer requests and deposits with the District the District's estimate of the cost of the test. If the test discloses that the meter is registering within 2% more or less than the quanti- ties of water passing through it, the deposit will be forfeited to the District. If the test discloses that the meter is not registering within 2% more or less than the quantities of water passing through it, the deposit will be refunded and the .District will repair or replace the meter. Section 6. Adjustment for Fast Meters . If the District finds that a meter has been registering fast, i.e. , indicating a greater quantity of water than actually went through the meter, the District will credit the customer's account an , amount equal to the total of the two previous bi-monthly bills for the service multiplied by the percentage by which the meter was registering fast. This credit shall be the customer's sole right and remedy against the District for an improperly operating meter. Reg. No. 4, page 2 of 2 Amended effective 1/1/84 i REGULATION NO. 5 TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE Section 1 Temporary. Tem Service Connections y The District shall furnish service through a temporary connection on the following conditions: (a) The General Manager determines that the service will be for less than one year and will not - require a permanent connection. (b) Prior to making the connection, the customer shall pay to the District its costs, as estimated by the General Manager, for installing and removing the connection. (c) The customer shall deposit with the District a sum of money to secure payment of the District 's charges for water delivered through the connection and any excess of the District's actual costs of installing and removing the connection over the amount paid in accordance with subsection (a) above. The amount of the deposit shall be three times the amount of the District's charge for water service for one regular billing period as estimated or verified by the General Manager. Section 2. Service Through Fire Hydrants Temporary service for construction purposes shall be furnished at fire hydrants through hydrant meters supplied by the rDistrict on the following conditions: (a) Service shall be limited to a specific fire hydrant for a specific construction project as stated in a written application for the service. ti Reg. No. 5, page 1 of 2 emonriPri 9_�A_on (b) The customer shall deposit with the District: as security for payment of the District's charges an amount to be determined by the General Manager equal to the current cost of a i hydrant ..meter plus the estimated amount of the District's charge for the water to be delivered. (c) The customer shall return the meter to the District's office for• reading; and shall pay the District's service charges every 30 days and. upon completion of the construction project. (d) The customer shall reimburse the District for its costs in replacing or repairing a hydrant meter lost or damaged while , in the possession of the customer. Section 3. Charges Applicable (a) The charge for all water furnished pursuant to this regulation shall be the Quantity Charge imposed by section 2 of Regulation No. 1 . (b) The Facilities Reserve Charge and the Main Extension Reimbursement Assessment referred to in section. 1 of Regulation No . 3 shall not apply to or be imposed upon temporary water 1 service furnished pursuant to this regulation. Reg. No. 5, page 2 of 2 ' REGULATION NO. 6 CONTROL OF BACKFLOW AND CROSS CONNECTIONS Section 1 . General fIn accordance with the requirements of the California Adminis- trative Code, Title 17, Chapter V, Sections 7583 to 7622, inclusive, no water service connection to any premises shall be installed or maintained by they District unless the public water supply is protected as required by said State Regulations and the requirements stated herein. This regulation supplements and supercedes all applicable ordinances, codes, and statutes and regulations of the Department of Health Services relating to water supply. Section 2. Where Protection is Required Backflow prevention devices shall be installed on the service connection to any premises having: ( 1) access to any auxiliary water supply, such as a well; (2) any substance handled under pressure in such fashion as to permit entry into the water system; 1 (3) any material dangerous to health or toxic substance that might possible be introduced into the water system. Section 3. Type of Protection (a) Each backflow prevention device shall be of a type approved by the District and shall be installed in a location and manner approved by the District. (b) A service connection to premises having an auxiliary water supply or internal systems containing water of deteriorated quality shall be protected by double check valve assembly. Reg..No. 6, page 1 of 3 Amended effective 11-20-85 (c ) A service connection to premises handling dangerous or toxic materials such as industrial plants, wharves, hospitals, mortu- aries, etc. , shall be protected by reduced pressure principal backflow prevention device. (d) A service connection to any sewage treatment plant or sewage. pumping station shall. be protected by an air-gap separation. Section 4. Installation, Inspection and Maintenance , Backflow prevention devices required herein shall be installed, inspected and maintained by the District or its authorized representa- tive at the expense ,of the customer. Section 5. Payment of Cost of Installation Prior to the installation of a backflow prevention device the customer shall pay to the District its estimate of the District's costs , including its usual overhead charges, for purchasing and installing the backflow prevention device. After the device is installed, if the District determines that its actual costs exceed the ' prepaid estimate, the customer shall pay such excess promptly on receipt of a bill therefor. If the actual costs are less than the ' prepaid estimate, the difference shall be credited to the customer. Section 6 Annual Service Charge Each customer having a backflow prevention device shall pay a , service charge therefor as follows: Meter Size Charge per Month 5/8" x 3/4" $ 0.25 1" 0.60 1-1/2" 0.65 2" 0.90 Reg. No. 6, page 2 of 3 Amended effective 11-20-85 Meter Size Charge per Month 3" 1 .60 4" 2.20 6" 3.75 8" 5.00 10" 7.50 12"" 10.00 1 - 1 . 1 1 Reg. No. 6, page 3 of 3 Amended effective 11-20-85 1 REGULATION NO. 7 CONDITIONS OF WATER SERVICE Section 1 . Service Subject to District Regulations Water service shall be furnished by the District in accordance with the regulations of the District from time to time adopted or amended by the District's Board of Directors. By applying for or receiving water service from the District, each applicant or customer covenants and agrees to be bound by and to comply with all regulations of the District from time to time in effect. Section 2. New Services No new water service shall be connected to the District's water i distribution system unless each of the following conditions are met: (a) The land to be served is within the corporate territory of the District. (b) The District solely and conclusively determines that its water treatment storage and distribution facilities, including, without limitation, reservoirs, looping mains and pumps, are sufficient permanently to provide a safe, reliable and adequate water supply to the ' land .to be served. In determining the sufficiency of existing facilities the District may take into consideration any fact or circumstance it ' considers relevant including, without limitation, future water requirements of all land to be served through the facilities, flows needed for fire fighting, and the effect the new service will have on the , present customers of the District. (c) There is a District water main of adequate capacity and Reg. No. 7, page 1 of S Amended eff. 1-1-84 i 1 ' pressure in a public street which abuts a principal boundary of the land to be served. If the land to be served has no principal boundary abutting a public street, there must be a District water main in a satisfactory easement granted to the District which connects the land to be served with a public street. (d) The customer must make application for water service and rpay the connection charges provided by Regulation No. 3. Applications for new service shall be in writing on forms provided by the District, signed by the intended customer or his authorized agent. Application shall be supported by such data as the District shall reasonably require, such as a map or legal description of the property to be served, -the date ' service is to begin, the name and billing address of the person responsible for the payment of the District's fees, charges and rates, whether such person is the owner or tenant of the property, and credit information. (e) All service lines shall be installed in accordance with 1 the District's standard specifications. Section 3. Extensions and Enlargements of the District's Facilities (a) The design, size, type and location of all facilities necessary to meet the conditions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 2 hereof shall be determined solely and conclusively by the District taking into consideration such factors as anticipated future land uses and water requirements of the entire area that can be supplied economically by the facilities and desirability of looping mains to provide multiple sources of water and multiple routes to move water to points of use. Mains shall Reg. No. 7, page 2 of 5 Amended 11-29-89 be extended to the end of new street paving when such extension is required by the County or a city. (b) All extensions and enlargements of the District's facilities shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved in writing by the District's general manager or engineer prior to commencement of construction. Section 4 . Non-liability of the District The District will exercise reasonable care and diligence to deliver to its customers a continuous and sufficient supply of water under proper , pressure at the meter. However, the District is not, and will not be, liable for any loss, damage or inconvenience to any person by reason of i shortage, insufficiency, suspension or discontinuance of water service or the increase or decrease of water pressure, when the same is caused by an act of God, and unavoidable accident, a disturbance or condition of any kind beyond the reasonable control of the .District, or when the same is reasonably necessary for the repair, maintenance, alteration or extension of any of the District's facilities. Section 5 . Customer's Responsibility for Water Delivered Title to water furnished by the District, the risk of loss thereof , and full responsibility for the carriage, handling, storage, disposal and use thereof shall pass from the District to the water user at the outlet of a District meter, the control valve of a fire hydrant of the outlet of a .check valve assembly. Reg. No. 7, page 3 of 5 Amended 11-29-89 i Section 6. Access to Facilities By applying for or receiving water service from the District, each customer irrevocably licenses the District and its authorized employees and agents to enter upon the customer's property at reasonable times for the purpose of reading, inspecting, testing, checking, repairing, maintaining, or replacing the District's meters, backflow prevention devices, and other facilities. ' Section 7 . Service Interruption The District reserves the right at any and all times to shut off water delivery for the purpose of maintenance, making repairs and alterations to its system. Wherever possible, advance notice of interruption of services will be given to all water users affected. ' Section 8. Disconnection of Service by the District The District reserves the right to disconnect any connection to its water distribution system without notice and to discontinue water service for any of the following reasons: (a) The customer fails to comply with any of the District's regulations; (b) The service is being furnished without a proper application or under a false or fraudulent application; (c) There is evidence of unlawful tampering or interference ' with the District's facilities by the customer; (d) The District or a State or County public health officer Reg. No. 7, page 4 of 5 Amended 1-1-84 i finds that there exists a condition hazardous to the health and safety of the customer or any water user of the District; (e) The customer fails, after notice from the District, to , remove an obstruction that prevents the reading of his meter. (f) The customer fails to pay any bill for any rate or charge of the District within 30 days after mailing or presentation, provided that written notice of intent to disconnect and discontinue service .is , delivered to the premise served or mailed to the customer's billing address at least 5 days prior thereto. . (g) If after investigation, the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources or the District finds that water furnished through the connection is being wasted or that the use or method of use of the water is unreasonable. Section 9. Place of Use of Water; Resale Prohibited Except with the prior written authorization of the District, no customer shall use, or permit the use of, any water furnished by the District on any premise other than that specified in his application for service, nor shall any customer resell any water furnished by the District. Section 10. Electric Grounds No electric circuit shall be grounded to the District's facilities or to any plumbing or metal in contiguity therewith. Any person who makes, or permits to be made, such connection will be liable for damages , to the District's facilities and for personal injury resulting therefrom. Reg. No. 7, page 5 of 5 ' Amended 1-1-84 REGULATION NO. 8 WATER CONSERVATION Section 1 . Purpose The purpose of this regulation is to assure that all water furnished by the District is put to reasonable beneficial use, to prevent unreasonable use or waste of water and to promote efficient use and conservation of water. Section 2. Prevention of Waste or Unreasonable Use All users of water furnished by the District are urged to take all reasonable action to prevent waste of water. The District shall have the right, following notice and hearing, to rimpose upon any water service connection such conditions as the District determines to be necessary to prevent unreasonable use or waste of water. Section 3. Conservation Measures by Customers All users of water furnished by the District are urged to take all reasonable action to conserve water. Among the actions recommended are the following: a. Periodically examine all plumbing systems to detect any leaks and repair leaks immediatelyupon detection. b. Prevent water from running off premises into street gutters. C. Install flow restrictors on all shower heads that will limit flow to not more than 3 gallons per minutes. ' d. Install displacement devices in toilet tanks to ' 1 reduce water use to 3.5 gallons per flush. e . Install aerators or laminar flow devices on kitchen and lavatory faucets to reduce maximum flow to 2.75 gallons per minute. f. Landscape with minimal turf and drought-tolerant ' (low water-using) plants. Section 4. Conservation Measures of District , a. The District shall vigorously pursue at all times a program for the conservation of water consisting in such cost-effective measures as are from time to time authorized by the Board of Directors. b. All water service, except through hydrants for , fire fighting, shall be metered. C. The unit rate for all water services shall not i decrease as the quantity used increases. d. The General Manager is authorized and directed to do the following: ' ( 1 ) Make audits as frequently as he deems necessary of the quantities of water received by the District and the quantities of water delivered to water users in order to detect system leaks. The results of such audits shall be ' reported to the Board of Directors not less frequently than annually. ( 2) Distribute without charge- water-saving devices to the occupant of each building newly connected to the ' District's water system. ' 2 (3) Cooperate with local school districts in developing education programs on efficient water use. ' (4) Make available at the District 's office .- public ffice ;public library and other public places, printed materials on the need for, and methods of, water conservation. 1 ' Reg.8 adopted 2-26-86 1 3 REGULATION NO. 9 DROUGHT EMERGENCY REGULATIONS Section 1 . Authority and Effective Period. These regulations are adopted pursuant to section .353 of the Water Code following a determination and declaration of the Board of Directors on March 20, 1991 that an emergency condition of water shortage exists in the District. These regulations shall , continue in effect until the Board of Directors . declares that the emergency has ended. Section 2. Reduction of Water Use. In order to avoid mandatory rationing of the District 's , reduced water supply during the drought emergency each user of water furnished by the District is urged immediately to take the following actions voluntarily and vigorously. First, reduce the quantity of water used to the greatest extent practical. ' Second, eliminate unnecessary uses of water. Third, take immediate action to prevent any water from being wasted. Section 3. Prohibited Uses of Water. The following uses of water supplied by the District are determined to be wasteful and are prohibited for the duration of , the drought emergency. a. Outside watering that results in excessive flooding ' or in runoff into a gutter or drain, or onto a street, sidewalk, ' Reg.No.9, page 1 of 3 Amended effective 5-22-91 i Section 7. Violations. If the District finds that any provision of these regulations is not being complied with it shall notify the customer at whose premises the breach occurs. If the customer fails to take prompt reasonable action to halt the breach the District may in its discretion suspend delivery of water to the premises, and/or install a device to restrict the flow of water to the customer, until the District determines that there will be no further breach of District regulations . The costs , as determined by the General Manager, of disconnecting the service, installing a flow restrictor, and 'reconnecting the service shall be charged to, and paid by, the customer. r r Reg.No.9, page 3 of 3 ' Amended effective 5-22-91 3 1 driveway or paved area. b . Washing paved or other hard-surfaced areas , including sidewalks, driveways, patios and parking areas. C. Washing cars , boats , trailers or other vehicles without a shut-off nozzle on the hose. d. Using water for decorative fountains or for filling decorative ponds or. lakes. i e. Flushing sewers or hydrants or washing streets, except for emergencies,' protection of public health or safety, or essential industrial operations. ' Section 4. New Landscaping. No area in the District which was not regularly irrigated ' prior to April 1 , 1991 , shall be landscaped, planted or irrigated unless the landscaping plan and irrigation system makes efficient ' use of a minimum .quantity of water and is installed, operated and maintained in accordance with plans approved in writing by the r General Manager. Section 5. Exceptions and Waivers. Written applications for exceptions to, or waivers of, any ' provision of these regulations shall be received and may be granted in any case where the restriction might create a hazard ' to the health and safety of any individual or the public, or would cause an undue and .unavoidable hardship. ' Section 6. Water Conservation. These regulations supplement the provisions of Regulation No. 8, Water Conservation. Reg.No.9, page 2 of 3 , Amended effective 5-22-91 2 i REGULATION NO. 109 ANNEXATION OF LAND J Section 1. Law Applicable. The annexation of land to the District is governed by the ' provisions of the District Reorganization Act of 1965 (California -Government Code 5 56000, et seq. , herein cited as "the Act") . This regulation is intended to supplement the .provisions of the Act and, in the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Act and ' this regulation, the former shall control. Section 2. Initiation of Preliminary Proceedings .by District. The District will initiate preliminary proceedings for annex- ation of land to the District if (1) evidence 'satisfactory to the District is presented that all, or a substantial portion, of the resident voters or property owners of the territory desire the annex- ation, (2) a map and legal description of the territory satisfactory to rthe District is filed with the District, and (3) the•proponents of the annexation agree to pay the fee herein provided. The initiation of preliminary proceedings by the Board shall not restrict or impair the ' powers of the Board in subsequent proceedings for annexation of the territory or any part thereof. Section 3. Requests for Annexation. Requests and consents for annexation of land to the District ' and/or to an Imprdvement District of the District shall be on forms provided by the District and shall be signed by or on behalf-of all the owners of the land. Reg. No. 109, page •1 of 2 J 1' Amended 3/25/81 i Section 4. Fees for Annexation. (1) No territory except streets, roads and lands owned by a governmental entity shall be annexed to the District or to an Improve- ' ment District of the District unless the fees herein provided are paid. ' (2) The following fees shall be paid to the District by or for the owner of the land to be annexed: ' (a) The fee imposed by the State Board of Equalization to process the annexation. ' (b) The .District's costs for preparing legal descriptions. and maps in cases where satisfactory descriptions and maps have not been , furnished by the owner of the land. ' (c) The District's costs incurred in noticing and conducting any necessary public hearing and- election ph- the annexation. J (d) The District's administration, engineering and legal expenses' incurred in processing::the annexation. Section 5. . Time and Method of Payment 'of Fees. The General Manager shall estimate the total amount of the fees imposed by Section 4 which estimated amount shall be paid prior to initial processing of the proposed annexation -by the District. ' Upon completion of the annexation, the 'General Manager shall determine the actual total amount of said fees and if the same exceeds the ' estimated amount thereof theretofore paid to- the District, the excess ' shall be paid to the District on demand. If the actual total. amount of such fees is less than the prepaid estimate thereof, the difference will be refunded. If for any reason the annexation is not completed, any excess of the prepaid estimated fees over the amount therefore , expended by the District in connection with the proposed annexation i will be refunded. Reg. No. 109, page 2 of 2 2. r _ REQUEST AND CONSENT TO ANNEXATION OF LAND TO OAKLEY HATER DISTRICT i ' Names of all owners of the land: 1 Legal Description of the Land: Note: Attach a legal description from deed or title policy. The assessor's parcel number or abbreviated ' description on tax bills is not sufficient. Hap of the Area: Note: Attach four copies of a map showing the land to be annexed, the nearest boundary of Oakley Water District, the nearest quarter-section lines and scale. Streets and highways shall be identified. The map must meet the requirements of the •County Assessor and State Board of Equalization. If satisfactory maps are not attached hereto, the District is hereby authorized to cause maps to be prepared at the landowner's expense. Registered Voters: The number of registered voters residing on the land is Consent to Annexation: The undersigned owner of the land above referred to consents to the annexation of said land to Oakley Water District and agrees. .to pay the fee for said annexation in accordance with Regulation No. 109 of Oakley Water District. The undersigned ' warrants that if other persons have a joint or common title or interest ' in said land or hold a deed of trust thereon that they have authorzied the undersigned to execute this request and consent for them and on their behalf. Dated : . 1 1 PROCEDURE FOR ANNEXATION OF LAND TO OAKLEY WATER DISTRICT General The annexation of land to Oakley Water District is governed by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Sections 56000 and following) . No land may be annexed unless and until the annexation is approved by the Local ' Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Contra Costa County. If ' LAFCO determines that land proposed to be annexed is within the District's sphere of influence and approves the annexation, the proposal must then be acted upon by the Board of Directors of the District. ' Request for Annexation The law permits a -landowner to petition LAFCO directly for annexation. . However, 'the preferred ' method is for the landowner to request the District to make the application to LAFCO. Forms for requesting annexation and indicating the information required are available from the ' District. Application to LAFCO If the annexation is objectionable to , the District, the General Manager will notify the landowner who may then petition LAFCO directly. Otherwise the District will request LAFCO to approve the annexation. LAFCO will notify the District and the landowner of the date of the meeting at which , the request will. be considered. If the annexation is approved, a • copy- of the LAFCO resolution to this effect will be sent to the , District. , Proceedings by the District If the owners of all the land 1 , to be annexed request the annexation, LAFCO will permit the District to order the annexation without a hearing. This is done by the Board adopting a resolution of annexation and sending a certified copy to LAFCO with remittance of the fees. If LAFCO does not allow annexation without a hearing, the District shall notice and conduct a public hearing as required by law. Depending on the number of protests received, the District shall terminate the annexation proceeding, order the annexation subject to confirmation of the voters at an election, or order the annexation without an election. Costs and Fees All .costs incurred by the District in ' processing the annexation, including the fee payable by the District to LAFCO, must be paid by the landowner as required by the District's Regulation No. 109. A copy of this regulation will be furnished on request. 1 r • 2 Effective:_ 3/91 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) -"r•�c,� OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Schedule of Processing Fees 11AR-2 11991 The following fees apply to both City and Special District Proposals: Fees for applications and requests for: U1s11: . Annexation, Detachment Formation, Dissolution, Consolidation, Merger or Establish- ment of Sub?idiary District, Sphere of Influence Update: 1) 2) 5 acres or less $ 500 5+ acres 1,000 Incorporation/Disincorporation ' Processing (any acreage) $2,000 Comprehensive Actual cost plus 7.5% Administrative Fiscal Analysis charges -- Payable in advance State Controller's review of Actual cost -- to be determined by Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis Controller- Payable in advance ' - ----------------- - ---- -- ---- ---------------------- 1) If an application affects two or more separate areas, a fee will be charged for each such area. An application to concurrently revise boundaries of two or more agencies by annexing or detaching the same area will be charged 1-1/2 ' times the specified acreage amount. If the same area is the subject of two or more applications to independently change boundaries of different agencies, a fee will be charged for each such application. 2) If an application, for other than sphere of influence update, incorporation or ' disincorporation, requires concurrent review and update of relevant sphere(s) of influence, the processing fee shall consist of the appropriate amount According to acreage plus $350. Environmental Review ' Costs associated with meeting the requirements of CEQA will be charged as follows.- When ollows:When LAFCO is not Lead 'Agency: EIR Review $250 (applicant must supply 10 copies) Negative Declaration $ 50 when LAFCO is Lead Agency: ' Categorical Exemption: $ 50 Negative Declaration: $150 EIR Preparation Actual cost plus 25% Administrative charges -- Payable in advance Applicants shall also pay all fees imposed on LAFCO by any governmental entity, including, but not limited to, any fees assessed by the California Department ' of Fish & Game and the County Clerk's Office for projects requiring a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (Public Resources Code 21089 & Fish & Game Code 711.4) Document Copying $•25 per- page ' Payment and Refunds Fees are due and payable at the time an application is submitted to the Executive , Officer. No further action will be taken until the subject fees have been fully paid. If an application is withdrawn by written request of the applicant within one year of being filed with the Executive Officer and before it has been placed on the Commission's agenda, the processing fee will be refunded, less $200. Waiver Provision The Commission may waive or adjust an application fee upon making a specific finding that the imposition of the fee would constitute a significant hardship upon the applicant, and further that the waiver would promote and further the legislative intent of the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. - Appendix G Will Serve Letter from Ironhouse Sanitary District IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT FAX Telephone (510)625.0169 3775 Main Street,Suite E • P.O. Box 1105 • Oakley,CA 94561 (510)625.2279 June 2, 1992 Patricia E. Curtain 3 Jgs< Gagen, MQCOY, McMahon & Armstrong 279 Front Street Danville, CA 94526-0218 REi Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project Hotchkiss Tract Area ' Your Matter No. 02-19018/lI.D. SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Service ' Dear Patrice: The Sanitary District will provide sanitary sewer-service to the above ' named parcels subject to the following conditions: 1. Service will be provided at the time of issuance of building permit subject to there being available treatment plant capacity. 2. Full Compliance with District ordinances. ' 3. Annex to the district if property is not within the existing district boundaries. ' 4. Payment of all fees and .pharges at times specified in the district rules and regulations. 5. This letter is issued as an indication that the District is willing to provide sewer service but is- not to be taken as a guarantee of service in the event the District is unable to ,provide _erYica for some unfc4--seeable future conditions- cr ' restrictions. ' Sincerely, ' David N. Bauer District Manager IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT ' D9:sp ws\cypreslk.bi ' cc: tract file Cron file r - Appendix H Cultural Resource Appendix 1 1 1 1 ilO=0 ...,F._ r%.N � ��T�M� 'tiJ yid • IMS IN 14 �.;i;;�;�{i: ::isrr�, h '1 � err► � ���� �- T ,fir'..{r-,s. 1p• j.a] .w l.Y' •;i cm.'. 4pb :[."". � � may- 7" X`r .^•i r ' Olkr Cx1'; vr'e'P \l9 � t cc pLpt;ICALLy • ARC YEE /x Air too TA Ta � � l -.ate i Figure...�� \ � 1Sensitive Area Archaeologica 1(Area CCo .647) i S & CYPRE RY CL'U'B Self Associates CQUNT w�lV Source: PR43ECT r-- 1. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RESPONSE TO COMMENTS) CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT County of Contra Costa, California SCH # 92023048 tMARCH 1993 r r_ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RESPONSE TO COMMENTS) FOR THE ,r CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT rSCH # 92023048 :r- March 1993 PREPARED FOR r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1 PREPARED BY PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT 101 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 210 SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94105 ,r TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. REVISED SUMMARY .� 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Description 2-1 2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-2 2.4 Alternatives Evaluated 2-3 2.5 Issues of Community Interest 2-3 1 3. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Project Location and Existing Setting 3-1 3.3 Project Characteristics 3-4 3.4 Proposed Mitigation 3-8 3.5 Project Relationship to Relevant Plans 3-10 3.6 Discretionary and Other Agency Approvals Required 3-11 r4. PUBLIC COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 4.1 Federal Agencies 4-3 A Department of the Army, January 27, 1993 4-4 4.2 State Agencies 4-6 B California Department of Conservation, February 16, 1993 4-7 C California Department of Fish and Game, February 3, 1993 4-22 D California Department of Transportation, January 11, 1993 4-27 E State Lands Commission, February 16, 1993 4-33 4.3 Local Agencies 4-41 F Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission, February 10, 1993 4-42 G Contra Costa.County Sheriff-Coroner, January 6, 1993 4-46 H Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 25, 1993 4-48 I Land Planning Consultants, January 28, 1993 4-50 J Reclamation District 799, February 11, 1993 4-53 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont. SECTION PAGE 4.4 Groups and Individuals 4-59 K Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993 4-60 L Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993 4-65 M Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993 4-78 N Bob Dal Porto, February 9, 1993 4-82 O C. Elaine Dannelley, February 10, 1993 4-85 P C. Elaine Dannelley, February.12, 1993 4-92 Q Fred Davis, February 9, 1993 4-108 R Dickson & Ross, February 16, 1993 4-116 �• S Darrell Edwards, February 12, 1993 4-135 T Vera Fatook and George Garcia, February 12 and 16, 1993 4-150 U Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993 4-156 V David Gold and Robert Henn, February 1, 1993 4-222 W Leigh Jordan, January 15, 1993 4-232 X KLH - Bryan & Murphy, Inc., February 5, 1993 4-234 Y Barbara La Fargue, February 16, 1993 4-237 Z Diane Maybee, received February 17, 1993 4-240 AA Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993 4-264 BB Manuel and Cecelia Peixoto, January 30, 1993 4-271 CC Mary Reeves, January 12, 1993 4-274 DD Mrs. William Sherwood, February 9, 1993 4-277 EE Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993 4-281 FF Linda Wadsworth, February 2, 1993 4-293 4.5 Public Hearings 4-295 GG East County Regional Planning Commission Hearing, February 1, 1993 4-296 HH East County Regional Planning Commission Continuation Hearing, February 8, 1993 4-338 5. ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A: CALINE-4 Input and Output Files , Appendix B: Preliminary Environmental Assessment Appendix C: Applicant's Letter to Reclamation District 799 I ii I I LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGE Table 2-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-4 Table 3-1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses 3-6 Cypress Lakes trip Distribution (Using higher trip generation rates) 4-30 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of Service - Comparison of Existing and Future Conditions 4-31 Water Distribution 4-127 State regulations that limit field strengths on transmission line rights-of-way 4-130 iii LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE Figure 3-1 Regional Location 3-2 Figure 3-2 Project Site and Vicinity 3-3 Figure 3-3 Project Layout 3-5 Figure 3-4 Project Circulation 3-7 Urban Limit Line (Contra Costa County) 4-19 Location of Williamson Act Contract Lands in the Project Vicinity 4-20 iv 1. INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR)responds to all written comments and verbal testimony submitted on the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project during the public review period. The 45-day public review period began December 31, 1992 and officially ended on February 16, 1993. During the public review period, the East County Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing (February 1, 1993) and a continuation hearing (February 8, 1993) to receive comments on the DEIR and the proposed project. The public hearings were held at the Antioch City Council Chambers in the City of Antioch. Written comments on the DEIR were accepted throughout the public review period. The Final EIR has been organized as follows: Chapter 2 contains a revised Summary of the Project Description, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Alternatives Evaluated, and Issues of Community Interest, and includes any changes made as a result of comments on the DEIR. This Revised Summary supersedes and replaces the Summary contained in the DEIR. Chapter 3 contains a revised Project Description and includes any changes made as a result of comments on the DEIR. This Revised Project Description supersedes and replaces the Project Description contained in the DEIR. Chapter 4 contains written comments and verbal testimony received regarding the DEIR, ' as well as responses to these comments. Comment letters are grouped into five categories: (1) Federal Agencies, (2) State Agencies, (3) Local Agencies, (4) Groups and Individuals, and (5) Public Hearings. Each comment letter is presented with the response to that letter directly following. Any changes to the text of the DEIR in response to comment is shown in the response to the comment and supersedes and replaces the text in the DEIR. Chapter 5 includes errata and clarifications on the DEIR. The information contained in this document, together with the DEIR, constitute the Final EIR for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project. This documentation provides the necessary information as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15090 and 15132, for Contra Costa County (the Lead Agency) to consider certification of the Final EIR. 1-1 1 2. REVISED SUMMARY 2.1 Introduction An initial study was prepared on the proposed project that was submitted prior to February 6, 1992 (date of the NOP). A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project was made available for public review and comment on August 13, 1992. The East County Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft EIR on August 31 and September 21, 1992. The comment period for the Draft EIR closed on September 28, 1992. Numerous comments were received from local residents, agencies and interested parties. The comments raised important issues to be addressed. To respond to these issues, the project applicant decided to revise the project application to provide additional information regarding the project design and mitigation features. Additional technical analyses were also conducted in the areas of geology and soils and hydrology in response to public comments. The County has determined that incorporation of the new information regarding the project application and additional technical analyses constitute significant changes to the Draft 1 EIR. Therefore, the County has prepared this Second Draft EIR to allow public review and comment regarding the new information provided. 2.2 Project Description The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley. The project site is located in the "off-island" portion of the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site is located at the junction of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, and is generally bordered by Bethel Island Road on the west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and agricultural uses on the south. The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and consists of several fenced pasture areas, with irrigation and drainage canals crossing the property in various locations. A few homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are jprimarily located along the unimproved portion of Cypress east of Bethel Island Road. The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would be constructed on approximately �. 685.9 acres consisting of existing parcels of land. The project would consist of 1,330 single- family residential units. In addition, the project would include a 18-hole golf course with amenities, a swim and tennis club, a man-made lake and channels, a day care facility, parks, a potential school site, and a fire station. The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from approximately 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The overall residential lot density is approximately 5.40 units per acre (1,330 units on 246 acres). The overall density of the project is 1.94 units per acre (1,330 units on 685.9 acres). 2-1 r l I Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) would be oriented toward the man-made lake to provide a lake-front living environment. A swim and tennis club would also be developed in this area to provide recreational opportunities for project and area residents. In addition, a day care center, park, fire station and potential school site would be located in this portion of the project site. The residential development north of Cypress Road would include a 18-hole golf course interwoven among the various neighborhoods. A clubhouse, driving range and storage maintenance facility would also be located in this area as well as several water channels. The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts. The primary mitigation measures incorporated into the project's design include: • Internal Levees stem around the project to remove the project site from the 100-year Y P J P J Y flood hazard zone • Storm drainage improvements including on-site detention facilities • Water quality management plan • Wetland mitigation plan • Ground subsidence monitoring plan i • Landscape plans • Channel enhancement plan • Energy conservation guidelines • Provision of a school site • Provision of a fire station site and facility • Preservation of cultural resources • Provision of parks and recreational amenities • Payment of affordable housing fees • Payment of homeless fees 2.3 Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures The evaluation conducted for this report included an examination of the environmental impacts associated with the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project and those measures that could reduce the identified impacts to insignificant levels. The project impacts and corresponding mitigation measures are summarized in Table 2-1. Additions to the impacts and mitigation measures in response to comments received on the DEIR are shown in bold and italics. Deletions are shown as struek thr,,,, The significance of each impact is noted along with the required or recommended mitigation measures. The significance of each impact with and without implementation of mitigation proposals is also noted. The following impact categories are used ' in Table 2-1: (B) beneficial impact; (NS) not significant impact; (PS) potentially or possibly significant impact (an impact which cannot be precisely assessed at this time) and (S) significant adverse impact. 2-2 2.4 Alternatives Evaluated Chapter 4 of the EIR describes and evaluates six alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives include: • No Project Alternative • Ranchette Alternative • Maximum Density Alternative • Low Density Alternative • Commercial Alternative • Off-Site Alternative The analysis of alternatives evaluates how each alternative would either avoid, reduce, or in some cases worsen, potential impacts when compared to the proposed project. This comparison between the project and the alternatives allows the public and decision makers to clearly understand comparative merits of the alternatives. This approach to the analysis of alternatives to the project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d). 1 2.5 Issues ofmmunit Interest Co v Several issues of community interest were identified during the public review period for the first Draft EIR, these include: improvement of the existing RD-799 levee system, construction of an internal levee system and the potential channelizing of floodwaters along Sandmound Boulevard in the event of levee failure or overtopping, potential ground subsidence due to groundwater extraction and construction of project lakes, impacts to the visual character of I Hotchkiss Tract, increased traffic and related noise and air quality impacts, impacts to plant and animal life, increased storm water runoff and impacts on local schools. 2-3 1 TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Note: impacts are in summary form only; please refer to specific topic headings for details.) IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; I Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) 3.1 LAND USE, PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY a. The project would add 1,330 dwelling units to the The project will pay a in-lieu affordable housing fee existing housing stock in price ranges between equal to $3,333 per residential unit. This fee should $175,000 to $400,000. The number of new units is be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for below the 2,909 new units allowed by the General the project. As an alternative to the fees, the project Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan applicant may construct a portion or all of the policy that development projects should be at or near affordable housing units on-site. If this alternative density maximums to provide as much housing as mitigation is selected, the Iocation and design of the possible. The project would contribute in-lieu fees affordable housing units should be submitted to the for affordable housing of $3,333 per dwelling unit County for review and approval prior to filing a final constructed, and in-lieu fees for the County's subdivision map. (3.1-1; B) homeless fund. The project applicant may consider providing all, or a portion,of the project's affordable housing requirement on-site by designating and constructing affordable units as part of the project. (B) b. Because the proposed project is predominately The project marketing should be oriented toward residential, the project would result in a short-term seniors and retired people to reduce commute traffic unavoidable impact on East County's existing from the project. The project's impact on East Jobs/Housing imbalance. (S) County's Jobs/Housing imbalance would still remain an unavoidable short-term impact. (3.1-2; S) c. The project would be required to pay the County's Protection Fee shall be paid for each residential unit Protection Fee as well as in-lieu contribution to the within the project to acquire development rights on County Homeless Trust Fund. (B) agricultural land (and open space or wetlands areas) or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. The fee shall be determined by the County and paid upon the issuance of building permits for the project. (3.1-3) The project will pay an in-lieu contribution to the County Homeless Trust Fund. The amount of the contribution will be determined by the County and paid,pro-rata, upon the issuance of building permits. (3.1-4; B) 2-4 .l TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) d. The proposed project layout would conflict with The project site plan shall be revised to clearly an existing private easement from the Dannelley depict the existing easement from the Dannelley property to Cypress Road. (PS) property to Cypress Road. This easement shall be maintained in its existing location unless otherwise agreed to by the property owner and the County. (3.1-5; NS) 3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. The addition of project traffic to the street network Road Improvements at Project Entrance-Construct a would substantially change traffic volumes on Cypress new intersection at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road between the project and Highway 4. Beyond Road, and on the approaches to this intersection. this location, traffic from the project would be more Widening should extend 1,000 feet in each direction. dispersed,but would still have a significant impact on To properly accommodate the proposed project traffic Highway 4 between Oakley and the State Route 4/160 as well as future traffic from other parts of the freeway. The traffic analysis assumed that portions of Specific Plan area, the intersection will have the lane Cypress Road would be widened. All other requirements shown on Figure 3.2-13. The south- intersections were calculated for capacity conditions bound approach will be widened with one more lane. without any additional roadway mitigation measures. This intersection shall be designed so that it can During the AM peak hour, all intersections would ultimately be consistent with a future extension to operate at a satisfactory LOS with the existing plus Byron Highway south of the intersection. Cypress project condition. PM peak hour traffic will also Road will cross the levee just east of the entrance to operate at satisfactory traffic conditions,assuming that the project. The vertical curvature of Cypress Lakes partial improvements are constructed on Cypress Road where it crosses the levee shall be submitted �. Road. One other intersection would be critically prior to final map approval. A 45 mph design speed impacted. At Neroly Road and Highway 4 (Main would be desirable. This project would include the Street), traffic conditions would change from LOS installation of traffic signals that would be put into "D" to LOS "E"., Mitigations are planned for this operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans intersection as a part of the ONBAG Program, traffic warrants. This is estimated to occur when the including widening the northbound approach to project has about 500 units completed and occupied. provide two left turn lanes. This improvement would (Note: this improvement could impact cultural �:. restore the intersection LOS to "D. The project will resources) (3.2-1) add significant traffic volumes to the roads in the immediate vicinity of the project. As a direct result Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard - of the project, Cypress Road will exceed capacity. Bethel Island Road is planned to ultimately become a These roads will require reconstruction and widening four-lane divided roadway between Cypress Road and at the time of project construction. (PS) the Bethel Island Bridge. This widening is not necessary as a result of the project, but there are interim improvements that should be accomplished. At Sandmound Boulevard, the intersection should be improved and widened, and left turn lanes should be 2-5 ^1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED i (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) constructed. Sandmound Boulevard should be realigned to a right-angle intersection at Bethel Island Road. This project would also include the installation of traffic signals that would be put into operation at ' the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants. This is not estimated to occur as a result of the project itself, but would be needed as a result of development being completed on Bethel Island. Sandmound Boulevard should be improved along the northern boundary of the project. (3.2-2) Cypress Road Widening - Complete the implementation of the Cypress Road widening from Machado Lane to east of Knightsen Road. This roadway improvement should be in place before 1000 units are occupied at Cypress Lakes. It would include the installation of traffic signals at Sellers Road and Knightsen Road that would be put into operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants. The widening of Cypress Road between Knightsen Avenue and Bethel Island Road should occur before occupancy of the Lesher Landing project or any other project that adds over 25 units in this part of the Bethel Island Area. (3.2-3) Sandmound Boulevard Improvement- This project , would reconstruct Sandmound Boulevard from Bethel Island Road along the north border of the project and along the project's easterly frontage on Sandmound Boulevard. The remaining improvements would be done in conjunction with other developments along Sandmound Boulevard. half of Sandmound Beulamt—Ard- from Bethel island Mnainder- of Sandmound Boulevard should be deRs in with othe developments along Sandimmound —Bei-de; (3.2-4) 2-6 1 i TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) Conformance with Measure C - The Cypress Lakes project would satisfy the requirements of Measure C by constructing the roadway improvements listed in Table 3.2-6(A). The project may also be required to pay a regional traffic fee for Measure "C" projects. This fee has not been established and is currently being evaluated by TRANSPLAN and the CCTA.The payment of these fees will help to mitigate the regional traffic impacts of this project. (3.(x:2-5; NS) b. The 1,330 houses proposed would generate 10,287 Bus Transit Service-While there is no current transit vehicle trip ends per day, including 730 trips during in the area, it can be expected that daily bus transit the AM peak hour and 1,036 trips during the PM service, provided by Tri-Delta Transit, would be peak hour. Trip generation for the various other provided to the Hotchkiss Tract and Bethel Island project components, including the golf course and Area when a significant amount of the development clubhouse, were estimated based on previous studies in the area has been built and occupied. The situation of similar facilities. (PS) should be monitored, and transit service should f probably be started when about 1,000 homes have been completed in the area. This bus route could be an extension of Routes 383 and/or 384 and would follow Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road to a terminal stop on Bethel Island. (3.2-6) Participate in County TDM Program - The project would be required to comply with the County residential TDM Ordinance, the County Growth Management Program, and the Bay Area Air Quality District regulations regarding transportation. TDM requirements of the County include the preparation and distribution of a TDM information program that could include the provision of maps showing available �- transit routes, and information on ridesharing and vanpool services to prospective home buyers. These types of measures can be expected to have only a relatively small impact on reducing peak hour trips. Other studies have shown that TDM actions applied to a residential development can reduce the number of single occupant auto trips by 3-5 percent during the commute peak hours. (3.2-7; NS) 2-7 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) c. The internal circulation system of the project Design level plans for the project entrance on should be modified to provide improved circulation Sandmound Boulevard should be prepared and and conformance with future development in the submitted to County Public Works Department for Bethel Island Area (PS) review and approval prior to approval of the fust phased subdivision map. The design level plans should provide for:adequate transition from the levee cross-section to grade at Sandmound Boulevard; adequate stopping distance;and adequate corner sight distance. (3.2-8) ,. Provide a right-of-way for a future roadway connection to the property south of Cypress Lakes, and construct the road up to the edge of the levee. This property could develop into a residential neighborhood,and should desirably be connected into Cypress Lakes at some time in the future, especially for school trips and other internal recreational trips. However, such a roadway connection should not be the only access to this new area, and should be provided only after Bethel Island Road is extended south across Rock Slough. This road should be treated as a secondary connection,so that it will limit the amount of through traffic that would travel through the Cypress Lakes development. (3.2-9) Provide a road extension of Cypress Road through the project to connect to Sandmound Boulevard. Certain residents on Sandmound Boulevard have protested this connection for the reason that they expect traffic from Cypress Lakes to impact their quiet residential streets. This connection would allow for more convenient access for existing residents, providing a connection to the future school site, and easy access to Cypress Road through the project. (3.2-10; NS) d. There are few bicycle pathways in the Bethel Provide a major bicycle path within the project on Island area. The existing width of Cypress Road is Cypress Road between Bethel Island Road and approximately 24 feet with no sidewalks or other Sandmound Boulevard, and on Cypress Lakes Drive provisions for pedestrians. Other streets in the study through the project:. This pathway should be designed have similar cross-sections. The project will increase to County standards. (3.2-11) pedestrian and bicycle traffic.(PS) 1 1 2.8 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) ` At such time as other roadway improvements are completed, complete other bicycle paths as required. This would include a pathway along Bethel Island Road on the west boundary of the project, a pathway along Rock Slough on the southern boundary of the project, a path along the Byron Highway Extension, 1 and a pathway along Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east boundaries of the project. (3.2-12;NS) e. Traffic generated by Cypress Lakes will contribute Intersection of Neroly Road and SR 4 (Main St.) - to cumulative traffic, and the project would be Widen the northbound approach to provide a double required to help mitigate these impacts by paying the left turn from Neroly to SR 4. This will improve the Subregional Road Fee. Most of the traffic impacts of V/C ratio from 0.93 ("E") to 0.81 ("D"). This will the short-term cumulative traffic can be mitigated to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.The an insignificant level. However, there are two Project traffic will amount to about 10 percent of the exceptions. The following mitigation measures traffic growth that is projected at this intersection. should be addressed by the Cypress Lakes project if The project applicant should pay a fair-share the Delta Expressway is not implemented, and if the contribution equal to 10% of the cost of the problem is not mitigated by other sources.(PS) improvement. (3.2-14) Intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4 - Widen the southbound approach to provide a double Ieft turn lane for traffic from SR 4 to Cypress Road, and widen Cypress Road on the east leg of the intersection. This will improve the V/C ratio from 0.87 ("E") to 0.79 ("C"), and will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The need for this improvement will depend entirely on the pace of development and the timing of the construction of the Delta Expressway. If the Cypress Corridor development moves quickly to implementation,prior to the completion of the Delta Expressway, this mitigation will be required. The need for this improvement will be reduced if the Laurel extension is completed, and the Laurel Avenue connection to the Delta Expressway is completed. Traffic from the Cypress Lakes project will amount to about 25 percent of the traffic growth that is projected at this location. The applicant should be required to pay a fair share fee equal to about 25% of the cost of this improvement. (3.2-15) 2-9 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) Traffic generated by the Cypress Lakes project will contribute to long-term cumulative traffic. In particular, the Cypress Lakes Project will have a cumulative impact on SR 4 in the freeway section between Bailey Road and Highway 160, and on the arterial section between Highway 160 and Cypress Road. The Cypress Lakes project will assist in mitigating these impacts by paying the subregional road fee. As a result, most of the traffic impacts of the long-term cumulative traffic appear to be mitigated to an insignificant level. (3.2-16; NS) f. Construction of the proposed project would result Contra Costa County has standard restrictions on in additional truck traffic on Cypress Road and SR4. construction activities regarding hours of operation, (PS) noise and dust control. Additional mitigations could include restrictions on heavy trucks from SR 4 during the commute peak hours. The project could normally be required to assist in maintenance of roads that could be damaged by heavy trucks. Since the major access route, Cypress Road, would be partially reconstructed by the project, this type of project condition may not be necessary. (3.2-13; NS) 3.3 AIR QUALITY a. Construction air quality impacts would be due to The dust control measures proposed as part of the dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive project plans should be made conditions of the project dust is emitted both during construction activity and approval. (3.3-1) as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing and grading activities comprise the In addition to the dust control measure proposed by major source of construction dust emissions, but the project,all construction vehicles should be limited traffic and general disturbance of the soil also to 15 miles per hour while on the project site. The generate significant dust emissions.(PS) 15 mph limit should be posted on the site at all times during construction. (3.3-2) In addition to the dust control measures proposed as part of the project, the project applicant should post the name and phone number (business and non- business hours) for the dust control coordinator along the perimeter of each construction site and provide this information by mail to reisdents within 2-10 r TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact �. After Mitigation) 1,000 feet of the.area of construction. (3.3-3) Earthmoving and other dust-producing activities should be suspended when watering and other dust control measures are unable to eliminate visible dust plumes. (3.3-4; NS) b. The daily increase in regional emissions(Reactive Comply with the County's Transportation Demand Organic Gases and Oxides of Nitrogen (two Management Program Ordinances 92-31 by preparing precursors of ozone), associated with the project and providing TDM information to prospective home would exceed the criterion (150 lbs/day). Therefore buyers. The TDM information should contain the project is considered to have a significant effect materials describing transit,ride sharing and van pool on regional emissions.(S) services. (3.3-5) The project should provide for transit stops along Cypress Road within the project site, along Cypress Lakes Drive, Sandmound Boulevard and Country Club Drive. (3.3-6) The proposed project design includes pedestrian/bicycle paths linking recreational and residential uses within the site (see Section 3.9). In addition to these facilities, bicycle parking areas should be provided at all recreational facilities within the project site (Golf Course Clubhouse, Beach Club and Public Ballpark). (3.3-7) While the mitigation measures discussed above would reduce regional emissions,the proposed project would still result in an unavoidable impact on regional emissions. (ROG and NOx) (S). 3.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE a. The project would result in the removal of The project applicant should prepare a Wetland approximately 0.95 acres of the 9.18 acres of Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan which is designed wetlands/waters of the U.S, on the project site for the to replace impacted wetlands by enlarging and development of project roads, single-family homes, enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. The goal of golf course improvements and project levees. This the mitigation plan is to create an additional 2.28 includes impacts to the primary drainage ditch ("main acres of seasonal wetlands by enlarging and drain")by culverting the ditch under roads and filling enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. Buffer areas 2-11 1- TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES �. IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) for construction of the project levee system.Filling of around wetland areas would also be provided. (3.4-1) wetlands/waters of the U.S. on the project site would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of The project applicant should prepare a Channel Engineers. (PS) Enhancement Plan which would enhance and widen the existing primary drainage ditch to a channel of approximately 8 acres in size. A new north/south channel would also be created to connect to the proposed lake. The channels would be sprigged with willows and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian habitat. (3.4-2; NS) b. The proposed project would result in direct The proposed project includes widening of the impacts to the primary drainage channel ("main primary drainage channel ("main drain") and the drain") through the construction of project roadways creation of additional channels on the project site to and project levees. Impacts would primarily be in the improve wildlife habitat and the visual quality of the form of placing the main drain in a culvert and filling project. The project. applicant should prepare a �. portions of the channel in the areas impacted. (PS) detailed Channel Enhancement Plan based on the draft Channel Enhancement Plan provided by the applicant. The Plan should be submitted to Contra Costa County,the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for review and approval prior to approval of the project's final subdivision maps. (3.4-3) To minimize impacts to wildlife movement along this drainage channel, road crossings should utilize clear span bridges if feasible. If culverts are to be used they should be as large as possible to minimize impacts to wildlife movement. The design of all bridges and/or culverts to be placed along the primary drainage channel("main drain")shall be submitted for review and approval to Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, Reclamation District 799, California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map. (3.4-4; NS) C. The proposed project would result in The project plans include a draft Habitat Mitigation approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands being filled for and Monitoring Plan which proposes to replace �. development of the proposed project. Filling of wetlands on-site,in a ratio of 3 acres for every 1 acre wetlands on the project site may adversely affect impacted (0.75 acres impacted to be replaced with 2-12 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) special-status plants and animals. (PS) 2.28 acres of new wetland) by enlarging and enhancing the existing wetlands on the project site and providing buffer areas around wetlands. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be reviewed and approved by the County, California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map. (3.4-5) Wetlands and waterways impacted by the proposed project are considered waters of the United States and therefore come under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Filling in waters of the United States requires a permit from the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project applicant is required to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before filling of any wetlands or waters on the project site. The type of permit required will be defined by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers upon submittal of a permit application by the project applicant.In addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, the California Department of Fish and Game may need to be notified regarding project activities in the vicinity of the main drain pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. (3.4-6) The project should pay the County Protection Fee,as required by the County General Plan, for acquiring development rights on wetland areas off-site. The Protection Fee should be paid upon the issuance of building permits for the project. (3.4-7; NS) 3.5 VISUAL QUALITY a. The project would result in changing the existing The following measures are proposed by the Project visual character of the project site to one of a Applicant to address visual impacts: suburban residential community -with various recreational uses. This change would substantially Landscape criteria for the proposed golf course,parks, alter the existing visual condition. This would be common areas, project levees and the channels. considered an unavoidable impact of the project: (S) Landscaping would consist primarily of low grasses 2-13 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. (3.5-1) Landscape guidelines for the proposed levee system. These guidelines are designed to be consistent with the landscape guidelines of the State Reclamation Board. A list of suitable plant species is provided as part of the guidelines. (3.5-2) A landscape strip would be provided outside the project levee to provide screening of the levee along Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. The landscape strip would be a minimum of 10 feet wide and be located sufficiently outside the levee cross- section to not hinder maintenance of the levee. The landscape strip should be planted with trees and shrubs to provide maximum screening. Maintenance of the landscape strip would be carried out by the homeowners'association or special district but not the public agency responsible for maintenance of the project levee. (3.5-3) Residential units will be limited to two stories not to exceed 30 feet. (3.5-4) Minimum setbacks along arterial roadways will be 200 feet, and 100 feet from the center line of the roadway to the exterior wall of any living space along collectors (Cypress Road Extension). (3.5-5) Sideyard setbacks will vary taking into account: 1) structures should not block solar access for heating and cooling;2)space between buildings shall increase in relation to their height; and 3) periodic view corridors to water areas should be provided. (3.5-6) Mitigation measures proposed by the project, or included as mitigation measures, would improve the visual character of the project site but would not mitigate the change in visual character to a less-than- significant degree. (S) 2-14 l TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED W (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) b. Views of the project site from Bethel Island The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized Boulevard,Sandmound Road and other vantage points once the public agency to be responsible for around the project perimeter would be partially maintaining the levees is determined. The levee blocked by a landscaped flood control levee which landscape guidelines should then be submitted to the would surround the project. The degree of impact . public agency responsible for maintenance of the would be higher for residences closest to the levee. levees for review and approval prior to the installation of any landscaping on the levees. (3.5-7) A landscape maintenance district, or other funding source consisting of the property owners within the project site, shall be established for the proposed project to pay for long-term maintenance of public recreation areas within the project site. The project applicant shall submit a proposal for the landscape maintenance district to the County for approval prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. 3.6 NOISE a. Existing houses along Cypress Road just west of Noise mitigation installed (soundwalls, architectural the project entrance would be exposed to a significant treatments), along Cypress Road for the project noise impact due to increased traffic by the year entrance to Sellers Road should be designed to 2000. (PS) achieve the County's 60 dB goal for residential uses. The proposed project should be required to pay 40% of the total cost of noise mitigation for houses along 1 Cypress. This is based on the calculation that the project will contribute 4 dB to the ultimate 70 dB noise level along Cypress Road which is 10 dB over the County's 50 dB goal. The remaining 60% of the cost should be paid by the County (40%) and future development (20%). The project's prorata share of noise mitigation should be paid at the time of filing each phased final map. (3.6-1; NS) b. Existing residences adjacent to the site, In order to reduce construction period noise impacts particularly along Sandmound Boulevard, would be the following mitigation should be. implemented: exposed to a short-term impact from construction noise. (PS) a. All general construction activity should be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays only. 2-15 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ' (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) b. Operations of any machine or device which generates a noise level greater than 95 dB at 50 feet should be prohibited wherever feasible. C. Route heavy construction traffic along existing Cypress Road and the proposed Cypress road to minimize the impact on existing residences. No construction traffic should be routed along Bethel Island Road or Sandmound Boulevard. d. Prohibit construction trucks from parking along existing Cypress Road west of the project entrance. e. Locate noisy stationary equipment, such as compressors or pumping stations away from existing residences to reduce their noise impact. (3.6-2: NS) c. Proposed housing along the extension of Cypress In order to avoid adverse noise levels at homes to be Road within the project would be exposed to a located along the extension of Cypress Road through existing and future DNL of 65 dB. This is 5 dB over the project, the project has been designed to provide the County goal for normally acceptable outdoor noise a 100 foot set-back along Cypress Road. The 100 levels but is within conditionally acceptable noise foot set-back would be from the center line of the levels. (PS) roadway to the nearest exterior wall of each residence located along Cypress Road. The 100 foot set-back would reduce the noise level at these residences to a DNL of 60 dB which is consistent with the County's noise goals for residential uses. No additional mitigation is necessary or proposed. (3.6-3; NS) 3.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE a. The project would increase the area of The following mitigation measures are proposed as impermeable surfaces and increase storm water part of the project: runoff. The proposed channel/lake system and storm drainage network would reduce the project's drainage On-site storm drainage facilities (lake, channels and impacts. On-site storm drainage that previously was golf course detention facilities)shall be constructed to collected in ditches and flowed off-site to RD-799 both protect property and to provide for public safety 2-16 I TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) pumps, would, for the most part, be collected on site by accommodating the 100 year storm event. (3.7-1) and terminate in the proposed channel/lake system. During storm periods when excess water accumulates Dewatering structures(discussed in the Water Quality on the site, waters from the lake would then be Section) shall be constructed at those points where pumped to ultimate disposal in Sand Mound Slough underground storm drainage pipes enter the by a pump station that would be constructed as part channel/lake system in order to facilitate the periodic of the development. (NS) flushing and cleaning of the underground pipes.(3.7-2) Drainage ditches shall be constructed along the exterior toe of the proposed levee system to catch that runoff from the exterior slope of the levees. The IIIIIIIII drainage ditches shall discharge into existing drainage ditches along the perimeter of the project. (3.7-3) Maintenance of on-site storm drainage improvements within the public right-of-way, or in suitable easements, shall be performed by the County of Contra Costa. Storm water pump station maintenance shall be performed by the public entity selected to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the perimeter levee. (3.7-4; NS) b. The 685.9 acre project site would be removed The following mitigation measures are proposed to from the FEMA flood hazard zone by construction of ensure proper construction, landscaping and a perimeter levee. Material for construction of the maintenance of the internal levee system. levee would be obtained from the excavation of the interior channels-lake system. The levee would be The design of the project levee shall be in accordance constructed to standards adopted by FEMA for an with the standards and requirements of the Federal Urban Standard Levee. (B) Emergency Management Agency for an Urban Standard Levee. Provisions shall be designed into the project levee to allow for a future increase in height of four feet to allow for the "greenhouse effect." During the design of the project levee, the crest elevation shall be increased by an amount equivalent to projected long term settlement. (3.7-5) The side slopes of the project levee shall be planted and irrigated to reduce erosion, and to provide dust control,in accordance with the limitations imposed by FEMA. (3.7-6) 2-17 , i TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED i (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) Adequate easements shall be granted to the maintaining authority in order to provide for maintenance and upgrading of the levee, and to prohibit encroachments onto the levee. (3.7-7) To minimize the risk of liquefaction beneath the perimeter levees, the loose clean and silty sand of depths of 10 to 15 feet shall be reworked and densified. Deep dynamic compaction and/or over excavation and compaction of soils shall be utilized to densify the soils. (3.7-8) The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized once the public agency responsible for maintaining the levees is determined. The levee landscape guidelines should then be submitted to the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levees for review and approval prior to installation of any landscaping on the levees (same as mitigation measure 3.5-7) (3.7-9) A detailed emergency evacuation plan based on the project's proposed emergency evacuation plan shall be prepared in cooperation with RD-799 and the governmental agency that ultimately accepts the internal levee system prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. The evacuation plan shall include at a minimum the following measures: • Criteria for determining when a emergency exists • Methods for notifying and evacuating area residents • Identification of agencies and individuals responsible for emergency response and public evacuation • Plans for returning evacuees to their homes after an emergency has passed. (3.7-10;NS) c. Existing soils within the project site would be The proposed groundwater monitoring plan shall be removed (for the lake/channels) to construct the made a condition of project approval. A final 2-18 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION.MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) proposed levee system. The proposed project would groundwater monitoring plan shall be submitted for have a short-term impact on groundwater as a result review and approval by the County prior to filing a of dewatering of near-surface groundwater for final subdivision map. (3.7-11; NS) excavation for the internal levees, lake, channels and .. installation of utilities. The localized dewatering activities would not affect adjacent properties because dewatering would occur far enough from existing residences and draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering area.In addition,the project plans include a groundwater monitoring plan. (PS) d. The project would not have an impact on the The project site shall continue to be a part of RD-799 condition of the existing RD-799 levee system. and shall be prohibited from seceding from this However, the project site does provide funding for district, even if removed from the flood hazard zone continued maintenance of the RD-799 levee system by the proposed internal levee system, to provide the and RD-799 may ultimately be responsible for district with a continued long-term source of funding maintenance of the proposed levee system. (PS) for maintenance of the existing RD-799 levee system. (3.7-12; NS) e. Increased surface runoff from the new impervious A final maintenance plan for the Golf Course shall be surfaces and the golf course may have impacts on the submitted for review and approval by the County, water quality of the channels-lake and ultimately the prior to filing a final subdivision map. The final Delta. Urban runoff can contain substantial quantities maintenance plan shall build on the maintenance of pollutants such as organic pesticides,heavy metals, criteria established in the project plans and identify nutrients, petroleum products, and suspended solids. standard maintenance and management practices to be To address this potential impact, the project plans carried out on the Golf Course. Specific maintenance include a water quality management plan and procedures shall be identified regarding the use of maintenance criteria for the golf course. However, pesticides,herbicides,and fertilizers. An emphasis of proper implementation is necessary to ensure adequate the maintenance plan should be to reduce potential water quality. (PS) leaching into local groundwater resources. The maintenance and management plan shall also outline specific irrigation practices designed to reduce water consumption. (3.7-13) - An informational packet shall be distributed to all project residents to educate them on the use and disposal of undesirable materials such as motor oil, paints, garden pesticides and other household products. The informational packet should be contained in the CC&Rs for each house. The 2-19 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) Fesidents upon pufGhase of each 3.7-14) A street sweeping program shall be provided to reduce urban pollutant run off into the proposed lake and channels. The street sweeping may be provided by the County through its existing street sweeping program. If this is not feasible, alternative measures could include funding of the street sweeping program by the homeowner's association. (3.7-15) A final channel-lake operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to filing a final subdivision map. The plan shall be based on the applicant's proposed lake-channel management plans utilizing plants, flushing, aeration and other techniques to maintain water quality without chemicals. (3.7-16) The project shall comply with all the requirements of the County's NPDES permit requirements. The project applicant shall provide the County with the appropriate documentation regarding compliance with NPDES requirements prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. (3.7-17; NS) 3.8 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS a. The project would expose new structures to the The project plans include the following mitigation potential impacts of liquefaction. Due to the measures: "Generally High" liquefaction potential on the project site and County policies, this impact would be Excavate,rework and densify the loose clean and silty considered potentially significant. (PS) sands under the Ievee to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) techniques could also be used. These techniques could involve dropping a heavy weight repeatedly at a given location. (3.8-1) If Deep Dynamic Compaction is used,vibration from this construction technique would be monitored along the property line closest to adjacent residences. 2-?0 r I �l TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) However,vibration from DDC would not be expected to exceed safe limits beyond 150 feet from the excavation site and therefore would not affect any adjacent residences. (3.8-2) The following mitigation measures are proposed in addition to those measures proposed as part of the project: The Kleinfelder report analyzed alternative approaches for mitigating liquefaction impacts. The project should be required to adhere to these approaches. The specific approach will depend on site-specific conditions and analysis. However, the project applicant should follow the reviewed and approved recommendation of the Kleinfelder report. A report documenting the methods used in the field to reduce liquefaction potential should be submitted to the Public Works Department and the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levee system. (3.8-5) Building plans for each structure to be constructed on the project site shall include an evaluation and recommendations to ensure satisfactory performance in the event of an earthquake and liquefaction on the project site. The building plans shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa County prior to the issuance of building permits. (3.8-8; NS) b. Construction of the project would result in grading The project plans include the following mitigation over much of the site for construction of the proposed measure: homes, golf course, lakes and other facilities. These activities would expose soils to wind and water Existing vegetated areas should be left erosion. Because the site is located in an area of undisturbed until construction of site strong winds, wind erosion could result in a improvements is actually ready to significant loss of soil without mitigation.(PS) commence. • All disturbed areas should be protected from both wind and water erosion upon the completion of grading activities. 1 2-21 i Ql / I TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ' (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) • Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction, if practical. • Temporary check dams, sediment ponds, or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded , soils, and prevent their discharge into storm drain pipes. • To the extent possible, major site development work involving earth moving and excavations should be scheduled for the dry season. • Areas used for stockpiling and staging construction equipment and materials should be located so that unchecked runoff from these areas does not enter the storm drain system. (3.8-4) The following mitigation measure is proposed in addition to the measures proposed as part of the project: Post at the construction site the name and phone number of a designated dust control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust- producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. In addition contractors shall implement, at a minimum, the following measures: 1) Schedule earthmoving activities,as much as possible, during the early spring months when soil moisture is high. 2) Suspend earthmoving or other dust-producing activities during periods of extreme winds. 3) Provide equipment and staffing for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before 2-22 1 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) application, should be utilized. 4) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 5) Sweep adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later resuspended by vehicle traffic. 6) Where possible, limit the speed of all construction vehicles to 15 miles per hour while on site. 7) Seed, cover or chemically treat finished grades as soon as practical after completion of activities. (3.8-7; NS) ac. The potential for subsidence from dewatering The following measure is proposed as part of the would be short-term (only during dewatering project plans: activities)and would only occur in the immediate area of dewatering activities. Dewatering activities are Groundwater monitoring plans to provide early expected to occur during the excavation for the lake detection of changes in the groundwater level and to and channels, construction of the levee and allow adjustments in the construction techniques if installation of underground utilities. Dewatering necessary. Monitoring wells and settlement plates activities would effect the top 15 to 20 feet, which would be placed on the project site and surrounding would not impact most domestic wells which are properties to control the groundwater level. (3.8-3) generally below the depth of the dewatering activities (Bohely, 1992). The localized dewatering activities The following mitigation measure is proposed in would not cause subsidence on adjacent properties addition to those measures proposed by the project: because draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering The ground settlement monitoring plan should be area. (PS) finalized and submitted to the County for review and approval prior to beginning any construction or dewatering activities. The plan shall identify the �. location of all monitoring wells,and provide specifics on well completion and the method and frequency of monitoring. Similarly, the plan shall identify settlement plates as well as contingency plans to control subsidence or mitigate subsidence related damage. (3.8-6; NS) 2-23 r � TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES a. The project would increase fire protection service The project proposes to dedicate a site and construct demands on the fire districts by increasing the number a new fire station on the project site in lieu of fire of structures and population within the project area. protection fees as determined by the County. The site To reduce the project's impacts on fire services, the and station should meet all applicable requirements of project would include construction of a fire station the appropriate Fire District (Oakley FPD or Bethel near the project entrance at Cypress Road. This Island FPD). The fire station should be operational station would satisfy the County's standard that fire prior to the first homes on the site being occupied. If stations be located within one and one-half miles of necessary a special district fee may be augmented to development,and satisfactory to the Bethel Island and provide adequate funding to fully staff the new Oakley Fire Districts for maintaining the five minute station. (3.9-1) / 1.5 mile response standard. The proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have an adverse impacts If the project is required to pay fees, the Fire District on fire protection facilities.(NS) fees shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of the issuing of building permits. (3.9-2) All building plans shall meet the applicable Uniform Building and Fire codes. Fire protection agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the projects. (3.9-3) b. The project would result in the addition of The proposed project should pay a fair-share fee equal approximately 3,247 persons population within the to the cost of providing 465 square feet of new County sheriff's service area. This would result in Sheriff Department facilities, based on the County the need for new officer positions and equipment.(PS) standard of 155 square feet per 1,000 residents. The fee should be calculated and paid at the time of issuance of building permits for the project. (3.9-4; NS) c. The project would generate approximately 665 The applicant and the school district shall enter into new elementary and middle school enrollments and a short-term funding agreement prior to recordation approximately 253 new high school enrollments. of the subdivision map. The agreement shall ensure Based on the project's student generation and the that matching funds are provided for the completion local school district's school facility requirements,the of construction documents necessary for the proposed project would require the construction of district's application(s) for State funding. The approximately one new elementary school, 30% of a amount of short-term funding would be credited to new middle schools,and 20%of a new High Schools. the applicant's full school impact fees which are The project includes a possible school site of paid upon issuance of building permits. gra#ieel approximately 7.4 acres. This site is proposed to 2-24 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) mitigate the project's impacts on the local school time of issuing buildia .3.9-5) district. The OUESD has indicated that a 10 acre school site would be desired.(PS) School impact fees are projected to be insufficient to cover the projeci's share of facilities required to serve new students in the area. If no state or local funding is available,the applicant should work with the school districts to determine additional school fees to be paid as building permits are issued. (3.9-6) The school site should be enlarged from 7.4 acres to 10 acres to meet the OEUSD requirements. (3.9-7) If the proposed on-site school site is determined by the OUESD to be unacceptable, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee to the OUESD for the purchase of an appropriate school site. (3.9-8; NS) d. The project would include 170 acre semi-private The following mitigation measures are proposed to golf course, 60 acres of channels and lake,a 1.5 acre ensure proper maintenance of park facilities and beach club, approximately 33 acres of parks, and a compliance with County policy: day care facility. The project is consistent with the park land/recreation requirements of the County. (B) The project proposes to construct and dedicate the large community park to the County which would then be responsible for continued maintenance of the park. If this is unacceptable to the County, funding for maintenance of the community park should be provided through a special district. (3.9-9) The community park should be designed so that active recreational use areas are located outside the power line easement. Active uses to be located outside the easement include: baseball diamonds, soccer fields and play ground areas. Uses permitted within the easement should be passive recreation and landscape areas. (3.9-10) The project applicant shall prepare a child care needs assessment based upon the projected demographics and density of the proposed project. The needs assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Plan prior to approval of the final phase 2-25 l TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED 1 (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) map for the portion of the project which includes the day care site. (3.9-11; NS) e. The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District CCMAD should be provided the final design plans for (CCMAD)notes that the environmental conditions in wetland mitigation areas and golf course maintenance the area indicate that the project would cause an and irrigation for review and comment prior to their increase in the level of service required from approval. (3.9-12; NS) CCMAD. Golf courses, parks and water detention basins proposed as part of the project can lead to mosquito problems year round. (PS) 3.10 UTILITIES a. Water requirements for the project would amount Implement a groundwater management plan to address to approximately 1.7 million gallons per day (mgd). water requirements for irrigating the golf course and This can be broken down into 884,150 mgd for parks and to monitor changes in the groundwater domestic use and 805,200 mgd for landscaping. The table. The groundwater management plan should also project is proposing to utilize existing groundwater address the management of pesticides and measures resources for irrigation of the golf course, parks, to be taken to reduce potential impacts on wetlands, and certain levee areas. The Oakley Water groundwater resources. In addition, the plan should District appears to be the logical provider of domestic identify what areas,and in what sequence, water will water service to the proposed project and has be discontinued to portions of the golf course and provided a "will serve" letter to the project applicant parks in the event of water cutbacks because of confirming that water capacity is available to serve drought or substantial lowering of the water table. this project through its buildout. The plan should be approved by the County prior to (PS) filing a final subdivision map. (3.10-1) Design into the golf course the use of grasses that are drought tolerant to limit the amount of water necessary for irrigation. (3.10-2) Require all structures to confirm to the California Health and Safety Code Section 1792.3 and the Public Resources Code Section 25402 with regard to maximum flow rates through plumbing fixtures. (3.10-3) Provide homeowners with alternative landscaping opportunities such as xeriscape landscaping for builder installed front yards. (3.10-4) 2-26 j . t �t. TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) Design water distribution systems in accordance with American Water Works Association standards. (3.10- 5) Install cathodic protection where corrosive environments are found, and use metallic water line products. (3.10-6) Install cathodicP rotection where corrosive environments are found and metallic water line products must be used. (3.10-7; NS) b. The project proposes to obtain its domestic water The project should be required to construct, or pay a supply from the existing OWD mains located at the fee equal to, the necessary off-site water system �. intersection of Highway 4 and Cypress Road in improvements to serve the proposed project. The size Oakley. From that point,the project would construct and design of these facilities should meet all two separate 12" pipelines, that are periodically applicable standards and requirements of the Oakley interconnected, to the project site. The 12" pipelines Water District and local Fire District Standards. The would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project should be reimbursed on a proration basis for project as well as some limited additional the cost of constructing facilities which have the development within the Bethel Island area. (NS) capacity to serve future development in the Planning Area served by the facilities. The necessary off-site water facilities should be completed and operational prior to the first homes being occupied on the site. (3.10-8; NS) c. The project would result in a significant increase The project applicant would be required to construct in wastewater generated from the project site. Based all necessary sewage collection facilities on-site to on wastewater generation factors provided by the serve the project. These facilities should be built to Oakley Sanitary District, the proposed project would district standards and appropriate easements for generate approximately 360,000 gallons/day (or 0.36 district maintenance provided. The sewage collection `_. mgd) based on 270 gallons/unit day x 1,330 units. facilities should be installed prior to the first homes The most logical provider of sewer service for the being occupied. (3.10-9) project is the Ironhouse Sanitary District because 75% of the proposed project site is located within their A hydraulic analysis of the force main should be existing service boundaries. The project applicant has conducted to determine the capacity of the existing requested that the remainder of the project site be force main and any improvements that may be annexed to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. The necessary to accommodate the proposed project. This Ironhouse Sanitary District appears to have adequate analysis should be conducted prior to approval of the capacity to serve the project and has provided a "will project's final subdivision map. The project shall pay serve" letter to the project applicant. However, there its fair share of any improvements necessary to the 2-27 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) may be several off-site improvements necessary to force main to serve the project. The fair-share fee serve the project. (PS) shall be paid upon approval of the first phased map. (3.10-10) The project should be required to pay the full costs of any increase in pumping capacity or new pump station(s) necessary to serve the project. The need and cost for these improvements shall be determined by the Ironhouse Sanitary District prior to approval of the final map. (3.10-11) A reimbursement agreement shall be entered into between the project applicant and the Ironhouse Sanitary District whereby the project applicant would be reimbursed for the portion of the cost of new facilities which have the capacity to serve areas in addition to the project. The reimbursement would be paid out of fees paid by future developments. (3. 10-12; NS) d. Electric service would be supplied to new The project shall include the undergrounding of all development by PG&E. The existing transmission new electrical service lines necessary to serve the lines and substation appear to have adequate capacity project site. Electrical lines should be placed in to provide service to the project.(NS) relatively water tight conduits according to PG & E standards. This should be completed prior to the first houses being occupied. (3.10-13) The need to upgrade off-site electrical lines shall be determined by PG&E prior to approval of the final map. If off-site reinforcement is necessary, the project applicant should be required to pay the project's fair-share, if any, of the reinforcement. (3.10-14; NS) e. The project would require the replacement of the Place distribution lines underground. (3.10-15) switch on Bethel Island and the extension of new telephone cables to the project site.According to PUC Install telephone cables in relatively water-tight regulations, costs of line and equipment installation conduits and vaults. (3.10-16; NS) would be borne by the developer and Pacific Bell. According to County policy, distribution lines would need to be placed underground in relatively watertight 2-28 I TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; ' Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) conduits and vaults, thereby avoiding visual impacts and prolonging the life of the equipment and cables.(NS) f. The project includes street lighting and additional Project street lights should utilize down focused lights lighting associated with individual residential units and other features to reduce glare. The design of and recreational uses. The street lighting would be street lights should be submitted for review and installed in accordance with Contra Costa County approval to the County Public Works Department for Code(Title 9)requirements and maintained by Contra review and approval prior to approval of the final Costa County. Street lights produce "glow" which map. (3.10-17; NS) could impact adjacent residents. (PS) 3.11 HUMAN HEALTH a. Residents of the project could be exposed to Each residence on the project site should include in agricultural chemicals applied aerially on nearby its CC&Rs a clause consistent with disclosure agricultural lands. However, the use of agricultural currently required by the County stating that the chemicals is strictly regulated by County and State incoming property owner is aware of adjacent regulations. Chemicals applied aerially on nearby agricultural uses and the potential hazards related to properties could drift onto the project site and cause this land use. (3.11-1; NS) adverse health effects and nuisance odors for project residents. The level of exposure for project residents would vary greatly depending on the amount of chemicals used and proximity to the application.(PS) b. The project site could potentially contain Soil sampling should be conducted in those areas of contaminated soils in those areas where heavy the site where heavy equipment is stored, repair equipment is stored,repair facilities are located and facilities are located and where the above ground where the above ground storage tanks are located, storage tanks are located. Should contaminated soil (PS) be identified, removal and remediation of the material should occur before excavation or construction activities commence in these areas. The Contra Costa County Health Department should supervise and authorize any soil sampling procedures and remediation. (3.11-2; NS) 2-29 i TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact. After Mitigation) c. The project would involve the construction of The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District lakes, a golf course and other water related facilities (CCMAD) should be consulted regarding mosquito including wetland mitigation sites,drainage facilities. abatement features during the final design of any These facilities may provide breeding habitat for wetland mitigation sites to be created on the project mosquitos if not properly maintained. (PS) site (3.11-3) If reclaimed water is used for recreation areas, CCMAD should be consulted regarding the design and testing of alternative methods and disbursement sources.(3.114; NS) d. The project site is located in close proximity to Each residence within the project site should include large electrical transmission lines and natural gas drill in the CC&Rs a clause stating that the incoming easements (no active gas sites). Although some of property owner is aware of the specific human health these risks are speculative,as a result of the project's issues related to living near electrical transmission location,project residents could be exposed to certain lines and drill sites. (3.11-5; NS) health risks. (PS) 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Because the project site is known historically to Due to the existence of subsurface cultural materials contain cultural resources,including the possibility of along the western perimeter of the CA-CCo-134 site human burials, the proposed project may result in the area and the recommendations relative to site CA- disruption of cultural resources as a result of the CCo-139 (below), it is recommended that significant grading and excavation necessary to construct various ground disturbance be avoided in an area of components of the project.(PS) approximately 11 acres (700 x 700 feet [213 x 213 meters])(see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this area (internal levee, natural gas drilling site, fire station,community park)are not expected to result in significant ground disturbance. However, all construction activity in this area should be closely monitored to preserve known resources and to determine the presence of any previously unknown subsurface resources in the CA-CCo-134 area. Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes, it is recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it ' be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil 2-30 i TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) removal for the presence of cultural materials. (3.12- 1) _ Significant ground disturbance should be avoided in the area surrounding site CA-CCo-139, from the 0- foot(sea level)contour to the mound apex at 6.5 feet above sea level(see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this area (community park, extension of Cypress Road are not expected to result in significant ground disturbance. However, all construction activities should be closely monitored to preserve known resources present in this area. It is understood that two private parcels of land on the mound are not included in the project proposal. These recommendations do not apply to those parcels unless they are incorporated into the project proposal at some future time. Should any subsurface disturbance occur on the mound through the removal of structures or foundations, an archaeological monitor should be present to observe soils for the presence of cultural materials. Should sterile soil (e.g.,topsoil)be placed over the site for landscaping purposes, it is recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (3.12-2) Construction at the fire station, which would be within the area of archaeological sensitivity for site CA-CCo-139,should be closely monitored and work stopped immediately if cultural materials are encountered. If it is determined that construction is not feasible,the project applicant shall be required to find an alternate site outside the archaeologically sensitive area. (3.12-3) Lot No.10 in Neighborhood 1 should be removed or redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically 2-31 - 1 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) i sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (3.12-4) Lot No.I I in Neighborhood 1 should be removed or redrawn in order to avoid the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (3.12-5) The area including and immediately surrounding site CA-CCo-647 should be avoided to preclude impacts to this important resource (see Appendix H). Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for landscaping purposes,it is recommended that rubber- tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it be necessary to excavate through native soils, an archaeologist should be present to monitor soil removal for the presence of cultural materials. (3.12-6) The rear lot lines of lots No.29 and 30 in Neighborhood 7 should be redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-647. (3.12-7) In the event that avoidance of the preceding cultural resource sites is not feasible, it will be necessary to develop a data recovery or"excavation plan"pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Appendix K, Part V and subject to the limitations defined in Part VI. (3.12-8) An archaeological monitor should be present when grading, excavation, trenching and other soil disrupting activities are carred out in any of the mapped archaeologically sensitive areas as defined in Appendix H. These activities/areas include, for example, the Cypress Road extension; levee construction/ excavation/ compaction; possibly, demolition of existing homes; fire station construction; and the parking lot for the playing 2-32 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) fields. (3.12-9) An archaeological monitor should be on-call when grading, excavation, trenching and other soil disrupting activities are carried out on the project site. In the event that a prehistoric site, burial, or historic resource is encountered during construction of the project, the project engineer would be obligated to temporarily stop or relocate construction activities and notify the archaeological monitor immediately. In the event a significant prehistoric or historic resource is identified,no further construction should be permitted in that location until a mitigation plan can be formulated and implemented. (3.12-10) In the event human remains are discovered during construction, excavations should be halted at that location. Any finds of human remains must be reported to the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office. In the event that the find is determined to be prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be notified within 24 hours to alert them of the find and to permit the designation of a Native American representative. Consultation between the archaeological consultants in charge of monitoring, Contra Costa County, and the Native American representative would then determine the course of action to be taken with the burial in question. Ideally, if removal is undertaken, time should be allowed for study of the remains and any associated grave goods prior to their return to the Native American Community for reburial at a location of their selection. (3.12-11) �i A report of findings and analyses of all archaeological data recovered during testing/excavation,monitoring and any mitigation procedures undertaken should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist. (3.12-12) Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for "protection to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction". To achieve this goal, it 2-33 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) is recommended that the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. (3.12-13) It is recommended that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento be contacted regarding potential Native American concerns,values, and traditional use areas relative to the proposed project site and vicinity. There is a potential for disturbance of previously undiscovered Native American human remains during construction of the project. It would prove advantageous to have an established agreement with the NAHC and/or local Bay Miwok tribal representatives prior to the discovery of such remains,should any be discovered. A typical agreement would specify when,in the event of a discovery, Native American involvement would occur, and the treatment and ultimate disposition of ancestral remains. (3.12-14) The proposed intersection improvements at the project entrance and Bethel Island Road should be realigned to the north as much as possible to avoid impacting site CA-CCo-138. (3.12-15) The alignment of any future extension of Bethel Island Road south of Cypress Road should be as far east as feasible to avoid site CA-CCo-138,taking into consideration safety factors. This may result in the need to move the project levee along the project's westerly boundary up to 50 feet to the east. (3.12-16; NS) 3.13 ENERGY a. An average dwelling unit could be expected to Building plans for each house should include energy consume approximately 4,869 kilowatt hours conservation features such as passive solar heating, (kwh)/year of electricity. Total energy consumption additional insulation and other features so that Title of the proposed homes would be approximately 6.47 24 efficiency standards (1991)will be exceeded by at million kilowatt hours/year of electricity. The project least 10%. These features shall be reviewed and ' has proposed to incorporate design features in the approved by the County Building Department as part 2-34 TABLE 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED (Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (Mitigation Number In Text; Significance Of Impact After Mitigation) project homes so that energy consumption would be of the building permit review process. (3.13-1; B) reduced. The goal of the project would be to exceed the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%. 2-35 r r3. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 3.1 INTRODUCTION An initial study was prepared on the proposed project that was submitted prior to February 6, 1992 (the date of the Notice of Preparation [NOP]). The NOP noted that the project application may be amended during the process in response to environmental issues and concerns raised. Any amendments to the application submitted prior to completion of this EIR are addressed herein. Subsequent amendments to address remaining concerns covered in this EIR and/or the planning process may be necessary. nThe application was in fact revised to address comments raised in response to the NOP, �1 first DEIR, neighborhood and agency concerns and the finalization of preliminary environmental reports. The major revisions to the application include: 1.) greater preservation and enhancement of wetlands 2.) accommodations for a more effective and efficient drainage system 3.) elimination of neighborhood commercial uses r 4.) the relocation of the potential school site 5.) more efficient internal circulation system 6.) preservation of cultural resources 7.) additional hydrology and geotechnical analysis 8.) additional landscape plans The revisions to the proposed project do not raise new possible environmental impacts that were not raised by the original project, negating the need for a new initial study. In fact, the revisions will lessen some of the potential impacts of the original project design as identified ' in the initial study. All potential significant impacts of the proposed project, as revised, are addressed herein. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County, approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley (see Figure 3-1). The project site is located in the "off-island" portion of the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site is located at the junction of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road (see Figure 3-2), and is generally 3-1 r . r r r ' sae mento 99 8° r 0 0 12 r O�apa 16o Wi0r. r --j �kto :•c .•.. :r; Sto i+ `✓C� QCC� 0o1e O ion :�:' ::••: •.. a pec f•• Sall rancis�o � • .••.�:. 5sa - • �;:: � Z80 � Figure 1-1. r . •�'• Q Seri lose gel'oat Lo�ati°° ' .`•• C�pgESS L B g01ECr CLU 33 \7:7, r\�r= awl C J n n 3111uj � y ./PG'O I/•'. ' r..l _ H 'a. tl3Yle p s1 — (n ill a!co I of e3+uf �: YO U I ar � I o aNr13'13X138 ¢ ., 1r.MMDIN d r NOtl.Y I> o J" sYlrwmia) 1 i wa 3 / N SI-Y 4 Oal li 1= 'Ar M3U.D'1 X I P� ae -V. '``'� O• I I Cl t7 wl Y.n UON - 4 awYl51 lAY N se7117: lAY �'%nu, �—.__ ��\ _ `PSS\- - sd _.. ✓.I - w; ; �I /!:''1�I - - - - W W S1• S: Y _ \W Y N M� !I tl I •I i.Y 111•101 `\•w� .:' i, �Al µ\ g 0e Win m Y Y 1Ar ._..JJ+i IAYY +�I ]elan]• 1A. ero un e 1 1 �1_ -_ 310a1YY-..• _ atl elae3..' ON Flea a.VS 21: 14, ;� u11rA 'am ;a +` \VJ1 -is r.•• AN. •.:: ss is OR. 3f -``.V. Oyu�• P - C . o-. .c. .18 WiM. C G' — �s �'V � -� ...:.. r - _Z': I ° la.4DANY3 113N:lln al I� UU �� 3-3 bordered by Bethel Island Road on the west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and , by agricultural uses on the south. The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and consists of several fenced pasture areas, with irrigation and drainage canals crossing the property in various locations. A few homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are primarily located along the unimproved portion of Cypress Road and east of Bethel Island Road. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Cypress Lakes and CountryClub project would be constructed on approximately ' 685.9 acres consisting of seven parcels. The project would consist of 1,330 single-family residential units. In addition, the project would include an 18-hole golf course with amenities, i an internal levee system, a man-made lake and channels, a day care facility, parks, a fire station, beach club, and a potential school site (see Figure 3-3). The project would be constructed in phases. The phases would be timed to coincide with necessary infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewage, storm drainage, water facilities, roadway improvements, etc.). The first phase would include basic grading of the site and excavation for the man-made lake and channels. Material excavated for the lake and channels would be used to construct a levee system around the project site for flood protection. The levee system would require Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval before any home constructed on the site could be occupied. Preliminary grading for the golf course would occur coincident with levee construction. The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from approximately 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Residential lot densities would average approximately 5.4 units per acre. The overall density of the project is 2.21 units per acre. Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) would be oriented toward the man-made lake of approximately 60 acres. Non-motorized boats would be permitted on the lake. A beach club would also be developed adjacent to the lake to provide recreational opportunities for project and area residents. The beach club would provide a swimming facility adjacent to but separate from the man-made lake. In addition, a day care center, fire station, potential school site and public park would be located in this portion of the project site. The residential development north of Cypress Road would include an 18-hole golf course P YP interwoven among the various neighborhoods. A clubhouse facility, driving range and maintenance facility would also be located in this area as well as several water channels. Commercial uses on the site are no longer proposed. 3-4 /� --A/VUMaUND — — B(\Q I \ i \ vRfu I � ( ( 1 I i I i — 4 1 LEVEE {TYP.} R I I I 1 i t I 7 + I r II / / 14 1 WCLUBHOUSE \ T 1 ,�� 9ff \ \ Bowl k RV fTl � ' u `'\.. ':. �•.,.�. \ \ AGE k N4A t/t "� : SSOR r I t F .yC,, .. ,\i` —104- ANCE CtN'fER——,+ PRACTICE I i I FAIRWAY I t � D � r It \ \r 1 l11 ; t 1 I E y Z wfA"d r r?i o: ' MtC AfCH G �qi MfA D NOT t j t PART SIAL t CYPRESS ROAD `:s:::. I + DRILL J� \�� NOT i I SITE PART i I PUKIC \a r ;::;<<; li s:, LEVEE (T(P.} —,1 PARd / ARE ,t P t un a= s a+ � Ei I P I t I I STE i SCHOOL I I SITE � S TE i 1 r / s r I 1 .t I I i - s / O :.E I I r flhm I I I ( / ?IirS / tt / `\ I t S > I / i G S RK a x tett j i — DRILL <r \ ,- ` �V �— — SITE U, CYPRESS LAKES & Figure 1-3: COUNTRY CLUB Project Layout PROJECT Source: Chartered Land and Cattle ' The project design would avoid most of the existing seasonal wetland areas (6.52 acres) and waters of the U.S. (2.66 acres) present on the project site. However, approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands would be impacted by the proposed project. The project design would include replacing the impacted wetlands through restoration and enhancement of existing wetland habitat on the project site. The major land uses proposed by the project, including approximate acres of coverage, are summarized as follows: TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAND USES Land Use Acres Single-family Residential (1,330 units) 242.9 Fire Station 2.0 School Site 7.4 Beach Club 1.9 Daycare Center 0.5 Roadway Right-of-Way 74.6 Lake/Channels 61.0 Parks 33.7 Golf Course 170.3 Existing Wetlands 6.5 Levees 54.6 - Levee Road 9.0 Drill Sites 10.5 Wetland Mitigation/Buffers 11.0 TOTAL 685.9 The primary entrance to the site would be via Cypress Road at its intersection with Bethel Island Road. A secondary access would be provided via Sandmound Boulevard at the north end of the project site. Cypress Road would be extended through the project site as the primary collector roadway. Residential neighborhoods would be accessed by an internal road system consisting of primary roads, secondary loops and cul-de-sacs to provide access to the individual ' neighborhoods (see Figure 3-4). In addition to the above mentioned facilities, the proposed project would also include ' various storm drainage, water system, sewage disposal and public utility improvements. On-site storm drainage improvements would include curbs, gutters and drain inlets to an underground conduit system which would be designed in accordance with Reclamation District 799 (RD-799) and County standards. The proposed system would pump excess runoff into Sand Mound Slough. The project would include on-site detention of storm water in the proposed lake and ' 3-6 I 1 ` I 1 \ \ I 1 \\ \ 1 1 \ \ 1 \ \ I I r I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 17 I I I I 1 1 I f I I f f I 1 7 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 7 I I 1 7 CIRCULATION ROUTES 1 11 11 / 11 7/ 1 f7 �r g I 1 I I 1 ii1 1 1 1 \\ I 11 111 � 1 I I 1 I I � 1 II - 1 { 1 ( p 1 1 1 N 1 2 1 I ' 1 ! �YPR SSF1 RO�� f f f ! I 1 I 1 1 1 � Y 1 1 I j 11 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 I � 1 1 \\ 1 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ \\ -------------------- -J i Figure 1-4: CYPRESS LAKES & Fig ' COUNTRY CLUB Project Circulation PROJECT Source: Chartered Land and Cattle 3-7 channel detention facilities. On-site sewage facilities would include a gravity sewer system, lift stations and pumps. Sewage from the site would enter the existing force main in Bethel Island Road. To provide water to the site, off-site improvements including transmission lines from Highway 4 at Cypress Road would be provided. On-site water facilities would include 6", 8" and 10" underground distribution pipelines. Other utilities, such as electricity and solid waste disposal, would be provided by existing service providers. 3.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts through the incorporation of the following measures: Levee System: The project design includes construction of a levee system around the project site to remove the proposed development area from the flood hazard zone. The levee system would be certified by FEMA prior to the construction of houses on the site. Storm Drainage Improvements: The project includes a system of channels and lake to provide stormwater detention on-site to reduce drainage impacts on RD-799 facilities. Water Quality Management Plans: The project includes innovative water quality management strategies to maintain acceptable water quality in the project channels and lake. Management strategies include the use of specific plant species to remove pollutants ' from the water and mechanical circulation of water to improve flushing action. Wetland Mitigation Plan: The project would impact 0.75 acres of the 9.18 acres of ' wetlands on the site. The project would include the replacement of impacted wetland through the enlargement and enhancement of existing wetlands on-site. The 0.75 acres impacted would be replaced with approximately 2.75 acres of wetland. ' Ground Subsidence Monitoring Plan: The project includes measures to monitor ground subsidence that may result from de-watering activities associated with construction of the project levees, channels and lake. Monitoring wells and settlement plates would be used to monitor construction. If groundwater levels or soil subsidence exceeds acceptable levels, construction activities would be stopped and remedial actions taken. ' Landscape Plans: The project includes detailed landscape plans for the project levee and common areas. The landscape plans include lists of desirable plant species, irrigation techniques and other landscape criteria. Additional landscaping would be provided around the project perimeter outside the levee along Sandmound Boulevard and Bethel Island Road to reduce visual impacts on adjacent residents. Channel Enhancement Plan: The project includes plans to enhance the primary drainage ditch ("main drain") into a channel of approximately 8.0 acres in size. A new channel is also proposed in the north/south direction and would connect to the proposed lake. The 3-8 r i second channel would be approximately 11 acres in size. The channels are proposed to provide additional riparian habitat and visual interest to the project. The banks of the PP J channels would be sprigged with willow and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian cover. ' Energy Conservation Guidelines: The project is proposing to maintain a goal of exceeding the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%. This would be achieved through the incorporation of design features into each home to reduce energy consumption. Provision of School Site: To help mitigate the project's potential impact on local school facilities, the project plans include the dedication of a 7.4 acre school site on the project ' site. The school site would be dedicated to the Oakley Union Elementary School District for the construction of a new elementary school in the Bethel Island area. Provision of Fire Station Site and Facility: The project plans include a 2 acre site for a , new fire station on the project site. The fire station is located near the project entrance at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. The project would also include construction of ' a new fire station facility on the site. Provision of a fire station on the project site would improve fire protection services for Hotchkiss Tract and the Bethel Island area. Preservation of Cultural Resources: The project plans have been developed to avoid culturally sensitive areas present on the project site. Portions of the project site known to contain cultural resources have either been avoided or are proposed for less disruptive ' uses such as parks and playgrounds. Provision of Parks/Recreational Amenities: The proposed project includes approximately ' 33 acres of public and private parks primarily located south of the proposed extension of Cypress Road. In addition, other recreational amenities are being proposed including: a lake, golf course, beach club, trails, and open space corridors. , Affordable Housing Fee: The project applicant has agreed to pay a in-lieu affordable housing fee equal to $3,333 per residential unit. For the proposed project this fee would ' generate approximately $4,432,890 for the County's affordable housing programs. These fees would be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. As an alternative, the project applicant may construct a portion, or all, of the affordable.housing units on-site. , Homeless Fees: The project applicant has agreed to pay an in-lieu fee to the County's Homeless Trust Fund. The amount of this fee would be determined by the County and , paid upon issuance of building permits for the project. 3-9 3.5 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO RELEVANT PLANS ' Contra Costa County General Plan, As Approved January, 1991 The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project is located within the County Urban Limit ' Line, which would allow development in accordance with General Plan policies and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map designates the area as Agricultural Land (AL) and Open Space (OS); with an overlay designation of "Off- Island Bonus Area" which allows increased residential densities under certain circumstances. The Contra Costa County General Plan states the following with regard to residential development within the Off-Island Bonus Area (page 3-29): A bonus density is identified in the "Off-Island" area of the Bethel Island Planning Area east of Jersey Island Road. The base density of this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This density shall be increased through the bonus program if the applicant participates in one of the following programs: Recreational Proiects. Residential projects which include a distinct, identifiable recreational character .by including substantial recreational facilities shall be allowed a density of 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre. Recreational amenities may include marinas or launching areas off the project site on Sand Mound or Rock Sloughs, a lake community, a sailing/boating club on a project lake, an equestrian facility, a tennis club, or a golf course. Purchase of Development Rights. The development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Land designation may be purchased ' and dedicated to the County to increase the base density up to 1/2 dwelling unit per net acre. Acquiring development rights in one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Core designation will increase the base density up to a maximum of 3 dwelling units per net acre. A program for acquisition of development rights shall be implemented by the Community Development Department. Within the Off-Island Bonus Area, the General Plan limits new development to 3,000 primarily recreation-oriented units. Of this total, 153 units have been approved but are not yet constructed, leaving a balance of 2,847 allowable new units. The proposed project's 1,330 residential units would fall below this limit. Two additional applications for projects within the ' Off-Island Bonus Area have been submitted, for a combined number of 1,653 residential units. These projects, when combined with the Cypress Lakes project, total 2,983 units which exceeds the remaining number of allowable units by 136 units. However, the latter two applications are not being actively pursued (Contra Costa Community Development Department, July, 1992). The proposed project includes an 18-hole semi-private golf course, parks (20 acres for a neighborhood park and 6 acres through-out the project, a swim and tennis/beach club, and lake 3-10 i and channels designed to meet the recreational character requirements of the Contra Costa County General Plan for increased residential density within the "Off-Island Bonus Area." In addition, the project has an overall residential density of 2.21 units per acre (Gross Acreage - public and private easements _ # of dwelling units) which falls within the 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre. No ' purchase of agricultural development rights is proposed. Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, April, 1991 The validity of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan (BIASP) and its EIR were challenged by various environmental groups. The Court of Appeal has declared the BIASP and its EIR ' invalid. Subsequently, the County, project applicant and environmental groups entered into a settlement agreement requiring the recision of the Bethel Island Specific Plan, decertification of ' its EIR, and vacation of the existing development agreement between the County and the project applicant. Therefore, this EIR does not address conformity with the Bethel Island Specific Plan. The settlement agreement, December, 1992, established a framework whereby the parties have agreed to work together in processing applications on the project site. 3.6 DISCRETIONARY AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED ' The project applicant has applied for the following discretionary approvals by Contra Costa County for which this EIR is intended to cover: ' • Rezoning of 685.9 ± acres of land from General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1); ' • Preliminary development plan approval for the proposed club house, beach club house, beach club, public park, maintenance facility, and other uses not in the final development plan; • Final development plan approval for the proposed residential uses, golf , course/driving range, wetlands, lake, channel and levee; • Vesting tentative map to subdivide the 685.9 ± acre site into 1,330 single-family ' lots; • Design review of the project. Other approvals and/or permits will be required to fully implement the project. This EIR ' is intended to cover all those necessary approvals and/or permits which may include but are not limited to the following: 1. LAFCO Approval - LAFCO approval may be needed for the reorganization of the Sphere of Influence and annexation of the project into the Oakley Water District 3-11 i and Contra Costa Water District for provision of water, the Ironhouse Sanitary District for sewer; and possible consolidation of the Oakley and Bethel Island Fire Districts in the Bethel Island Planning Area. Other annexation and/or possible consolidation may be necessary for other services. ' 2. Financing and Maintenance Districts - The establishment of a park maintenance district, landscape and lighting district, geologic hazard abatement district, or other special districts for the financing and/or maintenance of infrastructure and other ' improvements. 3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits - May be required for drainage discharge. 4. Section 404 Permit - The applicant will need to qualify for a permit under Section ' 404 of the Clean Water Act for the filing of any wetland areas on-site. 5. FEMA Approval - Approval will be sought for the internal levee. 6. Development A greement - The applicant will request approval of a development agreement with the County to establish the terms and conditions under which the project will be developed. 7. Streambed Alteration Permit - The applicant will be required to obtain a streambed alteration permit from the Department of Fish and Game. ' 8. RD-799 Approval - Permits from RD-799 will be required for the proposed levee and drainage systems both on- and off-site. ' This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Other approvals and/or permits may be necessary to fully implement the project objectives which this EIR is intended to cover. i i 3-12 i 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR i This chapter of the Final EIR responds to written comments received during the public , review period and verbal comments made at the East County Regional Planning Commission hearings. The responses to comments are divided into five categories: (1) Federal Agencies, (2) ' State Agencies, (3) Local Agencies, (4) Groups and Individuals, and (5) Public Hearings. Comment letters are organized such that each written letter or verbal testimony is followed ' directly by the responses to comments contained therein. Responses to individual comments in each letter are keyed to the numbers noted on the left margin of each letter. Comment letters include the following: ' 4.1 Federal Agencies ' A Department of the Army, January 27, 1993 4.2 State Agencies B California Department of Conservation, February 16, 1993 C California Department of Fish and Game, February 3, 1993 D California Department of Transportation, January 11, 1993 ' E State Lands Commission, February 16, 1993 4.3 Local Agencies F Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission, February 10, 1993 G Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 6, 1993 H Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 25, 1993 ' I Land Planning Consultants, January 28, 1993 J Reclamation District 799, February 11, 1993 4.4 Groups and Individuals K Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993 L Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993 M Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993 N Bob Dal Porto, February 9, 1993 , O C. Elaine Dannelley, February 10, 1993 P C. Elaine Dannelley, February 12, 1993 Q Fred Davis, February 9, 1993 R Dickson & Ross, February 16, 1993 S Darrell Edwards, February 12, 1993 T Vera Fatook and George Garcia, February 12 and 16, 1993 U Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993 V David Gold and Robert Henn, February 1, 1993 W Leigh Jordan, January 15, 1993 , ' 4-1 ' 4.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 4-3 9 Letter A nVAI v e re,um cuuress on reverse. I DATE WRITER'S NAME/TELEPHONE NO. David Gore (916) 557-6750 YOUR Q OUR COMMUNICATION (Kind, reference symbol, date, subject, or other Identification) Notice of completion concerning a revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club, a residen- tial development plan, 2.7 miles east of Oakley, CA ACTION TAKEN OR REQUESTED Q REPLY WILL BE FURNISHED ON OR ABOUT IC3 RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED ' Q REQUEST DATE WHEN REPLY MAY BEEXPECTED Q FOR DIRECT REPLY CD 0 WE HAVE SENT YOUR COMMUNICATION TO(Sea below) TO OBTAIN INFORMATION We have reviewed the EIR with regard to our regulatory responsibilities and note the project will need a Section 404 permit before filling of waters/wetlands on the project site. OTHER INFORMATION Q SUPPLIED OR CD REQUESTED ' nk You for coordinating with us. T P NAME. GRADE, AND TITLE SIGN ALTURF ALTER YEP ief, Planning Division DA FORM 209, 1 Jan 70 REPLACES EDITON OF DELAY, REFERRAL, OR F, OW-UP NOTICE *U.& OPO:199e-201.424/80327 1 NOV 66, WHICH WILL BE USED. (A R JIO-!S) 1 . a MPARTMIENT OF TME ARMY .•'^ r San Joaquin Basin Branch OFFICIAL BUSING t �� I• ►EMALTY FORPRIVATEUii. $700 0377961 i-- cnCD N u.: W U_J - f�� d n v w Contra Costa County Commun�yDevel. Dept. ATTN: Arthur Beresford 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4th F1. Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ' IlllllllllllIlls,Ilillllllll!lllllllillll1i11,11,111 ' 4-4 i Response to Letter A: Department of the Armv, January 27, 1993 ' Response A-1: The comment indicates that the proposed project will require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 of the DEIR requires the project applicant to obtain a permit from the Corps before filling of any wetlands or waters on the project site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permit is listed as a necessary discretionary approval for the project (see Page 3-12 of this EIR). 1 4-5 � ..2 STATE AGENCIES 1 1 1 1 1 � < s 1 Letter B ; ' State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CA.LIFORNIAJi'=; M E M 0 R A N D U M To: Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler Date: February 16, 1993 Secretary for Resources `PT Mr. Arthur Beresford Contra Costa County ' Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 ' Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes Project. SCH 7#92023048 The Department of Conservation, which is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis has reviewed Contra Costa County' s Revised DEIR for the project referenced above. The project will convert 683 acres of agricultural land for the development of 1, 330 single family homes, an 18 hole golf course and related resort facilities. The Revised DEIR continues to state that the land being converted is nonprime agricultural land and therefore does not constitute a significant environmental impact. However, as previously mentioned, the Department of Conservation' s Important Farmland maps show that the area contains Prime Farmland and a ' significant amount of farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is also adjacent to additional Prime farmland. Enclosed are the relevant sections of the Department' s maps showing the designations as well as a listing of the soils which qualify as ' Prime and Statewide in Contra Costa County according to the Soil Conservation Service. The Department is concerned about the impacts of this E3-1 project on the adjacent agricultural lands and on the prime agricultural land within the project area. Since the project may ' have environmental impacts on adjacent agricultural land and prime agricultural land, the Department offers the following comments. ' The loss of prime agricultural land should be identified and treated as a significant environmental impact. The California Administrative Code (Section 15000 et seq. , Appendix g (y) ) state ' that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will convert prime agricultural land to a nonagricultural land. Since it appears that this project will have such an effect, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should provide information on the number of acres of agricultural land to be developed, the potential agricultural value of the site, the impacts of farmland conversion, and possible mitigation ' actions. 4-7 _ r Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Beresford ' February 16, 1993 Page Two The DEIR should provide information on the number of acres of agricultural land to be developed, the potential agricultural ' value of the site, the impacts of farmland conversion, and possible mitigation actions. Specifically, we recommend that the Revised DEIR contain the following information to ensure the adequate assessment of the project ' s impacts in these areas. ' o The agricultural character of the area including: A map which identifies the location of agricultural r preserves, the number of acres and type of land in each preserve (i.e. , prime/non-prime) . Types and relative yield of crops grown in the affected ' areas, or in areas of similar soils under good agricultural management. The agricultural potential of the area' s soils, as defined by the Department of Conservation' s Important Farmland Map Designations. o Farmland Conversion Impact ' The location of Williamson Act contracts, if any, on land adjacent to the project area. - The type, amount, and location of farmland conversion B-2 that would result from implementation of the project. o Mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen ' farmland conversion impacts. Some of the possibilities are: Directing urban growth to lower quality soils in order to protect prime agricultural land. . Increasing densities or clustering residential units to allow a greater portion of proposed development sites ' to remain in agricultural production. . Protecting other, existing farmland of equivalent, or better; quality through planning policy that relies on an active and strategic use of the Williamson Act. - Establishing buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts, and open space areas to separate farmland from urban uses. Many communities have considered 300 feet as a sufficient buffer for impacts such as pesticide spraying, noise, and dust. Implementing right-to-farm ordinances to diminish ' nuisance impacts of urban uses on neighboring agricultural operations, and vice-versa. Imposing development impact fees to help fund a ' farmland protection program that utilizes such land-use planning tools as transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights or conversion easements, and farmland trusts. 4-8 - ' Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Beresford February 16, 1993 Page Three The Department has commented on both the Notice of Preparation and original DEIR. Both letters requested that information about the agricultural character of the project area, B_2 soil erosion impacts, and farmland conversion impacts be addressed. (Please refer back to letters dated March 20, 1992 and September 16, 1992 , confirmed received per telephone conversation. ) ' The Department appreciated the opportunity to comment on the Revised DEIR. We hope that the farmland conversion impacts and the Williamson Act contract issues are given adequate ' consideration in the DEIR. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at (916) 445-8733 W ee Stetson Assistant Director Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations Attachments cc: Scot Steinwert Public Affairs Management ' Kenneth E. Trott, Manager Land Conservation Unit Contra Costa Resource Conservation District 4-9 Appendix B: MAPPING CATEGORIES AND SOIL TAXONOMY TERMS The following definitions are used in preparing the Important Farmland Maps and the Farmland Conversion Report. Soil-specific terms, such as xeric, ustic, acidic, etc. are defined at the end of this appendix. ' The definitions for Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance and Urban Built-up lands were developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture as part of their nationwide Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) system. These LIM definitions have been modified for use in California. The most significant modification is that Prime and Statewide farmlands must be irrigated. Farmland of Local Importance has been identified by , local advisory committees and vary from county to county, as intended by the LIM. Mapping of Grazing Land as part of an Important Farmland Map is unique to California. Prime Farmland ' "Prime Farmland" is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained ' high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods. "Prime Farmland" must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. "Prime Farmland" must meet all the following criteria: a. Water The soils have xeric, ustic or aridic (torric) moisture regimes in which the available water capacity is ' at least 4.0 inches (10 cm) per 40 to 60 inches (1.02 to 1.52 meters) of soil,.and a developed irrigation water supply that is dependable and of adequate quality. A dependable water supply is one which is available for the production of the commonly grown crops in 8 out of 10 years; and b. Soil Temperature Range The soils have a temperature regime that is frigid, mesio, thermic or hyperthermic (pergelic and cryic regimes are excluded). These are soils that, at a depth of 20 inches (50.8 cm), have a mean annual temperature higher than 32°F (0° C). In addition, the mean summer temperature at this depth in soils with an O horizon is higher than 47° F (8° C); in soils that have no O horizon, the mean ' summer temperature is higher than 59° F (15° C); and C. Aad-Alkali Balance ' The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter); and d. Water Table ' The soils have no water table or have a water table that is maintained at a sufficient depth during the cropping season to allow cultivated crops common to the area to be grown; and ' 4-10 e. Soil Sodium content The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter), during ' part of each year the conductivity of the saturation extract is less than 4 mmhos/cm and the exchangeable sodium percentage is less than 15; and f. Flooding Flooding of the soil (uncontrolled runoff from natural precipitation) during the growing season occurs infrequently, taking place less often than once every two years; and g. Erodibility ' The product of K (erodibility factor) multiplied by the percent of slope is less than 2.0; and h. Permeability The soils have a permeability rate of at least 0.06 inch (0.15 cm) per hour in the upper 20 inches (50.8 cm) and the mean annual soil temperature at a depth of 20 inches (50.8 cm) is less than 59° F (15° C); the permeability rate is not a limiting factor if the mean annual soil temperature is 59° F (L5° C) or higher; and i. Rock Fragment Content ' Less than 10 percent of the upper 6 inches (15.24 cm) in these soils consists of rock fragments coarser than 3 inches (7.62 cm); and j. Rooting depth The soils have a minimum rooting depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter). Farmland of Statewide Importance "Farmland of Statewide Importance" is land other than "Prime Farmland" which has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. ' "Farmland of Statewide Importance" must meet all the following criteria: P — g a. Water The soils have xeric, ustic or acidic (tonic) moisture regimes in which the available water capacity is ' at least 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) within a depth of 60 inches (1.02 to 1.52 meters) of soil; or within the root zone if it is less than 60 inches deep. They have a developed irrigation supply that is dependable and of adequate quality. A dependable water supply is one which is available for the production of the commonly grown crops in 8 out of 10 years; and 4-11 i b. Soil Temperature Ranee ' The soils have a temperature regime that is frigid, mesic, thermic or hyperthermic (pergelic and cryic reeimes are excluded). These are soils that, at a depth of 20 inches (50.8 cm), have a mean annual ' temperature higher than 32° F (0° C). In addition, the mean summer temperature at this depth in soils with an O horizon is higher than 47° F (8° C); in soils that have no O horizon, the mean summer temperature is higher than 59° F (1' C); and C. Acid-Alkali Balance The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 9.0 in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter) or ' in the root zone if the root zone is less than 40 inches (1.02 meter) deep; and d. Water Table ' The soils have no water table or have a water table that is maintained at a sufficient depth during the cropping season to allow cultivated crops common to the area to be grown; and e. Soil Sodium Content The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter), or in the ' root zone if the root zone is less than 40 inches (1.02 meter) deep, during part of each year the conductivity of the saturation extract is less than 16 mmhos/cm and the exchangeable sodium percentage is less than 25; and f. Flooding ' Flooding of the soil (uncontrolled runoff from natural precipitation) during the growing season ' occurs infrequently, taking place less often than once every two years; and g. Erodibility ' The product of K (erodibility factor) multiplied by the percent of slope is less than 3.0; and h. Rock Fragment Content Less than 10 percent of the upper 6 inches (1524 cm) in these soils consists of rock fragments coarser than 3 inches (7.62 cm). , "Farmland of Statewide Importance" does not have any restrictions regarding permeability or rooting depth. Uni ue Farmland ' q d "Unique Farmland" is land which does not meet the criteria for "Prime Farmland" or "Farmland of , Statewide Importance," that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a ' specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. Examples of such crops may include oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes and cut flowers. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. , 4-12 ' J ' CONTRA COSTA PRIME FARMLAND SOILS ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 THESE SOIL MAPPING UNITS MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PRIME FARMLAND AS OUTLINED IN THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 'S LAND INVENTORY AND MONITORING (LIM) PROJECT FOR THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. Symbol Name ' BaA Botella clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes BaC Botella clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Bb Brentwood clay loam Bc Brentwood clay loam, wet CaA Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes CaC Capay clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes CbA Capay clay, wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Cc Clear Lake clay CeA Conejo clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes CeB Conejo clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes ChA Conejo clay loam, clay substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes CkB Cropley clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes Ea Egbert mucky clay loam GaA Garretson loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes GaB Garretson loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes ' La Laugenour loam Lm Los Robles clay loam Md Merritt loam ' PaC Perkins gravelly loam ' 2 to 9 percent slopes RbA Rincon clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4-13 CONTRA COSTA , PRIME FARMLAND SOILS Page 2 of 2 Symbol Name RbC Rincon clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes RcA Rincon clay loam, wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Rd Rindge muck Rh Ryde silt loam ' Sa Sacramento clay Sm Sorrento silty clay loam ' Sn Sorrento silty clay loam, sand substratum ' So Sycamore silty clay loam Sp Sycamore silty clay loam, clay substratum Wa Webile muck ZaA Zamora silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ZaB Zamora silty clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes ' JPR Revised 4/22/80 retyped: 3/2/90 4-14 1 ' CONTRA COSTA SOILS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 THESE SOIL MAPPING UNITS MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE AS OUTLINED ,IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 'S LAND INVENTORY AND MONITORING (LIM) PROJECT FOR THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. Symbol Name AbD Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes AdA Antioch loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1 AdC Antioch loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes BeB Briones fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes ' DaC Delhi sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes DdD Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes KaC Kimball gravelly clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Kb Kingile muck LbD Linne clay loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Oa Omni clay loam Ob Omni silty clay Pd Piper sand Pe Piper loamy sand PkA Positas loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes PkC Positas loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Sb Sacramento clay, alkali Se Shima muck TaC Tierra loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Vb Venice muck JPR Revised 4/22/80 retyped: 3/2/90 ' 4-15 's • � � ic:.u_:a=.•- tart • y • n•� I r a: J1 �r st{{ j� •'L•�t I 17i r t . G p.t ic�• r=. r? err-•��:.'�K�... , '`+�..��`� - t �T�fJ-���y� CL�Y:L�r,;l�Jt!��!.:'.��.J-}'•AY.R'�.�'�w' K�}. C•c��•..:: ? :tom-»..�i:' ....M- s' ,���_l,S i.A.+-�l �J N'y.:�S17Iy. 0 OGD QUADRANGLE .. ERENTW� AS •¢ �� _�•'.._.._.. .._.• _ �•- �. -- .ti" .�.� � GG 1. 1 ROAR Vr' ?i .= a 1 - r LO 28 so 33 SM 24 eu AD ' '� * � � �' - - ����- ':... _ ��_. ".�.t�.. � fir• .�.,... Pall. - • ��. ..y Vii' -j..w.='•;: .I :1 -llj � :.,�"fi.' !.• (,! 7✓ OL a Response to Letter B: California Department of Conservation, February 16, 1993 ' Response B-1: As stated onpage 3-1 of the DEIR, the project site contains agricultural lands classified., ' by the County as "non-prime" with marginal agricultural productivity. Because of its marginal productivity, the project site is used for cattle raising. Contra Costa County classifies "prime" ' agricultural lands as .those containing class I or class II soils. The project site does not contain class I or II soils according to Contra Costa County soils maps on file at the Contra Costa ' County Community Development Department. In addition, the project site is not considered important farmland, according to the Contra Costa County General Plan map of important farmlands. The General Plan was updated in 1991. The information contained in the General , Plan is current to that date. The County's classification of "prime" agricultural soils and "important" farmlands appears to be different than those of the commenting agency. This difference in classifications is a policy issue for Contra Costa County. It should also be noted ' that the project site is located within the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) (see attached Figure). The purpose of the ULL is to: 1) ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated , during the term of the General Plan; and 2) facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard which requires that 65% of the County reflect non-urban uses. Properties, such as the project site, that are located inside the ULL, would be governed by the land use designations contained in the General Plan. In recognizing the marginal agricultural value of the project site and that the site is within , the ULL, the area is considered suitable for development. However, in order to minimize the. potential impact on adjacent agricultural lands, controlled development on the site would be permitted at a low overall density. In addition, a Protection Fee would be imposed on each new ' residential unit, to be used by the County, in part, to acquire development rights for selected, important agricultural land or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. The County is currently in the process of establishing this Protection Fee. ' The removal of the project site from agricultural production would therefore not be considered significant. However, the conversion of the project site to urban and suburban uses would contribute to the incremental loss of agricultural/open space land throughout Contra Costa County. Such incremental loss has been substantially limited through establishment of the ULL, the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and the agricultural core areas. Response B-2: The attached map of the project site vicinity shows the locations of both active and expired Williamson Act Contract Lands. None of these lands are located immediately adjacent . to the project site. 4-18 rn In 0 In C7 0 X n 0 > Ain ''.... > W> 0 C) 0 —rz -A b0 L PU Q 0 0 z c 0 2: '0 0 0 KITT z m >-0 n ....... o In 3b C 40 fit > Z 0 ( x 0 > 14 Apt In U) ....... ..... > ; ... ....... 0 X- > X, Z in It! -n rF c>4,) r-> CD > J. 3 > --o ...... rn cr a) ..................... cn......... In > ............ . .......... ..... ........ .... .... .... ..... .... ....... ------- ................ ............... .................... ................... fU ................................... ................... . ..................... c .......... tT .... ...... ........... .............I....... ..... . ....... .... ............ .. ...............V...... ". . — — ...I........ ... ..................... I............ ............. .... ..... .................... ...... .... ..... ............. ........ .................... ........ ...... ............ ...... .. .......... ....... ............. ..... ..................... ................. ...... ......................... .......... .. .......... ............ . ........ .... ... ....... . ........ ..... ...... � En ................ . . ...... ... ...................... ....... ... 0 lZe . ............. ........ ........ ............ .. ......... .............. 0 .......... ............ .................................. . ........ ........ :A! 1,10 0 ........ .................... ................................. .................... C/1 0 cti t. z PC) -Iry Rr---i -.i., !*t*:i , 0 M -�% I .. . 4L .... ......... ... .. . ...... ......... () CL .. ........ . ..... .. ........ ....... ... ................. ....... 0 ......... ... .. ............... ......... ......... ................. .... ........ ....... ... ........... ........ UD ........... ....... as . .......... .......... ................. ................. i Active Williamson Act Contracts Williamson Act Contracts with Non-renewal Filed ; ... - XI ,'T M1 /.' .\�\.?`• -, �--f!"�' \vim i�'�"",y'�•,4� \;s--�'�� �`c•.�'.. o �\\ \t`�� .'\ �♦.- '. :L'` '-,�'_ .. _ ?g7.'i.t.-, .w,.�. ...Y;r..r.,"'�,,: �. may. ,i I �`\ :•` ,,' ..r.\� L,_..' _ _W'y`.i ♦,• '._: ,yam <<.. E - - - --� �- - 1 -t`II ' ��'` �._�',�\.\ _ SITE P 1 \\ I ! /7 • �-^ _� �, " .� '. -• -- g -- r_ , �:-___v it r..T ' ,. I ♦ ..ef.....?' \d '-ti_— „ice �� r�.•, _ _ rye . ZtN . . .'.e A•i I..I c. r_ yPt;4�, `� ! � �-- �: -=Z- - * - - , - �.-t, •:: .::�•.:..'' '..��.w. '\ til t zx I r � u y-mrac••k'w::•.:.;c,::':M' - ! •\�I C ':'.i:t: £: 'fit:'• 'S:;K �F�''.•:y..{.'.. •� :Jv ::....:.:., .. �N. f�-1/v.�•��� �•iLo� \. �: wSi%::,w.,�,;',4�: ,::iv?'Y"\'. �:::�.:: :,rj'rir:SYG.; / ` I r �. _ I- �,o iJl •'': Y. :::;:'ti, :;`! +wt; / r1 1. 7.15 1=r1 � -� ��'•�. � �_- _ ..�_ ` ,I ..�. j...1. '�c?:4:,, .°'"f .�< 1, t: I'I J:11� t II `\''- -aC�-- I -• f' 1 li, ' lam} i I • .._. a-r CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY Location of Williamson Act Contract ' CLUB PROJECT Lands in the Project Vicinity ' 4-20 Agricultural activities on the site include cattle ranching, horse breeding and cover crops ' such as wheat. In general, the productivity of the site is rather low as indicated by the previous property owner (see Letter N). As stated above, the project site does not contain prime agricultural soils and is 685.9 acres in size. See Response B-1 for a discussion of potential conversion of adjacent agricultural lands to urban development. Because direct impacts to on-site agricultural lands were not considered significant, no specific mitigation measures were recommended; however, the project applicant would be required to pay the County Protection Fee to acquire development rights for selected important agricultural lands within the county to mitigate the project's incremental impact on agricultural lands. 4-21 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor .DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `' 1`COS TA _ ' REGION 2 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A Letter C °"FEB -S RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 P n ( 916) 355-7020 r- � V S February 3 , 1 993EVEL� 'r'c �'T QFp T Mr. Arthur Beresford Contra Costa County ' Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez California 94553 Dear Mr. Beresford: The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Cypress Lakes and Country Club project (SCH# 92023048 ) . The project is located on the east side of Bethel Island in Contra Costa County. The project consists of a plan to construct a large scale residential development on 638 acres of agricultural land. The proposed project consists of an 18-hole golf course, 1 , 330 single-family lots, parks, a beach club, a lake with channels, and a wetland area. Wildlife habitat conditions consist primarily of grazing lands, with small areas of ruderal habitat and wetlands . The project is adjacent to Sandmound Slough. The Draft EIR fails to adequately discuss and provide mitigation measures for the impacts caused by the project . The following are our specific concerns : 1 . The Draft EIR contains the results of a survey ' designed to disclose the presence of wetlands . The survey was conducted in June of 1991 , and it did not disclose the presence of extensive seasonal wetland t in the grassland areas of the project site. The DFG questions the validity of findings of wetland surveys conducted during the current drought. The project ' site possesses a fair amount of topographic relief and could support more extensive seasonal wetlands . C-1 Contra Costa County General Plan policies state that "Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and protected" . We recommend that additional surveys be conducted in order to determine the status of seasonal wetlands during the current "normal" rainfall period. If seasonal wetlands are identified, we recommend that the ' General Plan policy of protection of seasonal wetlands be extended to the project site so that the loss of wetlands is avoided. 1 4-22 Mr. Arthur Beresford February 3 , 1993 ' Page Two 2 . The Draft EIR identifies the potential for the presence of several species of insects which are candidates for Federal listing. These include the Sacramento anthicid, Antioch cophuran robberfly, Antioch efferian robberfly, redheaded sphecid wasp, Middlekauff, s shieldback katydid, Antioch multillid (ant) wasp, yellow-banded andrenid bee, Delta june beetle. Many of these insects are generally restricted to interior stabilized dune habitat . The Draft EIR identifies the location of 12 acres of dune habitat on the project site and further states that this habitat may be capable of supporting one or more of these sensitive species . The Draft EIR fails, however, to provide the results of any surveys that were conducted to determine the presence or absence C-2 of sensitive species within the dunes habitat. The Draft EIR merely summarizes the habitat quality and concludes that the likelihood for presence is "low" . , This method is inadequate to protect sensitive species . We recommend that the Interior Stabilized Dunes be removed from the project design and protected consistent with Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 8-9 . If impacts to the dunes habitat cannot be avoided, we recommend that surveys be conducted which are designed to disclose the presence of sensitive species within this habitat. If sensitive species are present, the Draft EIR must contain mitigation measures which reduce impacts to a less than significant level . 3 . The Draft EIR notes the presence of burrowing owls (Athene cuniculari ) within the project site . The ' burrowing owl has been designated as a species of Special Concern by the DFG. However, the Draft EIR C-3 does not contain any measures which are intended to lessen impacts to burrowing owls . The Draft EIR ' should contain proposed mitigation measures which lessen impacts to burrowing owls to a level of insignificance. This project will have an impact to fish and/or wildlife habitat. Assessment of fees under Public Resources Code C-4 Section 21089 and as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 711 . 4 is necessary . Fees are payable by the project applicant upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the lead agency. The applicant should be advised that work within the 100- , C-5 year flood plain, consisting of but not limited to diversion or 4-23 ' I 1 Mr. Arthur Beresford rFebruary 3 , 1993 Page Three obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, will require notification to the DFG as required by Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. The notification (with fee ) , and subsequent agreement, must be C-5 completed prior to initiating any such work. Notification to the DFG should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency . The agreement process should not be used in lieu of ' specific mitigation measures to be included as conditions of project approval by the lead agency . rPursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092 . 2, the DFG requests written notification of the proposed C-6 actions and pending decisions regarding this project . Written notification should be directed to this office. If we can- be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Bob Mapes, Associate Wildlife Biologist, telephone (916) 355-7010, or r Mr. Jerry Mensch, Environmental Services Supervisor, telephone ( 916) 355-7030 . Si y r . J m D. ssersm e ional M nager r cc: Mr. Bob Mapes Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California Mr. Jerry Mensch Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California 1 r r r r . 4-24 Response to Letter C: California Department of Fish and Game. February 3. 1993 ' Response C-1: A wetland delineation of the project area was conducted in June 1991. A total of 6.52 acres of seasonal wetland and 2.66 acres of drainage channels were identified. . The seasonal wetland areas were determined to be primarily sustained by groundwater. The,delineation was field-verified by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in September 1991. The delineation was conducted after the start of the growing season during a several year period of below normal precipitation. As addressed in the delineation report (contained in Appendix D of the DEIR), this was factored into the delineation by utilizing information from a California Department of Water Resources groundwater monitoring station located on the property. Monthly mean groundwater levels were determined over the monitoring period of record (1968 to 1990) to adjust for the time of survey during a low precipitation period. Because these adjustments were made, results from a new delineation would not vary substantially from the original delineation. Response C-2: The following response is based on information contained in the "Special Status Species Survey" prepared for the project by Huffman & Associates in association with Virginia Dains. The Sacramento anthicid is noted from riverine dunes of Grand Island (California Natural Diversity Data Base [CNDDB]). The anthicid beetle prefers unvegetated loose sand and is not closely associated with the interior stabilized dune vegetation. The Antioch caphoran robberfly and Antioch efferian robberfly are predators that prey on ■ other insects foraging on dune vegetation. Because the dune soils are quite disturbed on the site, the association of these two robberflys with the habitat on-site is highly unlikely. The redheaded sphecid wasp requires a supply of weevils for larval food. Locally, the redheaded sphecid wasp was last collected on Bethel Island in 1959 (CNDDB element occurrence record). This species is associated with dune vegetation but also requires loose dune sand for nesting. Because the site does not contain such habitat, presence of this species was determined to be unlikely. ' The Antioch multillid wasp and yellow-banded andrenid bee burrow for nesting in loose dune sand and forage for pollen, nectar or prey in the vegetated portions of sand dunes. The11 project site does not contain the appropriate nesting substrate for these species. The shieldback katydid is a species for which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service considers there is persuasive evidence of extinction. 4-25 i ' With re-ard to the Delta June beetle habitat associations are poorly known.b i As described above, the habitat on the project site is quite disturbed. The vegetative structure in the project dune soils consists of a single canopy of annual grassland with few isolated low shrubs. Cattle graze the area in the winter and spring, removing much of the perennial cover and leaving a surface prone to erosion. The trampling from cattle also may reduce the safety of sites for burrowing insects. Nectar-producing plants for insects are scarce in the grassland cover. For these reasons the DEIR concluded that special-status insects are not present on the site and that no specific mitigation measures are necessary. Response C-3: During field surveys of the project site, burrowing owls were observed on the site. However, due to the quality of habitat present on the site, the site does not represent important habitat for the burrowing owl. The site may provide foraging and roosting habitat, but would not provide valuable nesting habitat due to its disturbed nature (agricultural activities). In addition, there is substantial good quality habitat in neighboring areas that are outside the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line, which would not be developed. For these reasons, the DEIR concluded that the project's potential impacts on burrowing owls and other special-status species would be less-than-significant, and no specific mitigation measures were necessary. Response C-4: Comments noted. These fees will be required of the project applicant upon filing the Notice of Determination. Response C-5: The DEIR indicates that as part of Mitigation Measure 3.4-6, page 3-98 that the California Department of Fish and Game may be required to be notified pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. This is identified as a necessary discretionary approval at Page 3-12 of this EIR. Response C-6: Comments noted. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department will notify the California Department of Fish and Game of any actions or pending decisions regarding this project. 4-26 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOX 23660 OAKLAND, ACA 94623-0660 )l. (510) 2a6-aha TDD (510) 286."5A 17 +' : 1;1993 , c;= DEP CC-004-R34.92 Letter D SCH# 92023048 CCO04330 Mr. Art Beresford, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street Martinez, Calif. 94553 r RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB. Proposed project would consist of 1,330 single- family residential units, a golf course, parks, and beach club. The 685.9 acre site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County, approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town of Oakley, and east of State Route (SR) 4. Dear Mr. Beresford: In response to the above referenced document addressing the concerns raised in our letter to you of 9/25/92, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) forwards the following comments: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION On Page 3-40, under Project Trip Generation, methodology for obtaining the D_1 generated rate of 7.74 trips per single-family residence should be provided. In Table 3.2-3, Cypress Lakes - Vehicle Trip Generation, the rates or size of project component for each land use area should be given. ' JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE We strongly recommended that Contra Costa County promote balanced +r residential/commercial developments on a short term basis. The statement on page 3-20 under JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE while encouraging, is only a minor segment of the measures needed to resolve this imbalance in the short-term: "The project D-2 applicant is proposing to market a portion of the project to retired persons which would reduce commute traffic and the environmental impacts associated with additional housing developments in East County without comparable employment developments in the area." 4-27 Beresford/CC004330 January 11, 1993 Page 2 AIR Our comments with respect to Air Quality have.not been addressed: 0-3 "Appendix C does not provide enough information to review the air quality study. �. Additional receptor locations are required (25 feet from roadway may not be acceptable) for accurate analysis. Please provide Caline 4 input and output data." PUBLIC TRANSIT Our recommendation that transit service be made available as soon as a D-4 reasonable number of homes are occupied has not been addressed. The developer should subsidize Tri-Delta Bus transit service or provide a shuttle service until the required 1,000 homes have been completed. We look forward to reviewing the FEIR, prior to final certification. Please send a copy to the undersigned contact person for this agency at the following address: Gary F. Adams District CEQA Coordinator Caltrans District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 ' We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to continue close correspondence on its development. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Joe Aguilar of my staff at (510) 286-5591. Sincerely, PRESTON W. KELLEY District Director eGARYtF. DAMS District CEQA Coordinator cc Mike Chiriatti, State Clearinghouse Susan Pultz, MTC 4-28 Sally Germain, ABAG Response to Letter D: California Department of Transportation, January 11, 1993 Response D-1: There is some misunderstanding about the trip generation rates used in the DEIR and the definition of the trips. The EIR uses the following assumptions, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual. These trip rates were based on a project with 1,330 units, and used the logarithmic formulas in the section on single-family detached housing (Land Use Code 210). 1) Total Daily Trips (ITE Fitted Curve Rates) = 11,181 (Trip Rate = 8.41 trips per unit) 2) Total Daily External Trips (Reduced by 8 percent, Abrams Associates estimate) = 10,287 (Trip Rate = 7.74 trips per unit) 3) When other land uses are added, the Total Daily Trips - 12,017 (Trip Rate = 9.04 trips per unit) The trip rates are lower than the County recommended standard of 9.8 trips/day for several reasons. First, as the size of the residential development increases, the number of trips per unit per day (external) tends to decrease due to an increase in trips that remain internal to the development. Second, Cypress Lakes would generate fewer taps per unit than other areas of the County due to it's recreational component, seasonal use, etc. Third, development which are removed and isolated from commercial, shopping areas and schools, the number of vehicle trips per unit becomes less due to the influence of combined trips, i.e., trips that combine work, shopping, school and other trip purposes. To test these assumptions, a sample trip generation study was conducted of Discovery Bay on Highway 4 west of Brentwood by Abrams Associates in February 1993. These studies show that the p.m. peak hour at Discovery Bay (5:00-6:00 p.m.) generates approximately 1,150 vehicles trips. The total number of occupied units in Discovery Bay is 2,385. This equates to a trip rate of 0.48 trips per unit during the p.m. peak hour, and a daily trip rate of 5.67 trips per unit. The Discovery Bay project includes a golf course and internal commercial development. The Cypress Lakes project would have similar characteristics. If the Discovery Bay trip rate is 5.67 external trips per unit, then the estimate of 9.04 trips.per unit for Cypress Lakes could be considered to be relatively conservative. Abrams and Associates feels that the trip generation assumptions for Cypress Lakes are prudent and conservative basis on which to evaluate the traffic impacts of the project. There is no evidence to suggest that a rate of 9.8 trips per unit per day would result in a more accurate portrayal of this project. To measure the effects of a change in trip rates, the traffic impacts have been tested using an assumption that each unit generates 10 vehicle trips per day, and that all trips will be external to the project. The following discussion describes the results of this assumption, and the changes that would occur to the traffic impacts and mitigation measures. 4-29 i Trip Generation If a trip rate of 10 trips per unit is used, the result will be that the entire project would generate 15,030 vehicle trip ends per day, with 1,061 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 1,493 trips during the PM peak hour. This compares to the 12,017 trips per day that were used in the EIR. Trip Distribution If the higher trip generation rates were used, the traffic volumes to be distributed to the network would be as shown in the following table. The largest portion of the trips are assigned to and from the direction of the local areas neighboring the project, which included Antioch, Pittsburg, Oakley, and Brentwood. Other trips may travel in the direction of Bethel Island, Stockton, Rio Vista, and Alameda County. The majority of the traffic, 628 total trips during PM peak hour (42%), is assumed to use Highway 4 as the main commuting route, and some portion of the traffic will use the other local streets within Oakley, 344 trips (28%), and Brentwood, 209 trips (14%). Cypress Lakes Trip Distribution (Using Higher Trip Generation Rates) it f " >:: <i>:<>>£!<' ;; ""<>:<;;.<': <=»>:«:>:;:<:>P i:;>::>k'''< >'' ':P1VI<`.. ak< «'';:> p,;>:.' P;'<`: ?<> D ection fl. Travet Percen of traps Prn�ea PM :ea N M, ea .. ADT`.:' :..:.:Inbound:`: tiu bvand .. Total....... North to Bethel Island 4% 601 37 22 59 Highway 4 to 42% 6,313 394 234 628 Antioch-Pittsburg Local Trips into 23% 3,457 216 128 244 Oakley Local Trips into 14% 2,104 131 78 209 Brentwood Highway 4 toward 8% 1,202 75 44 119 Stockton Highway 160 toward 4% 601 37 22 59 i Rio Vista i Vasco Road toward 5% 752 47 28 75 I-580 4-30 Intersection Capacity Results The following tables shows that effects on the AM and PM peak-hour Levels of Service if the higher trip-generation rates are used. The data is shown for each of the six local intersections that are most directly affected by the project. Beyond this area, the number of peak- hour trips that would result from using the higher trip rates is very low, and would not affect the traffic-capacity calculations. Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of Service Comparison of Existing and Future Conditions , Ex ttn .Pr ect Existinected lb:..:..:.. .:.:.... .:.::.....:...:...... .......... ........:..:: ..... .....:. <i Rat »> > ><>`: <; No > Iln ersection':;:<: ; :;;Cot�tirot > >' Ex�s i 't`r e.......... ..........T. Rate........... ..:.:. ::::::: :::.::::::. .:. P::.:::..::::::::::::::. :.::::::::..: :..p:.::::::::::::::::.:::: ............................................................................... .................................... .............. ...... ................:... ......... ......... ................. 1 Bethel Island Road N-Sig A/A A/A 0.30/A 0.40/A 0.40/A 0.52/A at Cypress Road 2 Bethel Island Road St-St A/A A/A B/C B/C B/C B/C at Gateway Road 3 Jersey Island Road St-Sig A/A A/A 0.44/A 0.50/A 0.49/A 0.57/A and Cypress Road 4 Knightsen Avenue St-Sig A/A A/A 0.46/A 0.54/A 0.51/A 0.618 at Cypress Road 5Sellers Avenue at St-Sig A/A A/A 0.61B 0.59/A 0.66B 0.678 Cypress Road 6 State Route 4 at Sig-Sig 0.26/A 0.268 0.40/A 0.78/C 0.44/A 0.81/D Cypress Road The results of using the revised trip generation rates can be seen in the above table. At each of the intersections, the V/C ratios would increase, with the amount of the increase getting smaller as the distance from the project increases. The result of the change is that there would be no difference'in the type of impacts and mitigation measures being required. If these higher trip rates occur, the timing of when the need for mitigation measures would occur would be sooner, but the nature and extent of the mitigation would be the same. 4-31 r Response D-2: Comment noted. No response necessary. The comment addresses the land use designations and policies of Contra Costa County with regard to this site which is not the subject of this DEIR. Response D-3: The purpose of the CALINE 4 analysis in the DEIR is to forecast carbon monoxide levels given changes in traffic volumes and congestion conditions under uniform assumptions regarding receptor location. While receptors closer than 25 feet (8 meters) from the roadway would provide higher estimates of concentration, the 25-foot distance was selected as the closest distance where a commercial or residential land use might result in a continuous 1-hour or 8-hour exposure. It should be.pointed out that a location 25 meters from each street near an intersection is considerably less than 10 meters from the curb when curb returns are considered. The CALINE-4 input and output files are provided in Appendix A of this FEIR. Response D-4: Comments noted. Transit service to the Cypress Lakes area and Bethel Island is desirable. However, it would provided only when the density of development could support it, and when Comments noted. Transit service to the Cypress Lakes area and Bethel Island is desirable. However, it would be provided only when the density of development could support it, and when the service could be cost-effective (see Mitigation Measure 3.2-6). These decisions will be made by the local transit agency (TriDelta Transit) when it is found that such service would be justified. i� 4-32 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON,Governor STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807- 13th Street LEO T. McCARTHY, Lieutenant Governor Sacramento,CA 95814-7187 GRAY DAVIS, Controller Cis F>=g 17 PM 3: 28 CHARLES WARREN THOMAS W. HAYES, Director of Finance Executive Officer FebruaryENT, DEPT Letter E File Ref.: 90-10-23 Ms. Carol Whiteside State Projects Coordinator The Resources.Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Room #449 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Arthur Beresford Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Whiteside and Mr. Beresford: Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project (SCH #92023048). Staff finds that the revised DEIR does not address the SLC's concerns as enumerated in our October 1, 1992 letter. We, therefore, incorporate our previous letter by this reference and request that the issues therein be resolved and analyzed appropriately. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 322-7827. r' Sincerely, Dwiggh Sanders Chief, Division of Environmental Planning and Management cc: Mary Griggs Elizabeth Patterson 4-33 ,fTE,lvu.lON,�aw+�o• STATG OF CALIFOAAIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION EMCUTIVIOFFICE 1807- 13Th Shan LEO T. MCCARTMY, beurenotir Gurolr— Some"""w,CA 05814.7127 GRAY DAMS. Corworinr CHARLES WARREN TIi0MAS W.RAVES. Direc",Q,o'Finoru� Exw0w off w October 1, 1992 P"-It"brand fAX tranamRtal memo M •oar.• . Ms. Carol Whiteside To1JhITes►cle Iq 4 o ct Fes7" Statc Prujects Coordinator Co. S 'the Kesourcec Agenc}'Depl. n101ea 1416 Ninth Street, Room #444 a.,. .� Sacramento, CA �)S�i 14 '� 9 150 -\��t-11 Mr, Arthur Beresford ` n Contra C:nstu County Community = � DL:vclopmcnt Dcpartmenc 651 Pine Strect, North `4 Me. fourth Floor -� Martinez, CA 94553 - 0095 Dear tits. Whiteside and qtr. Beresford: Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project Plan (SCH #91-023048). Lander Californ,a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County is the Lcad Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any activities which may directly; or indirect!y affect sovereign lands and their accompanying public trust resuurcrs. Thz staff of the State Lands Commission previously commented to the Notice of Preparation in our letter dated March 20, 1992 and in previous Correspondence of November 1.5, 1990, each of which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference. The I11ULLe s L1111 we addrumed have wit-Imeu resulved in the E7roject lis described in the Draft CIR. SLC JURISDICTION The last natural bed of Sandmound Slough traverses the subject property. Thls tidal slough is sovereign property of the State of California and as such did not pass to the patentee of the adjacent Swamp & Overflowed Surveys. In addition, historical maps i E-1 of the area depict the majority of the property at or below sea level and thus potentially subject to the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries. Any evaluation of this project mast considCT the presence elf the Public Trust and analyte the proposal for consistency with its strictures. 4-34 Ms. Carol Whiteside Mr. Arthur Reresford October 1, 1992 Page 2 GENLRAL COMMENTS As provided bN- §150` 6(h)(2), the SLC as a Responsible and Truster. Agency, responded to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Its addition to the issues and analysis Identified in the NOP, we identified twelve (12) specific topics for analysis which we hcheved to be essential for incivaiun in the draft environmental impact report (DEIR). Paragraph one of the 51,C letter Mutes State ownership of portions of the subject E-2 property. The DE•IR fails to discuss the implications of this ownenship with respect to limitation on the project eind tlnc projects effects tin Public Trust resources. It is -6 essential, as we have indicated its co,iunents on the Bethel Island Specific Plan, for local government planning efforts to ensure that 1) prior to development plan review and considcratiun for approval, the State's interest shall be identified. Tlie applicant should be notified earlN' in theplanningprocess of such interests to avoi;l *Witional expcomc its rcdestgntnh projects to avoid uses of the State's lands that are inconsistent with the Public Trust Doctrine. 2) prior to site planning, the local jurisdiction should develop a constraints and opportunities map which indicates the State Lands affected and pruvidt!S for planning: approaches tha, protect the Public Trust resources. Prior to the issuance of building perrnits, the County should require the applicant to provide evidence of a legal right, Interest, or other entitlement to use the pruprrty for the proposed development. Our letter of March 20, 1992, paragraph one, also requests that the DEIR discuss the prujcct's relationship to the development to the Oakley Specific Plan. There is no Stich di:cus�ion in the document. The failure to discuss this issue deprives the public and E-3 decision-m.-:kers of the nece-,canr analysis and assessment of the effects of this project on public services. Each of these projects should he discussed in the context of the recently adupted Oeneral Plan to CUivate consistency between the projects and consistency with the General Plan. Para •raph two > > etc re t h preparation 1 analyze i5 t t i our l t r ro ttmeltdcd the prcpa at on of one E R to a s yze the project and other proposed developments for Hotchkiss Tract as well as the Lesher Landing development, all of which are proceeding through the County's process E-4 concurrently. The cutnulutive analysis within the document is lacking the detail to provide an adequate level of analysis of the regional impacts of the known projects, in part as a consequence of addressing this project in isolation. The decision to prepare separate documents is also more costly for applicants. We aLsu indicated, paragraph 3, that the DEIR should include a camstraints E-5 analysis based on identified issues to facilitate the consideration of alternatives and alternative project designs. It is well established planning technique to than the nroiect \ifs •...,�. •�... :.t._.'C' . 4-35 VC1UDGr i, t yy:. Page 3 public rights of ways, pt:5 i�: ;)wnership among others. The DEIR fails to provide this i alternatives discussion. Resource agencies are particularly mindful of the constraints on Delta lands and seek thorough discussion prior to culiinitting public resources such as E-5 flood control to deveiopn:erlt. This alternative discussion may yield the "environmentally superior alternative" required under Sectiun 15126(d)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines which would enable the public and decision-makrrs to weigh the benefits and impacts of the dcvclopment of srns:five lands and resources. Paragraph four requested a cumulative analysis with s ecifc components that recognizes the- Delta as a region all projects that through their activities may affect this region in part or in whole should reference the cumulative affects. Recent federal and state programs (SFEP/CCNIP and Delta Protection Act) identify the Delta as pan of the KK-5 Saa Francisco Flay/Delta Estuary for which resource management plans and water quality programs are being developed, The resource impacts of the proposed project must be include in the calculations of habitat loss, water diversion, non point source pollution, air pollution and constraints on the estuary functions. The DEIR fails to provide this analysis. In addition to the ;:hone, the DEIR should discuss water supply in sufficient detail that water ribhts are clearly identified and that any commitment of a water supply Lu this project is consistent with established water permits. The document indicates that a 'will -� E-7 serve" letter has been obtained from the Oakley Water District, but there is no indication that the District lia-ti sufficient entitlements to provide such water. If it does not and ad(iitional supplies :gust be obtained, the indirect impacts of same must be discussed in this docume:n;. The DEIR per paracr.ah 6 of our March Pith letter, should discuss the requirements of" Goverrn-nent Code Sections 66478.5 and 66478.4, and how the project applicant proposes to compi\. The two sections are indepc:ident requiretnents of the Subdivision Map Act and both must be addressed. In limited circumstances, a local agency, upon appropriate finding-s, may determine that an applicant need not provide access through the subdivision to the waterway. Under Section 66478.8 that access must E-8 be "otherwise available within a reasonable distance from the subdivision". Under the holding in Kern River Public Access Committee v. Cin' of Bakersfield (1985) 170 CA 3d 1205, the findings allowed by Section 66478.8 do not a"lx to the provisions of Section 66478.5. Therefore, the applicants must provide access along the waterway out of their fee lands. ,Access through the subdivision to the river easement may only be waived if the provisions of Section 66478.8 arc met. Within the context of paragraph 9 of our response to the NOP, we are concerned E-9 that the area designated for the creation of additional wetlands and those e;dstent 4-36 Ms. Carol 11'hitcside Mr. Arthur Beresford October 1, 1992 Page 4 wetlands surrounded by fuirujays 3 and 4 cuuld be adverseiy affected by the activities on the course as well as the maintenance of the course. What measures or procedures exist to protect the wetlands from adverse effects of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that E-9 will be used in golf cuurxe operations? How wiU huntan activities on the adjacent areas affect the use of the area by wildlife? Neither the document in its body nor the materiai in Appendix E address these and related issues on which the effectiveness of the proposal mitigation and the protection of existing resources depend.- It is further unclear as to whether the proposed mitigation comports to the County's "no net loss" policy of wetlands. Reference is made within the document to the County General Plan standards E-io which co urdinate; with East Bay Regional Parks District (p3-189), but no specific reference tits the project to the trail system.. We rare concerned with the document's lack of response to our responses to the NOP circull.ited for its prepmatiun. We believe our response conforms to the provisions of Section 15096(b)(2) of the State CEOA Guidelines which states in part: "the reply sltall apecify the scope and a,ntent of the environmental information which would be germane to the responsible a!cn y's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed pi cct. The lead agency stL include this information in the EER." (emphasis uJdcd) As we have indicated herein, the document noes not meet this requirement. For fuc thec information, comae, E;:z<;bcth Patterson (916) 327-40.35 or me at (916) 322-7827. Sincerely, Dwig' . Sanders �. Chief, 'vision of Environmental Planning and Management Attachments cc: Elizabeth Patterson Duncun Sitttntons Mary Griggs OPR 4-37 Response to Letter E: State Lands Commission, February 16, 1993 Response E-1: On numerous occasions, the County has requested the State Land Commission (SLC) to provide evidence of its potential ownerships of lands in the Bethel Island Area. The first request was made during the review of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan. The most recent request was made by Planner Byron Turner dated May 4, 1992 in response to the SLC's comment on the Notice of Preparation dated March 20, 1992. As of today's date, the SLC has not provided any evidence of its ownership interest in the project area. The SLC's letter dated June 19, 1992 in response to Byron Turner's letter dated May 4, 1992 states that it may have an interest in lands proposed for a levee breach or lands with waterward boundaries. The Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project does not propose a levee breach nor does it abut any waterways. Title reports have been prepared on the project site. These title reports show no evidence of any potential ownership interest of the State. This determination was based on research and review of the U.S. Geological Service maps. The DEIR discusses the State Lands' jurisdiction with respect to this parcel at page 3-3. Response E-2: Please see response above. The applicant has appropriately demonstrated through its title reports that the Sate has no potential ownership interest in the project. This discussion appears in the DEIR at page 3-3. Response E-3: . An Oakley Specific Plan does not exist. At one time there was the Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan (December, 1989). This Plan has since been repealed by the Board of Supervisors. However, the DEIR does discuss the project's cumulative impacts with respect to projects in the Oakley area, in addition to other areas. (See DEIR at pages 5-2 to 5-7). In addition, the DEIR discusses the Cypress Lakes project's consistency with the General Plan under each topic heading. Since the DEIR was prepared for the Cypress Lakes project, it need not contain a discussion on consistency of other projects with the General Plan. Response E-4: At the present time, the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project is the only project being actively processed on Hotchkiss Tract. The DEIR discusses the projects on file with the County in the Hotchkiss Tract area at pages 5-2 and 3-21. Due to the streamlining timelines regarding application processing in state law, the Cypress Lakes project could not be forced to wait for the other projects before environmental review could occur. In addition, CEQA does not require the preparation of one project EIR for the entire Hotchkiss Tract Area. Such preparation would 4-38 prove to be infeasible since all projects in the area are not proceeding at the same rate and are owned by different individuals. Response E-5: An adequate alternative analysis appears at pages 4-1 through 4-17 of tiie DEIR. Please note that the design of the project changed in response to the comments on the Notice of Preparation and the first DEIR. These changes are more thoroughly discussed at pages i and 1-1 of the DEIR. The alternative analysis focuses on and discusses various resource constraints. For example, under each alternative there is an analysis regarding constraints relating to vegetation and wildlife (which includes wetlands), and geology, seismicity and soils (which includes discussions on seismic and flood hazards, soils and a rise in sea level). The potential for urban- type development in the Bethel Island area is recognized in the County General Plan and the f General Plan identifies internal levees as one option for removing the area from the flood hazard zone. This proposed project is proposing to implement the land use objectives of the County General Plan for the Bethel Island area. Response E-6: The DEIR recognizes the project's impact on the Delta to the extent they are applicable. The project would not have a significant impact on the Delta since it does not contain a levee breach and does not directly abut the waterway. The DEIR does discuss the project's relation to the Delta Protection Act at pages 3-16 and 3-26. In addition, the project includes water quality management plans to maintain acceptable water quality within the lake/channels proposed on site. When water would be pumped off-site, such as during the 100-year storm event, the water would be pumped into Sandmound slough. The quality of this water would be required to meet the County's NPDES permit requirements as recommended in Measure 3.7-17 at page 3-146. The proposed water quality management plans appear to be adequate to meet these requirements. Response E-7: Refer to Responses R-11 through R-14. Response E-8: Sections 66478.4 and 66478.5 only address subdivisions that front upon a public waterway, river or a stream. The Cypress Lakes project site does not front upon a public waterway, river or stream. 4-39 Response E-9: Wetland areas on the site would be protected from adjacent recreational and residential activities through the use of upland buffer areas around each site. The upland buffer areas would be a minimum of 50 feet wide within which human activity would be restricted. Specific methods for management of the wetland areas on the site would be contained in the final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and made conditions of any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit (see Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, page 3-97 of the DEIR). The project's conformity with the County's policies for "no net loss" of wetlands is addressed in the DEIR on pages 3-95 and 3-96. Response E-10: The DEIR's reference to the East Bay Regional Park District appears at page 3-181 as b Implementation Measure 9-s from the General Plan. This measure does not require the project " to connect its trails to those of the East Bay Regional Park District. Moreover, the East Bay Regional Park District does not have any trails in the project vicinity. Please note that the proposed project includes a variety of pedestrian and bicycle trails to be constructed on the project site. 1 4-40 t t t y t t The discussion of fire facilities beginning on page 3-167 indicates that the Bethel Island Fire Protection District urges that the entire project should be served by one fire district. The area is presently served by both the Bethel Island and Oakley Fire Protection Districts . The analysis fails to explore the impacts on the Oakley District if the area is to be detached from that F-4 district; the final EIR needs to do this. Additionally, both these districts are volunteer based. The implications of the ability of volunteers to adequately staff what would increasingly become an urban area needs to be discussed in the Final EIR. A mitigation measure which discusses a more fully paid fire-fighting staff should be considered. The site is discontiguous from the existing Oakley Water District and the Contra Costa Water District boundaries by over a mile. The implications of annexation to those districts, especially in terms of growth-inducing impacts, needs to be analyzed in the Final EIR. Has the CCWD agreed to this annexation? The presumption that LAFCO would modify its spheres of influence or district boundaries for a discontiguous F-5 annexation such as this may not be warranted. The FEIR needs to analyze these growth inducing impacts 1 in light of the CCWD' s Los Vaqueros Phase 2 DEIR. It is that District's EIR's contention that it will not provide water service beyond the planning area for Oakley which is described in that EIR. That would imply this site couldn't be served to the site from the OWD-CCWD Randall-Bold Treatment Plant. This conflict in .EIR information needs to be clarified. Page 3-200 states that the Ironhouse Sanitary District is in the process of expanding its SOI to annex all F-6 lands between the former CCCSD 15 and Oakley Sanitary District. This may not be technically correct and needs to be clarified in the Final EIR. jimc. 4-43 1 Response to Letter F: Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission, February 10, 1993 Response F-1: The comment appears to question the General Plan designation of the project site and the policies of the overlay land use designation of the Off-Island Bonus Area. An evaluation of the County's Off-Island Bonus Area policies with the underlying Agricultural designation is not the subject of this EIR but rather the EIR on the County's General Plan. The project's consistency with the policies of the Off-Island Bonus Area was reviewed and the project was determined to be consistent. The General Plan specifically recognizes a lake community and a golf course as recreational amenities consistent with the Off-Island Bonus Plan. Response F-2: The General Plan and the Off-Island Bonus Area already specifically allow development in this location. Moreover, the County General Plan designates lands between Oakley and Bethel Island for residential, commercial and other development. It just happens that the Cypress Lakes project is the first proposed in the area. The County Development Department has received other applications for development in the Bethel Island Area which are being actively processed. All but a small portion of the project site is within the Ironhouse Sanitary District. Will serve letters have been provided by both the. Ironhouse Sanitary District and the Oakley Water District. The only area designated for recreational development in the General Plan is the Hotchkiss Tract area. The County has limited recreational development in this area and is encouraging such development through the designation of the site for recreational uses. Response F-3: The removal of the project site from agricultural production (primarily grazing) would not be considered significant because soils in the project area are not considered"prime." However, as indicated in the DEIR (page 3-17), the conversion of the project site to urban and suburban uses would contribute to the incremental loss of agricultural land throughout Contra Costa County. However, such loss has been substantially limited through establishment of the Urban Limit Line, the 65/35 Land Preservation standard, and the agricultural core areas. Also see response to Letter B. 4-44 a i Response F-4: The text on page 3-168 of the DEIR described the professional opinion of the Bethel Island FPD chief that Hotchkiss Tract should be annexed to the Bethel Island Fire District. The DEIR does not make a specific recommendation regarding annexation because the site could be served by both districts, although it may be preferable for the project to be served by only one district. With regard to fees and staffing, Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2, on page 3-170 of the DEIR address the payment of fire district fees and possibly the need for an augmented funding source. Consultations with both fire districts have indicated that both districts could staff the station. Response F-5: The Oakley Water District has envisioned annexation of the Bethel Island Planning Area in its Master Plan (dated October 1991). The District's assumptions regarding cumulative growth and future annexations are addressed in the Master Plan. Since the District envisions annexation of this area into its Sphere of Influence and has provided the project applicant with a "will serve" letter, the District is agreeable to annexation of this site. Issues of whether to annex all areas between the Oakley Water District's current Sphere of Influence and the project site or only the project site is a determination for LAFCO. To reduce the potential for growth inducement, LAFCo could consider annexation of only the project site to the District. Also see Growth Inducement discussions in the DEIR, Pages 3-9. As noted on page 3-196 of the DEIR, CCWD may be able to accommodate minor sphere of influence changes without compromising project goals. The proposed project's demand would be considered minor. Also see Responses R-1 l through R-14. Response F-6: This comment is unclear in that it does not identify what is incorrect in the DEIR. However, the discussion on page 3-200 of the DEIR addresses the Ironhouse Sanitary District's proposed Sphere of Influence which would consolidate the former Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's Sphere of Influence with that of the Ironhouse Sanitary District, as well as some additional lands. The project site is almost completely within the Ironhouse Sanitary District, with the exception of several small areas. The District's proposed annexations would include these small areas. 4-45 Letter G SHERIFF-CORONER r Contra Costa County P.O. Box 7-91 Martinez , CA 9455 January b, 199- n To: Arthur Beresford Community Development Department From: Reed L. McDonald, Sheriff 's Fiscal Officer — Subject: Draft E. I. R. Cypress Lakes & Country Club Project --------------------------------------------------------------------- Since my name was mentioned on page -171 of the report I am commenting G-1 on what I thin; are incorrect statements in the POLICE PROTECTION SECTION. The contact person and liason for the Sheriff 's Department in regards to E. I.R. impacts and assessments is Lt. Parsons. Page 3-171 , 1st. Paragraph, Sentence #4 In the future, Delta Station will be under the supervision of a G-2 sergeant , rather than a lieutenant. This seem= to be an opinion , rather than a fact. 'I don '.t know where the author aot this information. Page y-171 , 37rd Paragraph, Sentence #1 Police protection services are. funded almost exclusively through the G-3 Special Districts Augmentation Fund from the County General- Fund. This is, in my opinion , not a factual statement. The County Auditor a�nears to be the source for this statement. Page -17C, last Paragraph The costs of the increased services would be paid from the Special a Districts Augmentation Fund, which is a part of the County 's General Fund allocated. for police protection service in the unincorporated areas and distributed on an as-needed basis. This again seems to be an opinion , rather than a fact, It is by G-4 understanding that the Special District Augmentation Fund is separate and distinct from the County General Fund. Additionally I do not think it factually correct to state that the costs of increased cervices would be paid from the Special District -Auamenta-`ion Fund, a= that fund is allocated by the County Board of Supervisors., and any portion of that fund may or may not be allocated for police protection, at the discretion, of the Beard. The same is true of the County General Fund. � O 4-46 Response to Letter G: Contra Costa Countv Sheriff-Coroner, January 6, 1993 Response G-1: Comment noted. Reed L. McDonald's name has been removed as a reference for information contained in the Revised DEIR. Response G-2: Refer to Response H-1. Response G-3: Comment noted. The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 3-171 of the DEIR is hereby deleted. Response G-4: Comment noted. The last paragraph on page 3-172 of the DEIR is hereby deleted. .1 1 4.47 S0 Richard Contra Richard K.Rainey SHERIFF-CORONER P.O. Box 391Costa Warren E.Rupf Martinez, California 94553-0039 Assistant Sheriff (510) 646- County Gerald T.Mitosinka Assistant Sheriff Rodger L.Davis Assistant Sheriff Letter H D C� Q � Db � 251 January 25 , 1993 APLIAIOPCN& ERMITUCE�� Mr. Scott Steinwert Project Manager Public Affairs Management 101 The Embarcadero, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PAM Project #363) Dear Mr. Scott: Thank you for the copy of the Contact Report. I do not recall this or any conversation with Jo Julin of PAM. Is it possible that .an attempt was made to contact me, the report started, and another persons ' remarks put down? Regardless, the statement in the EIR indicating that "In the future, Delta Station will be under the supervision of a Sergeant, rather than an Lieutenant" , is not factual. The staffing of the Sheriff's H-1 Department is contingent upon the annual budget as adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. I would ask that you delete any reference to me as a source of information in your EIR. D Sincerely, WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF-CORONER Reed L. McDonald Sheriff 's Fiscal Officer cc. Sheriff W.E.Rupf Art Beresford, Community Development Department 4-48 ! AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Response to Letter H: Contra Costa Countv Sheriff-Coroner, January 25, 1993 Response H-1: ` Comment noted. The last paragraph on page 3-170 of the DEIR has been amended as I follows: POLICE PROTECTION fEXISTING SETTING Existing Services Police protection services throughout the Planning Area are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, which is headquartered in Martinez and has a station house (Delta Station) located at the junction of Acme Street and O'Hare Avenue in Oakley (see Figure 3.9-1 of the DEIR). The Planning Area is covered by one beat, Beat 31, operating out of the Delta Station. The Station is staffed by one lieutenant, five sergeants and 23 deputies and has a total of 13 patrol cars. Five deputies, working in shifts, and a patrol car are assigned to Beat 31, with one deputy patrolling at any one time. In addition, the County Sheriff's Department operates a marine patrol which consists of two deputies. In e-f...... Delta Station will-be underthe of a s Tgea,�ther- than a lieutenant. Other- staffing changes . W I I-, - . - t Upen the outeeffle of ewuLn* County and State badger .,nx,-ss The staffing of the Sheriffs Department is contingent upon the annual budget as adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. (Sgt. Phil White, personal communication May 7, 1992, Ree McDonald, peFS �l eemmunieation August-7 992). Police work within the area covers a wide spectrum of problems, including responding to disturbance calls, fights, threats, burglaries and robberies. At present, the Department feels that the degree of service needs to be strengthened, and that any further development in the area may tax the service beyond its available capacity. 4-49 Land Planning Consultants INC. 239 MAIN STREET, SUITE E ■ PLEASANTON, CA 94566, ■ (510)846-7007 ■ FAX,�.4510)646-5314•v Letter I `� o January 28, 1993 c Mr. Arthur Beresford Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Cypress Lakes and Country Club YP nY Dear Mr. Beresford: Pursuant to our review of the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above project on behalf of the Liberty Union High School District, we have the following concerns: 1. The report correctly identifies the current enrollment condition at the District's existing campus located in Brentwood. Additionally, it identified the enrollment projections „ for the next five to six years, establishing the need for the District to construct a new school facility in the near future. It is unforseen that a new facility can be built at the District's Neroly Road and O'Hara Avenue site in Oakley within a time frame to eliminate sever overcrowding at the Brentwood facility. The problem is compounded further in that no construction funding source currently exists other than the collection of Developer Impact Fees, as identified in the DEIR. The report estimates that this development will require approximately 20% of the District's new school facility. This equals to a financial obligation associated with Cypress Lakes of 6.8 Million Dollars, excluding property ]` costs. With the recent increase in Developer Impact Fees and the adoption of the SB 1287 fee collected at the full $1.00 per square foot, the District is estimated to collect 3.9 Million Dollars at completion of the.project. This represents a short fall in full mitigation of 2.9 Million Dollars. The District is reviewing all alternatives for funding and has an application to the State for a funding match to complete construction documents for the new school. The District can not submit a Phase III application for State school construction funds until construction documents are prepared and approved by the Office of State Architect. The District is not expected to collect enough Developer Impact Fees or SB 1287 fees to support the match needed to complete construction documents. As can be seen by this short term funding need, revenue from fees will not be adequate in total or received in a timely manner to fully mitigate the District's needs for construction funding. The facility can not be built, or can a commitment to build the facility be made until an adequate funding source agreement is executed. General Plan Goal 7-AR, illustrated in the DEIR on page 3- 176, clearly states ...'To assure that school facilities are adequate or committed to be n � U Serving Public Agencies 4-50 I 1 Page 2 Mr. Arthur Beresford January 28, 1993 adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth." Therefore, the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR relating to the collection of"fees" at the time of issuance of building permits are inadequate and do not meet the goals of the County's General Plan. The project's mitigation measures should reflect available classroom capacity concurrently with the need generated by residential construction. The quality of the community and/or subdivision is reflective of the quality of the school system within that community and/or subdivision. Without facilities, the District will be limited as to the educational program it can offer. The importance of this correlation is evident by the Policy and Goals established in the County's General Plan.- Reabzir�g &.at the DEIR fully realizes the impact-thus project will have on the school district, it should also correctly realize the mitigation measures required on behalf of the school district and be consistent with the General Plan. For these reasons realizing that the DEIR fully identifies the impact this project will have on the District, the District requests that the mitigation measures stated in the DEIR be amended to reflect full mitigation needs, consistent with the General Plan. 2. The DEIR states that in addition to fees, school districts would also realize an increase �. in property tax revenue based on the change in land use and development. This statement is misleading in that the State offsets their funding revenue to school districts proportionally to increased tax revenue. This increase in property taxes will have no direct influence on the amount of funds received by the District for annual operating expenses in as much as the State sets annual revenue limits. Sincerely, Laird Neuhart cc: Dr. Philip White, Liberty Union High School District 4-51 j f Response to Letter I: Land Planning Consultants, January 28, 1993 Response I-1: Comments noted. With the adoption of Senate Bill 1287, the maximum developer impact P P P fee that can be levied by the school districts cannot exceed $2.65 per square foot. The project applicant will be required to pay the maximum school impact fee allowed by State law. However, as noted in Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 on page 3-179 of the DEIR, additional fees may be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the district. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5 on page 3-179 is modified to add the following to the end of the mitigation measure: The applicant and the school districts shall enter into a short-term funding agreement prior to recordation of the subdivision map. The agreement shall ensure that matching funds are provided for the completion of construction documents necessary for the districts' application(s) for State funding. The amount of short-term funding would be credited to the applicant's full school impact fees which are paid upon issuance of building permits. 4-52 O i i RECLAMATION DISTRICT 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Board of Robert D. Gromm, David A. Dal Porto, Jack Strickland, Trustees: Lynn S. Jochim, Joseph S. Spotts. Office: 2070 Dutch Slough Road, Bethel Island, CA 94511 ' Mail: P.O. Box 447 , Bethel Island, CA 94511 Telephone: 1-510-684-2117 FAX: 1-510-684-9610 February 11 , 1993 Letter J Contra Costa Community Developmen epartment Attention: Arthur Beresford 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez , CA 94553-0095 Enclosed under a Kjeldsen-Sinnock & Associates, Inc. letterhead, and addressed to Robert D. Gromm, Chairman, Reclamation District 799, are the comments on the Revised Draft of the Environmental Impact Report on Subdivision #7562, Cypress Lakes and Country Club, adopted by the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 799 on February 11 1993 . Robert D. Gromm, chairman/secretary r� O i O —=a r. Lon M tV D -v w --i 4-53 KJELDSEN-SINNOCK & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS KENNETH L. KJELDSEN 1113 WEST FREMONT STREET TELEPHONE 946.0268 STEPHEN K. SINNOCK POST OFFICE BOX 844 AREA CODE 200 +}} CHRISTOPHER H. NEUDECK STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95201.0844 FAX NO. 946.0296 1 1225-009 . 3 February 10, 1993 r Mr. Robert Gromm, Chairman Reclamation District No. 799 Post Office Box 447 Bethel Island, CA 94511 Re: Comments on December, 1992 DEIR Cypress Lakes and Country Club County File #2918-RZ, DP 3032-90, SUB #7562 Dear Mr. Gromm: The following is a joint effort between myself and Barbara Burns to comment on the December, 1992 revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes Development on behalf of Reclamation District No. 799 , hereinafter "District. " This letter is structured to follow the comments in our letters of March 11 and September 21, 1992, responding to the Notice of Preparation and the previous DEIR. FLOOD PROTECTION This DEIR has not acknowledged the dependence of this. development on the District's existing levees for providing J-1 flood protection for access to the development, off-site utilities, and off-site drainage. The DEIR needs to recognize and evaluated the responsibility of the new development for the maintenance of the District's perimeter levee system and drainage .system. The DEIR addresses alternative levee configurations/ improvements beginning on Page 3-137. The conclusion that the Quadrant Levee System "would not be feasible from a timing, construction, and financial perspective" is J-2 unsubstantiated. The District is awaiting the completion of a study by a consulting engineering firm that will consider alternative means of strengthening the perimeter levee to meet FEMA's urban 100-year flood standard. With this. study's new information, the District will further evaluate this concept during its permit review process. This DEIR has addressed the impact of this development on leaving existing improvements in relatively small and narrow areas in the flood plain with two responses. One response is the conclusion that the development has a J-3 positive impact by providing existing residents "a closer evacuation opportunity than presently exists" (Page 3-135) . The other response is the inclusion in Appendix E of the Informational Report by Bohley/Maley Associates that 1 4-54 Page Two ' February 10, 1993 presents hydraulic calculations of a levee -failure - analysis A detailed engineering review of this report has not been conducted at this time, but will follow and be an important , part of the project's permit review process by the District. J.3 The District will perform a. detailed engineering review during its permit review process of the proposed interior levee cross section as shown in the Bohley/Maley report in Appendix E. Details such as easements for future drainage facilities, landscaping areas, and drainage ditch maintenance will -be evaluated. DRAINAGE The DEIR incorrectly assumes that the project would result in an overall reduction in the current drainage impacts on District facilities. This DEIR did not incorporate the District's previous comment about the pattern of drainage waters contributed from parcels to the J-4 east and southeast flowing across this project's property during high flow conditions to the Sandmound Pump Station. As proposed, the project would cause a diversion of these waters to the Dutch Slough Pump Station with adverse impact. This subject will be an issue that will be reviewed in detail during the permit review process by the District. On Page 3-118, the DEIR concluded that, "in general, the storm drainage system within the Hotchkiss Tract area is adequate to carry present . flows, however some localized flooding does occur in low areas (near some pump stations) , and along Sandmound Boulevard during storm periods. " This statement is not correct. The District stated in its previous comments that the drainage system within the Hotchkiss Tract area is inadequate because of the above J-5 mentioned problems. The District will perform detailed engineering reviews during its permit review process of the proposed drainage plan, Channel-Lake Operation and Maintenance Plan (Page 2-19) ', Wetland Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Page 2-11) , Channel Enhancement Plan (Page 2-11) , and any other plans affecting existing or future District drainage facilities. GROUND AND GROUNDWATER The District will perform detailed engineering. reviews during its permit review process of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Page 2-18) , Dewatering Plan, Ground J-6 Settlement Monitoring Plan (Page 2-23) , Groundwater Management Plan (Page 2-25) , and any other construction activities that may affect the District's drainage system or levees. 4-55 Page Three February 10, 1993 � LAKES i The District will perform detailed engineering review iduring its permit review process of the Channel-Lake J.7 Operation and Maintenance Plan. The District may require the development to evaluate alternative P a sources of water forthe lake system as well as evaluate the effects of moored boats and docks on the lake's surface. PERMIT AND REVIEW PROCESS It is very important that the DEIR recognize Reclamation District No.799 as a key governmental entity i_8 with broad authority and jurisdiction affecting this project. The DEIR failed to list the District in its section entitled "DISCRETIONARY AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL ` REQUIRED" (Page 1-11) as an approval agency. Y• Sincerely, KJELDSEN-SINNOCK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7/V 142J-Ali Chylstopher H. eu , RCE BURNS ENGINEERING Barbara E. Burns, RCE 4� CHN/BEB/ls cc: Trustees Cressy H. Nakagawa, Esq. 4-56 J Response to Letter J• Reclamation District 799, February 11, 1993 `1 ' Response J-1: Mitigation Measure 3.7-12, page 3-145 of the DEIR was specifically added to address the proposed project's responsibility to the continuing maintenance of the existing RD-799 levee and drainage systems. I Response J-2: l Comments noted. The DEIR at Pa3-137 provides information regarding the J Page p g g infeasibility of the quadrant levee system to remove the project site from the flood hazard zone. 1 At the time of publishing the DEIR and this Final EIR, the District's study was 'not available. J Response J-3: Comment noted. The comment provides additional information regarding detailed engineering review that would take place during the District's permit review process. No additional response is necessary. Response J-4: Figure 3.7-1, page 3-119 of the DEIR.depicts the existing drainage facilities in the project area. In general, these facilities flow away from the project site toward the Dutch Slough pump ] station and the Sand Mound Slough pump stations. According to this map, limited quantities of drainage flows across the project site from adjacent parcels. The conclusion in the EIR that the project would result in a beneficial impact on drainage assumes that the 687-acre site would be removed from the existing drainage system and would not contribute storm water runoff to the already overtaxed system. RD-799 disagrees with this conclusion and has indicated they would review this issue in detail prior to issuing any permits for the project. Response J-5: Comments noted. The comments provide additional information and clarifications which do not require a response. Response J-6- Comments noted. The comments provide additional information and clarifications which do not require a response. 4-57 i i Response J-7: Comments noted. The comments provide additional information and clarifications which do not require a response. Response J-8: Section 1.6 beginning on page 1-11 of the DEIR is revised to include the following: 8. RD-799 Approval - Permits from RD-799 will be required for the proposed levee and Y drainage systems both on- and off-site. 1 � I 4-58 �. 4.4 GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 4-59 Letter K ,, February 10 ,.!Lt993 rv�FB 4 Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street-North Wing 4th Floor F �' ' Martinez , Ca 94533-0095 - ,�J►�T } O�cPT Attention: Art Beresford RE: Cypress Lakes & Country Club Development we are writing in response to the revised EIR dated December 1992. This project will not benefit any East Contra Costa County resident that must commute to Central Contra Costa and beyond to work. The imbalance of jobs to housing is extremely crucial , this project will only impact this further. The EIR shows Nelroy Road as a main thoroughfare to Route4/160. This is currently a dirt road on private property where Nelroy meets Hiway 4 at Delta Road. The report states that this development will have a short term impact on the traffic problem. With the current economic situation for county, state, K-1 and federal funds I don ' t see funding for new jobs or new roads (Delta Expressway? ) in the short or long term future. MSomewhat closer to home is the issue of Cypress Road . The Cypress Lakes project proposes to improve only at two intersections and the new entrance to the project upon completion of 1000 houses. This could be several years before the limited improvements are made. We have serious accidents every month, many of them fatal . We can not afford the increase of an estimated 10 , 000 trips per day before these improvements are made. Air pollution is already beyond BAAQMD standards 20 plus days per year. This project predicts that it will increase K-2 both reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides to more rthan two and a half times the acceptable standards of pounds 4-60 page-2 a of pollutants per day. The EIR states this will be a sig- nificant adverse effect. We agree, many of the older res- K-2 idents at the convalescent hospital have respiratory problems as does the neighborhood (most are retired) . The visual impact of the proposed project is also going to have a significant adverse impact to the area. The re- port states that often the houses in the area are 3 and 4 D stories tall so "our very limited view of Mt. Diablo" would K-3 not be effected by the proposed 16 ' x 120 ' internal levee. The truth of the matter is that 96% of the homes in the area are 1 and 2 stories tall and our views would be adversely effected. The beauty of the rural open space will be gone for good, Noiseollution will be another significant adverse factor P 9 both during and after the construction of the project. The EIR states that a change of 6dB is considered significant . This project proposes changes of 17dB almost 3 times what K-4 is considered significant. We move to this area for its quiet country atmosphere. We hear frog, coyotes, crickets, quail , pheasants and many other local inhabitants. The a project will provide 1330 new lawn movers , hedge trimmers and cars, as our new neighbors. This project is proposing to be a recreational project there fore subject to higher density and rezoning from the current agriculture limits of 1 house per 5 acres. They propose to put 1330 houses on 246 acres of the site, in other words 5. 4 houses per acre. The cypress Lakes project will provide lakes that you can' t swim or fish in, what recreational ben- K-5 efit does this provide with the delta less than 200 yards away? This project also proposes a semi-private golf course as part of it' s recreational theme. With 2 existing golf courses ( 1 less than 2 miles from the site) in the far East , Contra Costa and 2 others approved in other project:; , do we really need another golf course? What percent of the pop- ulation will this appeal to? 4-61 a 1 - page-3 r With all of the budget cutbacks and proposed budget cutbacks this project projects a new fire station, we may loose the the one on Bethel Island let alone support an additional one. -. The county will have to provide 40% of the cost to put in r K-6 sound walls along Cypress Road. The county will have to pay for the rest of the improvements to Cypress Road and beyond. The county will pay for new schools, more sheriff , more this and more that. Will the county gain that much revenue from this project? The last and most important concern is the proposed internal levee system. We feel this levee is such an important part of this proposed project so that it can segregate the Cypress Lake development rather than integrate, enhance, and improve the Bethel Island area. Wouldn ' t ranchettes be a better and more compatible use of this land? ' This proposed levee is a tremendous safety threat to the area both during and after construction. Safety is always a major K-7 concern when you live with a potential for flooding. The estimates to bring the existing 799 levee up to FEMA standards are not yet available, but the rumored cost of the construction of the new internal levee is $10 million. Wouldn ' t it make Cypress Lakes a part of the Bethel Island area if that $10 million were used to bring the existing 799 levee to the new FEMA standards? If this internal levee is approved will it pave the way for future internal levee projects and ultimately the further deterioration of the current 799 system? Why not have all future projects support the 799 system to make us all a part of a safe FEMA approved Hotchkiss Tract. We look forward to your comments on these and other questions raised by the current residents of Hotchkiss Tract. r Sincerely, Gu an& Katie All 4_62 4384 Sandmound Blvd. Oakley, CA 94561 Response to Letter K: Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993 Response K-1: The transportation analysis included in the DEIR proposed numerous safety improvements for Cypress Road to accommodate the estimated 12,000 additional trips per day. Traffic signals at the Cypress Road/Knightsen Avenue and Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue intersections would help to improve traffic.safety along Cypress Road. Improvements at these intersections, as well as improvements at the Cypress Road/Bethel Island Road/Project Entrance intersection, would include widening to provide additional through lanes and turning lanes. These improvements would also help to improve traffic safety and traffic flow upon development of the proposed project. Other roadway improvements in the area would be phased to correspond to the rate of new construction. ' Response K-2: e Comment noted. This comment agrees with the findings of the DEIR Response K-3: Comment noted. The DEIR on p. 3-108 concludes that the project would result in an unavoidable adverse impact to the existing views from adjacent properties. Response K-4: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The DEIR, p. 3-116 and 117 proposes several mitigation measures to reduce construction-period and long-term ' noise impacts to acceptable levels. However, the DEIR concludes that construction-period noise would result in a short-term unavoidable adverse impact on local residents. Response K-5: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. A feasibility analysis was conducted for the golf course and concluded that a golf course could.be supported on the project site (see Pages 3-182 of the DEIR). Response K-6: County policy requires new development to pay its fair share of the costs of public 1 services and facilities needed to serve the development. Page 2-2 of the DEIR Summary lists some of the mitigation measures that are incorporated into the proposed project and which would require funding by the applicant. In addition, the applicant would construct the roadway improvements listed in Table 3.2-6(A) on page 3-53 of the DEIR. The applicant may also be required to pay a regional traffic fee for Measure C projects. 4-63 i Response K-7: The first part of the comment represents the commentor opinion on the type of development that would be appropriate on the project site. No response is necessary. Also see Response EE-20. A ranchette alternative was discussed in the DEIR at Pages 4-5 through 4-7. The second part of the comment expresses the commentors opinion that the exterior levees should be brought up to FEMA standards,rather than constructing an internal levee. The County General Plan, Policy 3-74, allows the construction of internal levees to FEMA standards in the Bethel Island Area, to remove areas from the flood hazard zone. Also refer to Pages 3-137 of the DEIR, Response FF-1 and Appendix C, which contains a letter from the project applicant to RD 799 requesting that RD 799 be the responsible agency for flood protection and drainage on the project site. 4-64 I 93 FEB 16 PH 4: 11 Letter ' C:: T F-PT. February 1, 1993 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Mr. Art Beresfond I recommend rejection of the December 1992 Environmental Impact Report on Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project for the following reasons : I1 . The report does not comply with section 15130 of the L'1 California Environmental Quality Act. 2 . The planned .land use does not include subdivision 6610 . Pages 3-3. 3 . Impacts on other planned uses in surrounding areas does not include subdivision 6610. Pages 3-20, 3-21. 4. Housing discussion and table 3.1-1 does not include subdivision 6610 pages 3-20, 3-21. 5 . Traffic impact study does not include cumulative impacts because of subdivision 6610 pages 3-28 through 3-63. 35 pages are errors. All calculations, study and conclusions are L_2 incorrect without subdivision 6610 input. 6 . Air quality evaluations does not consider the cumulative effects from subdivision 6610 including possible concurrent grading operations. Pages 3-64 through 3-75. 7 . Subdivision 6610 together with roadway improvements are not considered in visual quality. Pages 3-99 through 3-108. 8 . The cumulative effects of subdivision 6610 on noises not address. Pages 3-109 through 3-117. 9 . Fire protection evaluations do not include efects of subdivision_ 6610 both on funding and services. Pages 3-163 through 3-170 . 4-65 10 . Police protection impacts excluding cumulative effects of ' subdivision 6610 not included. Pages 3-172 through 3-174 . 11 . Cumulative school impacts because of subdivision 6610 are not discussed. Pages 3-177 through 3-179 . 12 . Adverse impacts do not consider cumulative effects from subdivision 6610 on air quality, visual quality, job/housing ' L-2 balance, noise and construction period dust. Page 5-1. 13 . Cumulative impacts are incorrect for subdivision 6610 in land use. Subdivision 6610 already approved . Traffic/circulation , air quality data base in error. Subdivision 6610 not subject to COunty TPM current requirements . Subdivision 6610 does not have to meet current noise standards or comply with current county growth management, requirements , utility demands and human health as it is alre;;A­ *��Pri . 14 . No discussion regarding the effect of the winter tule fog on L-3 services, traffic, etc. were noted. The following are other questions and/or concerns I have which are not answered and/or discussed 1) Traffic exist for the entire area is limited on Cypress Road between Knightsen Avenue and Jersey Island Road to two lanes . How is this going to affect the population should a flood or L-4 disaster occur. One accident can block access and/or escape from the area. Can this road handle 11, 0000 people of once . , Orin the fog? Even if an addi tional 2 lanes are ardded . - ' ) Hydrology and Drainage - Kleinfelder, Inc. the geotechnical consultants on the- project are in litigation in Discovery Ba a major subdivision in Patterson, California and a loca L-5 residence in the immediate vicinity over soil movement and/or settlements . Based on this track record , As a geotechnical engineer, I question their capability and conclusions for Cypress Lake Project and recommend an overview of their work by another geotechnical engineer1for some kind of assurances . L-6 ILives could be at stake here as well as property . A bond should be posted during the work. ia) How much short term storm water retention is planned tori` the golf course? Page 3-127. L-7 b) What storm intensities, run-off factors and caiculations were used to conclude that the storm drainage network would accommodate the increases in run-off and reduce the amount of run-off off site? Page 129 . 4-66 t C) The proposed levee crest elevation of +10.2 is not 0 .2 higher than what FEMA requires . FEMA requires 3.5 free ' board upstream ( 10.5) tapering to +10 . at the down stream end and +11.0 for roadways and 100 feet either side of roadways . Pages 3-130 - 132. d) What calculations are there that verify the statement that "initial levee construction (but) would not have any effect on adjacent structures given the distance that L-7 existing structures are from the proposed location of the new levee" . Page 3-133 . e) What calculations are there that verify the statement that "the localized de-watering activities would also not affect adjacent properties because the de-watering would occur far enough from existing residences and any draw down would only occur on the project site immediately under. or adjacent to the de-watering area. p• 3=133 . A �i id pump test -would be needed Co ' verify this . This shoul �� done befo`re any dewatering is undertaken . ' f ) What distance is "adjacent" ? Page 3- 135 . 3 . Public Services a) The construction of a fire house requires equipment and L-8 man power. Who pays for this additional cost? What mitigating measures are being considered if fire protection vote fails? b) It is my understanding that the Sheriff's substation (Delta station) is under consideration for closure. How is adding floor space to this station going to provide L-9 adequate projection. Subdivision 6610 together with this project. will overwhelm an already under staff sherrif substation and marine patrol. What steps are being taken to mitigate this problem: What mitigation measures are planned if the sheriff's substation is closed. 4 . Human Health The environment assessment states that there are no L-10 underground storage tanks on the property. Enclosed for your review are state permits for three 500 gallon underground fuel storage tanks installed in 1970 on this site.. No permits were - obtained for there removal. Pages 3-217 . 5 . General = L-11I a) What portion of project is to be marketed to retired persons. Page 3 -20. b) What provisions are being provided should:damage occur to .. L-12 utilities in Sandmound Blvd. and/or 'improvements 4-67 . x: ~r Y • private property during de-watering and construction? Will bonds be posted? C) Some sections show the new levee exterior slope" at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, others at 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. Which is it? (In the Bohley/Maley Associates Report) . ' � . Hydrology & Drainage a) Page 3-118 states that Kleinfelder, Inc. report entitled Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lakes j Project is located in Appendix E. The $30 EIR Book I bought does not have this report. I obtained from County offices a copy of this report unsigned with blanks and tables and data missing. The county indicated that was all they. had. ' A subsequent report dated February 2 , 1993 was obtained I and is still missing plates and data . I request that we have the opportunity to review this data when available . � b) Page 6 of this unsigned report states the internal loads will never be exposed to wave action unless failure of Sandmound - or Dutch Slough levees. The new levee with only restrain 3 to 7 feet of water with velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second. Additionally, thick vegetation will cover these dry land levees and published research stats that vegetated slopes can accommodate these velocities . What reports states these conditions? How is the thick vegetation to be established? Who is going to maintain it? Bohley/Maley Associates report when a break occurs, there will be substantiated velocities. How is this sand slope going to stand substantial velocities? How is the steeper internal slope to be protected from erosion. No clean sand slope will stand up to 17 height at a inclination of 2 Horizontal to 1 vertical. What calculations are there that nn rar..k is required? Page 3-130. _ Where does FEMA say it is not required-Page 3-130 . c) How will construction proceed if water levels drop 3 to 4 ,feet and the , trench is required to be filled in.. What alternate to levee construction is there if this happens? Will it be safe? 4-68 r d) The August 1992 unsigned report with missing plates, test data, and charts covering levees for Cypress Lakes has a discussion of water levels and tidal information from California Department of Water Resources regarding Reclamation District 2042. . What revelance does a r reclamation district in Stockton have on Cypress Lakes? What calculations are there to support a levee settlement ' of around 4"? Page 3-133. What calculations are there to support that levee settlement would not effect adjacent structures? What distance is meant by adjacent? Page 3-133. What studies have been done regarding settlement that may , affect Sandmound sewer line? If it occurs, what if any mitigation measures are being considered to correct severe slope and flow as a result of adverse settlement on the sewer? If the project levee would divert waters in the event of a flood (Page 3-136) should not. the project levee be protected with rip rap? If rip rap is required what is the visual impact? Where is the 300 feet for immediate escape .on Sandmound L-14 Blvd? What escape mitigation measures have been considered if Sandmound Blvd. is flooded? What studies have been made that show the lake slopes stable to 17 feet at slope inclinations of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical F 3- 13 7 Kleinfelder indicates the lake will have slope inclinations of. 5 horizontal to 1 vertical for 20 feet. Page 3-154 states Kleinfelder's report evaluation of proposed levees is available for review at County office. Such is not the case! When can we get the so called "detailed information regarding .the soil profile"tne report claims to have. No test data, plot plans, boring logs, as well as the levee slope stabilities are not available at the county office. The report is not even signed. Why does the EIR, Bohley/Maley Associates and Kleinfelder, ' Inc. incorrectly quote FEMA height requirements . During dewatering, what mitigation measures are being considered to prevent piping with a hydraulic gradient in excess of 25 feet to existing improvements including sewer lines. What calculations are there that indicate the existing levees are safe under this ' hydraulic gradient? How can an EIR be prepared covering levees based on data not yet available? 4-69 , r. . Levee standards require rip-rap on 3H to 1V where velocity is greater than 3 .f . p . s . are anticipated . According to the EIR Consultants , velocity would be greater than 3 f . p . s. Why do we have to keep paying $30 for incomplete and inaccurate EIR' s that do not address our questions the first time . Kleinfelder Inc . ' s report dated February 2 , 1993 on new Levees in complete . No test data, No slope stability results 3-'_5: . P P 3 Request opportunity to review information when available . How can an EIR prepared in Dec . 92 be based in part on an incomplete geotechnical report dated February 2 , 1993? !, February 2 report stated It was in compliance with COE EM1110-2- 1913 . It is not in compliance ! ;} L-14 Does not comply with Table 2-1 . Does not comply with Table 2-2-3b (4 ) . Does not comply with Section 11 , Section 2-8 , Section 2-9-b not done , Section 2-14 no done . Entire Chapter 3 not done or presented . Does ' t meet intent of CHapter 6 . No impervious blanket on water side or under drain as slopes exceed 1V : 5H . Does not have rip-rap on 1V: 3H slopes where velocity @ 3 f . p . s . Both engineering reports indicate velocities of 3 to 4 f . p . s . Section 11 No results o'f Stability analvsis , no test data . Report indicates results above COE requirements . No Test Data . What are results using Bi.zhop ' .5 method , m; cot- says , Levee will fail . Chapter 7 sec 11-f not covered . Table 7-2 disregarded . 7-6 not covered , 7-6-C-2-d ignored . 1' (Where slopes consist of erodible ;ranular soils . a bedding laver of sand and gravel or spalls or plastic filter cloth are to be used under rip-rap ) . ' RcSpectfulLy submitted , tllexander Bullar 4300 Sandmound Blvd , Oakley, CA 94561 cc: Paul Allen Reclamation District No . 799 PO Box 447 Bethel. Island CA 94511 • y 4-70 r. f � ♦� a w Q•' � ........."""'..................... N► "' .f'% 'r VA n VA tM�-1 a dc • �;„�= J we L O 0� V a �r • 41 wip IdL a +�Zf`y� � 0 � ♦ i r+ r ko s Jr aC r� i d,i� ..• �,,.Q� ••� �L � r� r te,,. f' ,. , Vol lot VA '60 7• �K r v'.�Yi .Kl� it a �`cpJ �A M • p IN _ r. ♦ i r w t M wt. r ••r r n s ♦ W � t1/ 4n 4- 4z 3t im 1 sw � N� ► M ► • yy y► 'r v ' ci •s �_ � v � o o r ~ v � H M , � I► } z o} .c 4•t r D V v 44 46 4LV ' .rte ® •c...n •Wc%J vs e10.1" j3 at .- w �. •n � KKK 1 .►yy1a1 • 41 f V s 9K J.Ir • D •.. V ♦ D •ci' � : r �� a • � mx a • I • H • 4L 0 • W ..r ord I ~ rJ Z J ►-�V W V y •. O O Q J L r- • . W JJ�� O cir y W y� ♦ H� ol O ' y rp.. �s 7 •.• M ��o .dIL , y �J0.064 • � � ��� � �� is � �. •big��z . "� � , q � u•[oW�. .•atty �as .- •�"i.auo seri•: a�v : �Y Response to Letter L: Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993 ' Response L-1: Comment noted. The comment is too general to require a response. Specific comments as they relate to this comment are addressed below. Response L-2: Subdivision No. 6610 is an approved project. The DEIR at page 3-3 refers to future projects in the Bethel Island area that have not yet to been approved. Subdivision.No. 6610 is specifically addressed 'in Section 5.2, p.5-2 of the DEIR. The cumulative impacts analysis contained in the DEIR includes all approved projects, such as Subdivision No. 6610, and evaluates their impact in conjunction with the proposed Cypress Lakes project as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Response L-3: Comment noted. Tule fog is an occasional occurrence in the winter in the Bethel Island ' area which may require additional caution while travelling on local roadways. Because tule fog is a widespread occurrence in the valley portions of California in both urban and rural areas, no ' specific mitigation measures are proposed. Response L-4: Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.7-10 on page 3-144 of the DEIR. Response L-5: Comment noted. The comment is the opinion of the commentor. The County conducted ' their own independent review of the EIR, including the geotechnical information before releasing the DEIR for public review. In addition, other reports were used besides the Kleinfelder report, as indicated on p. 3-147 of the DEIR. Response L-6: See Response Z-20. Response L-7: The following response corresponds to comments a through f. a) The project's lake/channels will be capable of retaining all runoff from a 100- year-event P b year-event storm with no more than a one foot rise in the lake/channel water r 4-73 surface elevation. There is no requirement to retain waters from any greater storm. However, for the larger than 100 year event, the project would have the ' capability to retain the additional runoff by utilizing portions of the golf course. As such, there is no quantity of golf course area that is being planned to be a retention basin for short-term water storage. ' b) An average runoff coefficient ("C") of 0.67 was used for the entire project site encompassed within the proposed levee. Individual coefficients were weighted on the basis of area and ranged from 0.45 for open areas to. 1.00 for the lake/channels. For. all calculations, the 100 year event storm intensity is equal to 7.42 divided by the time of concentration, in minutes, raised to the 0.534 power. Using the above parameters, and knowing that the lake/channel surface area is 61 acres, a specific pumping capacity can be chosen that will then limit the total rise in lake/channels to one foot. The amount of run-off off site would be reduced because of the construction of the levee around the project. c) FEMA requires three feet of freeboard per NFIP, page 357, Section 65.10, Item 1. d) Calculations were not necessary to determine the impact on adjacent structures. To address this impact, monitoring equipment would be positioned at critical locations to ensure that initial levee construction does not cause excess vibrations that could affect existing structures. For the majority of the levee construction, the distance between the levee and existing structures would be great enough that there should be no impact on existing structures. e) Calculations were not necessary to determine this impact. To address this impact, monitoring wells would be placed at critical locations to ensure that dewatering ' activities do not lower the current groundwater table more than approximately 3 to 4 feet. Fluctuations of this magnitude are common on Hotchkiss Tract. Therefore, a decrease in the groundwater table of this magnitude should not adversely affect existing structures. Should dewatering activities cause a greater drawdown, then water would be added to a drainage ditch situated between the levee construction and Sandmound Boulevard. This operation would cause mounding to occur which would elevate the groundwater levels near the existing structures. f) The comment appears to be referencing the discussion on p.3-133 of the DEIR. Adjacent properties would be those properties within 200 feet of the dewatering activities. Response L-8: Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 on page 3-170 of the DEIR. 4-74 Response L-9: Please refer to page 3-171 of the DEIR which describes the status of Delta Station and staffing. Mitigation measure 39-4 of the DEIR would require the project applicant to pay a fair- share fee for sheriff services. This fee is based on the cost to provide new sheriff facilities. However, the fees could be used for staffing of the Delta Station or Marine patrol. Allocation of these fees is the responsibility of the Sheriffs Department. Also see Response EE-31. Response L-10: See Letter N from Bob Dal Porto which discusses the three underground storage tanks referenced. The permits provided by the commentor are from a one-time permitting program that was conducted in the mid-1980s for registering underground storage tanks. This program is now defunct. The permits do not relate to whether the tanks were leaking, but just'to their presence on the project site.. If the tanks were identified as leaking, they would be reported on the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's list of groundwater contamination sites or underground storage tanks sites. Neither of these listings contain information regarding contamination of leaking underground storage tanks on the project site. As indicated by the property owner in Letter N, these tanks have been excavated and removed and used for other purposes in the agricultural operation on the property. Currently there are several above-ground storage tanks for fuels. To address the potential for soil contamination as a result of equipment storage on the site and the fuel tanks, the following mitigation measure is added to Chapter 3.11, p. 3-222 of the EIR to ensure that soil contamination, if any, on the site is cleaned up prior to any excavation related to construction in the vicinity of these uses. • Soil sampling should be conducted in those areas of the site where heavy equipment was stored, repair facilities are located and where the.above ground storage tanks are located. Should contaminated soil be identified, removal and remediation of the material should occur before excavation or construction activities commence in these areas. The Contra Costa County Health Department should supervise and authorize any soil sampling procedures and remediation. (Responsibility: Project Applicant). Response L-11: No specific onion of the project is designated for senior citizens. Rather, the entire P P P J g project would be marketed toward senior citizens. 4-75 Response L-12: ' Standard engineering practices and procedures would be adhered to as required by Contra Costa County. In addition, groundwater monitoring wells and vibration monitoring devices would ensure that utilities and/or improvements on private property are not subjected to excessive forces. Response L-13: ' Allro osed exterior levee slopes are 3 to 1, except in the area along Sandmound P P Boulevard parallel to the Sandmound Levee, where the exterior slope is 4 to 1. The levee is ' proposed to have a slope of 4 to 1 in this area to reduce visual impacts from off-site locations. Response L-14: The following responses refer to comments a through d. a) The referenced report is included in this FEIR as an attachment to Letter U. b) The current plan is to have the outside slope vegetated as soon as possible. The type of grass selected would be one with a deep root system capable of protecting the slope of against velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second. It is assumed that the ' outside slope would be maintained by either RD-799 or another governmental agency. In the stability analysis, it was assumed that engineered fill might consist of silty sand or sand. However, even engineered fill consisting of sand will contain an appreciable amount of silt as evidenced by the assignment of 50 pounds per square foot of cohesion. In reality, the levees will be constructed using on-site borrowed materials which would be mostly a mixture of silt and ' sand. The likelihood of having an entire levee composed of clean sand is nonexistent. There may be occasional lenses of clean sand between layers of silty sand, sandy silt, etc. Once these materials are covered with thick vegetation, research and studies confirm that slopes of this nature would be protected from velocities in the 3 to 4 feet per second range. FEMA relies on the Corps of Engineers's Manual for Levee Construction, EM 1110-2-1913. Section 7-6 of this manual, pages 7-9 and 7-10, states that grass protection can be used. C) No alternative to levee construction would be needed. If the drainage trench is required to be filled in to minimize the effects of dewatering, this should not affect the groundwater conditions west of the dewatering trench. Construction would proceed with deep dynamic compaction (DDC), or if excessive vibrations are noted, with a cut and fill operation using conventional earthwork equipment. d) Kleinfelder, Inc. has provided consulting services on approximately 15 FEMA tprojects involving levee construction, one of which was Reclamation District 4-76 2042. Many of these problems exhibited similar soil and construction conditions ' as the proposed Cypress Lakes project. A computer program was used to estimate levee settlement assuming worst case conditions. With levees supported on.a firm foundation and with the new levee entirely composed of Engineered Fill, very little settlement is anticipated. By inspection, a levee that settles a few inches will not have an impact on structures located beyond a 50 foot distance. For this reason, it is anticipated that the levee construction would not have any impact on the Sandmound Boulevard sewer line. It is not anticipated that flood velocities, in the event of a breach of the Sandmound levee, would cause significant erosion of the new Cypress Lakes levee. Therefore, there is no need for rip-rap. While studies have not been performed on the lake slopes, field explorations indicate very dense materials below the approximate 10 foot level. These lower soils will have the greatest impact ori slope stability, and therefore, slope stability concerns with the lake slopes as currently proposed are not anticipated. ' The soils report inadvertently left out a reference to Plates C-1 and C-2 on Page 9-7 of the February 2, 1993 Kleinfelder report. The project is located approximately 300 feet, at its closest location, from existing residences along Sandmound Boulevard. The intent of the emergency evacuation plan would be to notify area residents of a potential levee breach before it occurs, so that evacuation could occur before the area is flooded. However, the emergency evacuation plan would address evacuation procedures in the event Sandmound Boulevard is flooded. Please note, as indicated in the DEIR at Page 3-136, under a typical levee breach, the area would not flood immediately and there would be time for residents to evacuate. The initial soils report and levee analysis were presented in the DEIR, in Appendix E. In addition, the final report was sent directly to the commentor on February 4, 1993, and made available to the public at the February 8, 1993 East County Regional Planning Commission meeting, prior to the February 16 close of the public period. The reports have been prepared for submittal to FEMA. FEMA requires that levees be analyzed for compliance with conditions described in Chapter 6 of COE EM 1110-2-1913. The report has been prepared to comply with this requirement. This requirement is described in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Section 65.10, paragraph b, (4). Kleinfelder has prepared several reports for similar projects in the same manner as the report prepared for the Cypress Lakes project. These previous reports have been reviewed and approved by FEMA. The report should meet the requirements for an internal levee as set forth by FEMA. 4-77 FEB i C _._-- P 'f '- Qr'i C _ v rz �o cl ci MV b p� 4 � O to to O ' b �O 1 tl O C p O r r r Q 1 o a M-Z o \ o � r ry e o ' p r a 4 Q b v � a . M�� , Response to Letter M: Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993 ' Response M-1: Comment noted. The fifth sentence of the third paragraph on page 3-17 of the DEIR is amended to read: "Two of these residences are located south of Cypress Road east of Bethel Island Road, and one is located north of Cypress Road on Cypress Extension." Response M-2: Figure 1-3: "Project Layout" shows the design of Cypress Road as proposed b5 the project applicant. The current proposed alignment would result in right-of-way acquisition on one parcel. If the project applicant does not obtain the right-of-way, and the County determines that the alignment of the Cypress Road Extension cannot be realigned to avoid this property, the County may invoke its powers of eminent domain to purchase the right-of-way. If the County pursues eminent domain procedures, the property owner would receive fair market value for the property in question as determined by an independent appraisal. The property owner would also receive relocation assistance, if needed, as required by federal and state law (The Uniform Relocation ' Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970). Mitigation measure 3.11-1, at Page 3-221, requires that incoming property owners be aware of the adjacent agricultural uses and the potential hazards associated with this land use. However, alternative alignments, which may avoid this parcel, are still being considered by the applicant and the County. Ultimately, it is up to the County to determine the location of Cypress Road. Response M-3: Refer to Response L-7, section (d). Response M-4: Dewatering during construction would only occur to a maximum of 18 to 20 feet below the ground surface. Dewatering would not be anticipated to affect groundwater, wells, or other subsurface deposits lower than 20 feet below the ground surface. 4-81 b o a o Letter N 1 6 '993 February 9, 199 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO LAST CONTRA CORTA COUNTY PL,&27NrNG COMMISSIUN FROM: BOB DAL PARTO SUBJECT: CHARTERMn LAN0/0ATTLZ Co. hND THltE SISTERS TRU$T ETR AN "THE CYPRESS LAKES PRuiLec- ''t the. fnr or As mor land own of ti,e Dari Porto property in the Hotchkiss Tract, which is presently under developMsnt•- bk the Chartered Land snd cattle CompAny and Throo Sistern Trust, T wish to reepond to unfounded accusations made at the Pebrutary int and 8th Public Kaariti%ju on the EIR for the Cypress Lakes Pro�sct. It was statad several times during the hearings that X have rosentiy undarground fuel istpraSta tanKs on the property. r ' do not have underground tanks. I have overhead tanks. The capao�ty of the tank: consist oft 1 -1 000 gallon overhead gasoline tank, 1-500 gallon overhead gasoline tank, 1 -1000 gallon overhead diesel tank and 1-500 gallon didael tank with a hand pump for fuel discharge. These installations are all abvvo ground and have Wuxi for years. origi'nal1X S did have 3 underground tainka aonsiating of 1-500 gallon diesel tank, 1-500 gallon gasoline tank and 1-350 gallon gaeo3inki tnnk. As my operation grow in aims, the tanks* were inefficient, as I needed more capacity and a more economical method of delivery and discharge. T discontinued - their use and subsequently removed them from the ground. The tanker warn in excellent condition when ramovod, and were used for portable trap wagons to sorvica my equipment at other locations. I have been in business at this location since 1949 ( 44 yopro) . ' my enterprises consist of vattlen ranching, horse breeding and custom farming. Over the past 44 years t have served as PrQuident of the local. Reoiamation District 799, Soil Conservation Service, ASCE, Farm Bureau, School RclrrA and Licinc- Club. Certainly I have built credibility over the yaara, as all theso organizations have fundamentally anune3 onviranmental criteria, In addition. I am an Engineer, Agricultural Consultant and Land Managsr for Chevron Shala oil Company for the past 10 years for the Company's proportion in southwest Colorado. My duts.as involve management of otetma 50, 0001 acre• of land, water and irrigation systems, and raelamation of all project ' sitaa to RoMpiy with County, Statca anti radaral rormitce x run a clean operation and T always have. 4-82 February 9, 1993 �nqc 2 x fsLil to see why the issue of undarground fuel storage tanks }tns become a focal point in tho Draft EIR for thi is project, unless it is a personal vandotta by a few individuals who have recently movad into the area. The davelopment group is makintj every +effort to comply with environmental concerns. The Hotchkiss tract area is no longer viable for agriculture. I feel that I am cluali fled to make this statement as I have been involvad dxy- to- day for the bettor Part of my life. I am very much in favor of this project as it matchots my philosophy for the area i..e. . predominately open opacQ with a golf course and Bakes, ruxeX atmospherar recreational opportunities, fire station, school site, local busina►anan :,nd a community center. it pan do nothing but enhance and 'improve property values on the notchkisa tract. • R�sper..t•fu12y� Robert t A. pal Porto Sr. 4-83 ' Response to Letter N: Bob Dal Porto, February 9, 1993 ' Response N-1: The comments in this letter provide additional information regarding existing and past fuel storage facilities and agricultural practices on the project site. No response is necessary. 1 4-84 Letter O r - C. Elaine Dannelley ' Rt.2, Box 226C Oakley, CA 94561 (510) 684-0261 February 10, 1993 Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor - North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ' Re: Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project 1. Three Times Out. How many times do the residents of the Hotchkiss Tract Area have to review and repond to an EIR that does not address the hazards ' and extra costs the developer and the county are trying to force upon them? 2. Rezoning - Residents moved to this area because they wanted to enjoy the ' country climate, not to have a city brought to us. We do not want our A-2 0-1 zoning changed to P-1, limiting us to the number and kinds of animals we can enjoy on our property. 3. Uses - We feel that this area could be used for other purposes, such as , a wildlife preserve, since there are at least three special status animals ' on the property. These are burrowing owls, pond turtles, Northern harriers, and possibly others. 4. Easement - Cactus Lane - This easement has been changed on the sub- 0-2 division map without consent or purchase from the residents ,who Have recorded ' deeded rights to the easement. We will fight for our rights. 5. Personal Reasons - I moved to the Bethel Island area for the country atmosphere and to have and enjoy my animals. I do not want my property impacted for a developer's desire and personal gain. I fully expect the county to have the applicant completely disclose to the future home buyers the existance of 0-3 smells, insects, and other hazards of agricultural operations. My set-up also has an attractive nuisance of horses and other animals. People in close p proximity to my property will increase my liability insurance and emotional stress and strain. This does not mean I am going to change my lifestyle so the developer can make a fast buck. 6. Sound Walls - It seems they are in again in this EIR. I do not want my 0-4 view blocked and my air circulation cut off by such structures. 4-85 1. Cultural Resources - Tile EIR quoted the SEQA standards that an archaeological ' monitor should be present when grading, excavation, and trenching are done. When in reality, trenching was done last fall without anyone present and 0-5 will probably be done again if possible. I request that the archaeologist be dressed in Native American garb so we can tell him from others. Tile EIR also states that Lots 10 and 11 should be removed from the map because of their sensitivity, but continues to show them on the map as residential lots. ' 8. Visual Aspects - The EIR tries to say putting up a 20 foot levee around 0-6 the 682 acres, building a 60 acre lake, and putting in a 160 acre golf course does not change the view or the topography of the land. Did they even build a clay model to see the difference from a flat area? ' 9. Adverse Environmental Impacts for "NOT A PART OF" Residents - Since these homes are unique, in that they are almost in the center of the project, we ' feel that if this development comes under construction, the applicant be 0-7 required to indemnify those residents for: (1) cleaning dust and dirt from residences (interior and exterior) weekly; (2) medical costs for unforeseen hazards; (3) for any costs due to injuries to- animals, livestock, pets, and wild critters, caused by the construction operations. 10. Compaction for Levees - Since this compaction method is a "relatively new" process and untested in the area, I feel a bond should be posted to ' 0.8 compensate present residents for any damage to wells, douses, and other structures as a result of the constant seismic effect caused by the compaction procedure. 11. Interior Levees - Twenty foot walls across from Sandmound Blvd. homes ' expose these residents to life threatening dangers such as: (1) poor air 0-9 quality from dust and air pollution caused by construction equipment during the 10 year building process, (2) pollution from the new traffic added to the already poor air quality, (3) possible outside levee breaks by storms, winds, earthquakes or compaction process or high tides, filling the corridor 0-10 between the the levees with no escape for the residents, (4) fire danger in which there will be no escape route leaving the residents exposed to ' toxic fumes and smoke with danger of suffocation, (5) poor or little air 0-11 circulation in the corridor exposing the residents to pollution and health hazards, (6) exposing the elderly and sick in the area to all these hazards ' 0.12 and causing them undue stress, (7) stress due to the noise from the vehicles, compaction, and general construction. t: 4-86 12. Alternatives for the Project Presently the best choices for the project 0-13 would be (1) NO Project or (6) Off Site Project, because these would Have none of the adverse impacts of the present project proposal. 13. 500 kV Transmission Lines_ - These bisect the property exposing much of it to electomagnetic fields which have been associated with increased incidence of childhood leukemia, adult leukemia, lymphoma, nervous system cancers, brain tumors, malignant melanoma of the skin, and breast cancer in men. There Have been over 100 studies done between 1987 and 1992 that I am aware of showing adverse effects to people. To compare the Hazardous condition of 24 hour exposure to a hairdryer which is used about 3 minutes is ludicrous. From all of the TV and newspaper coverage, people are becoming more concerned about D their health and devaluation of their property. Yet, this developer is proposing homes butting up to the corridor possible causing an immediate Dbot-to' in- the .area. There is no cost-effective shielding for EMF other than distancing from the source. Lots with elevated magnetic field levels over 1 mG 0-14 should be land-banked. The "fear of" EMF Has been determined to be compensable . damage under California Law and this factor materially affects the value and utility of property. I am also resubmitting a report that was ignored the last time. 14. Parks - The now 22.4 acre park at the entrance to the development is still partially under and all adjacent to the 500 kV power lines which exposes the public to the hazardous EMF forces. The mitigation is that the intensive O recreational uses s112uld bp- outside the easement. It is still being dedicated to the county so the taxpayers can support a park that that is hazardous to their health. Why should we be expected to pay for something that can kill our a kids? r s v 15 Anima�I Life Changes in tile diversity of species, or numbers of species of animals ( birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and shellfish, or insects) by disrupting, polluting and destroying their natural habitats will ultimately kill many species. Unique species of animals such as, opossums, foxes, coyotes, jackrabbits, quail, pheasants, cottontail rabbits, ducks, and many others live 0-15 in the area. The destruction and deterioration of wildlife habitat gives them no consideration or right to life. According to the EIP., some of the species a observed during studies on the area are on the Contra Costa County Special Status list, and also on the state and federal lists for threatened and p endangered species. These are the burrowing owls, pond turtles, Northern ,harriers, and possibly southwestern pond turtles. 4-87 16. P1_ ant Life - Changes in the diversity of species of plants ( including 1 trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) by the destruction of the existing habitats and introduction of new species will completely change ' the apperance of the area. Relocation and reduction of unique, rare, or endangered species, such as those in wetlands can completly destroy them. 0-15 ' 17. Water - Alteration to ground water by filling lakes can allow an influx of salt water contaminating private and public wells. ' 18. Aesthetics 54bnic views of open fields, wetlands, and small trills will ' be destroyed and replaced with architecturally mediocre homes. 19. Roads_- Roads to handle the increased traffic should be in place before ' the construction begins and not by just saying that their are future roads planned, such as widening Highway 4 and constructing the Delta Express-=" ' 0-16 If the project needs these roads to dandle their new community traffic, the developer should be. forced to build the project after the completion of the highways. 20. Mandatory Findings - This project has the potential to degrade the ' environment, reduce the wildlife habitat, cause the taxpayers a huge increased tax burden, impact the area with increased traffic, noise, population, lack 0-17 of schools, crime, and pollution. All this comes at a time when the county ' has cut back in all services and is already considering increased taxes to maintain the status quo. 21. Litigation and Investiations* I feel the county should postpone any ' consideration of this project until pending litigati.o.rnis settled and any government investigation completed so the county will not be responsible for possibly completing a failed project. 0-18 Presently this subdivision appears to be an environmental disaster to both animals and residents of the Bethel Island area. I hope the commission takes these points under serious consideration before approving this ' development. Sincerely, 4-88 /' IC,-f ' See attached letter. C. Elaine Dannelley Response to Letter O: C. Elaine Dannellev, February 10, 1993 Response 0-1: Comment noted. The first part of the comment represents the opinion of the commentor and no additional response necessary. The second part of the comment addresses the presence of special-status species on the site. These species were observed on the site, as documented in the Setting discussion of Chapter 3.4 of the DEIR; however, they are not known to nest on the site and the site does not provide valuable habitat. See Response E-3 for additional information regarding burrowing owls. Response 0-2: Comment noted. .See Response AA-1. Response 0-3: Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.11-1 specifically requires that project residents be A notified regarding the presence of agricultural uses on adjacent properties. Response 0-4: Comment noted. Soundwalls are proposed as one form of mitigation for future noise impacts to residents. along Cypress Road west of Bethel Island Road. Other noise mitigation ' techniques, such as architectural treatments, may be required at the discretion of the County. Response 0-5: ' The comment regarding the attire of the archaeological monitor is unrelated to an environmental issue. No response is necessary. 1 Mitigation measures regarding removal of Lots 10 and 11 are proposed at this time. If the project is approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the mitigation ' measures would be enforced and the project maps would be redrawn to eliminate Lots 10 and 11. Response 0-6: Impacts of the project on visual resources are discussed in Section 3.5 of the DEIR. ' Contrary to what the comment states, this section concluded that even with landscaping of the levee and outside the levee, the view for residences located across from the project site along ' Sandmound Boulevard would change significantly with the proposed project. Landscaping would provide some improvement and soften the appearance of the levee. However, the resulting 4-89 1 change in view with the project would be unavoidable. A rendering of the levees was displayed at the East County Planning Commission on the project on March 1, 1993. ' Response 0-7: Comment noted. The issue of indemnification is not related to a significant impact on the environment and represents the opinion of the commentor. The EIR specifically identifies mitigation measures to reduce dust impacts, such as periodically watering exposed soil areas (see DEIR, p. 3-74). Response 0-8: Comment noted. Please refer to Responses L-14(d) and Z-20. ' Response 0-9: The DEIR specifically addresses air quality impacts in Section 3.3. Dust impacts from ' project construction and pollution from increased traffic are discussed in the DEIR beginning on p.3-69. Response 0-10: Section 3.7 of the DEIR contains an analysis of the potential impacts associated with a ' levee breach if the proposed project is implemented. Mitigation Measure 3.7-10 of the DEIR requires the preparation of a detailed Emergency Evacuation Plan which addresses emergency evacuation procedures for residents in areas adjacent to the project site. The Emergency ' Evacuation Plan would be prepared in cooperation with RD-799 prior to approval of the project's final subdivision map. ' Response 0-11: ' Please refer to Response 0-9. Response 0-12: Please refer to Responses 0-9 through 0-10. Section 3.6 of the DEIR contains a discussion of the potential noise impacts of the proposed project. rResponse 0-13: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding their preferred project alternative. No response necessary. 4-90 Response 0-14: Please refer to the response to Letter P from Sage Associates. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.9-10, p. 3-187 of the DEIR recommends that no active recreational facilities be located ' within the powerline easement. Response 0-15: The information contained in this comment has previously been addressed in both the Initial Study and the DEIR prepared for the proposed project. ' The Initial Study (contained in Appendix A of the DEIR) addressed these issues in Chapter 2: Contra Costa County Environmental Checklist Form, pages 10 through 28. The DEIR addressed these specific issues in detail in Chapter 3. Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation. as follows: • Animal and plant life: pages 3-76 to 3-98. • Water: pages 3-118 to 3-146 and 3-189 to 3-206. • Aesthetics: pages 3-99 to 3-108: Also see Response 0-1. Response 0-16: Please refer to Table 3.2-6 of the DEIR for the timing of road improvements required by ' Cypress Lakes itself. Most other roadway improvements listed in the Table are not themselves required by the project; however, the project would contribute cumulatively to the need for these ' roadway improvements, as specifically identified in the mitigation measures beginning on page 3-56 of the DEIR. Response 0-17: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The DEIR ' discloses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. No response necessary. Response 0-18: ' Comment noted. There are no pending lawsuits on the proposed project and no known government investigation of the project. No response necessary. 4-91 1 C. Elaine Dannelle Y Rt. 2, Box 226C ' Oakley, CA 9455- '�'•% Fobruary 1993 Community Development Letter P 651 Pine Street ✓�� p 4 th Floor - North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Cp T Dear Mr. Beresford, 1 Re: December 1992 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Cypress Lakes Lakes and Country Club Project ' Enclosed is a letter and an EMF Report from Sage Associates that were inadvertantly left out of my response to the EIR. Please see that these are included with the other documents. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, C. Elaine Dannelley (510)684-0261 4-92 Department of Energy P Office of Inspector General 5 Western Regional Inspector General for Investigations P. O. Box 5657 foS res Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 ' + � JAN Ms . Elaine Dannelle Y RR 2 Box 226C Oakley, California 94561 i Dear Ms. Dannelley: I am responding to your recent letter to Mr. Paul Misso, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has assumed investigative jurisdiction over the matters involved in the acquisition of land in Bethel Island, California by the Western Area Power Administration. Accordingly, I have forwarded a copy of your letter to FBI Special Agent Gloria Anderson. If you wish, you may contact Special Agent Anderson at 510-451-9782 . . i er B. Martin Regional Inspector General for Investigations Albuquerque Regional Office 4-93 , S A G E ' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SeP teinber 28, 1992 Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Win- Martinez, California 94553-0095 Attention: Mr. Arthur Beresford, senior Pinner Subject: Environmental Impact Report for- Cypress Lakes and Country Club File #2918-RZ, Final Dove'lopment Plan 3032-90, Subdivision 7562 Dear Mr. Beresford: This letter presents comment on the above referenced environmental impact report with respect to the electromagnetic fields section of the report. We request that our comments be considered in preparation of the Final EIR on this protect, and that a copy of the Final EIR be mailed to us upon completion. We would be happy to discuss an), of these comments with you or the FIR consultant, Public Affairs Management if you wish. Please advise us if additionalg ublic hearins will be held on this project. Thank p o you for your assistance. ' Sincerely: _ ein Cd}� Sage Sage Associates 1283 Coast Village Circle, Suite 5 Montecito. California 93108 P.O Box 50806 Mmntecito. Col fornix 93150 805 9690557 fAX 805 969 5003 r....---l-i l'oo.•. ' 4-94 USAGE ►. ENVIR.ONhSENTAI CCNSUITANTS 1 Environmental Impact Report for Cypress Lakes and Country Club File #2918-RZ, Final Development Plan 3032-90, Subdivision 7562 COMMENTS ON i ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS SECTION Prepared for Elaine Dannelley , Route 2, Box 226 C Oakley, California Sage Associates , 1283 Coast Village Circle, #5 Montecito, California 93108 September 28, 1992 4-95 SAGE rL [.,4WF.pNMENTAI CONSULTANTS COMMENTS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS SECTION OF CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 1. This document fails to properly assess the potentially significant impacts`of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on the proposed project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyl has stated that: ."The evidence is growing that a positive association of exposure to electromagnetic fields exists with certain forms of site specific cancer, namely leukemia, cancer of the central nervous system and to a lesser-extent, lymphomas." - r The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report on Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields Background Paper2 defined the issue in 1989 as follows: "As recently as a few years ago, scientists were making categorical statements that on the basis of all available evidence there are no health risks from human exposure to power-frequency fields. In our view, the emerging evidence no longer allows one to categorically assert that there are no risks." "The growing number of positive findings have now clearly demonstrated that under specific circumstances even weak low -frequency electromagnetic fields can produce substantial changes at the cellular level, and in a few experimental settings, effects have ' also been demonstrated at the whole animal level." ' 4-96 S A G E E'JVi%ONMENTAL CONSUITA.NTS Substantial research has been conducted since 1989 which adds further ' evidence of potential adverse health effects from electromagnetic field exposure. Electromagnetic field exposure has been associated with increased ' incidence of.childhood and adult leukemia and lymphoma, nervous system cancers including brain tumors, malignant melanoma of the skin, and male breast cancer. A 1990 study3 presented at the Bioelectromagne tics Society Annual r meeting reported that: In children living in homes near electrical power transmission and distribution lines, five case control studies showed positive associations between cancer mortality and ELF field exposure. Three of these were statistically significant. Where separate cancer sites were evaluated, leukemia, nervous system cancer and to a , lesser extent, lymphoma were seen consistently. Magnetic rather than electric fields are apparently responsible. The evidence for a causal relationship is too strong to dismiss as chance and not strong enough to be regarded as proof of causality." "Effects at all biological levels from chromosome breaks to neuroendocrine function are affected by ELF fields. There is reason to believe that the findings of carcinogenicity in humans are biologically plausible, but the explanation of which of these effects is causally related to the induction of malignant tumors is not , understood." I� 4-97 , AGE CONSLJLT..y'S "Over 30 studies of workers in electrical and electronics occupations, typically with poorly-defined mixtures of power frequency and higher frequency exposures have been reviewed. Three types of cancer have been found consistently across different geographic regions, age groups, industries, occupational classes and study ' designs. They are: hematopoietic system, especially leukemia and specifically acute myeloid leukemia; nervous system cancer, including brain tumors; and malignant melanoma of the skin." 2. A finding of potentially significant impact should be denoted for EMF exposure of future residents of the proposed project. This EIR should make a clear determination that prospective residents of the project will face potentially significant adverse health effects from EMF exposure as a rresult of placement of homes, day care areas and recreational areas near to the 500 kv lines which bisect the property. r The California Environmental Quality Act4, as amended, Section 15065, requires a mandatory finding of significance where: "The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." As an informational document, the Draft EIR should be rewritten to fully discuss and characterize the environmental setting, impacts and mitigation for EMF exposure related to placement of sensitive land uses ' adjacent to the power lines. A finding of potentially significant impact is unavoidable unless the project is redesigned to avoid placing sensitive land 4-98 UR, . SAGE As i ENVIRONmENTAL CONSULTANTS uses in areas of elevated A magnetic field from the p ower lines. CE QA P Q Section 15145 on Speculative Impacts has been invoked to discharge the EIR preparers from the need to characterize and assess EMF exposure. Section 15145 cannot be used to terminate evaluation of this issue based on the following evidence: o A recent table summarizing 51 epidemiological studies5 conducted on EMF surrogates and cancer indicated that 28 studies (or 55%) reported a statistically significant risk, 15 studies (or 29%) reported elevated, but not statistically significant risk, and eight (or 16%) reported no association.6 o Theepidemiological evidence includes four case control studies that found statistically significant associations with cancer and wiring codes - a surrogate measure for long-term exposure. Three of these four studies also used direct measures of magnetic fields which reported weaker associations, although not statistically significant.6 o A review of occupational studies from published studies in peer- reviewed eerreviewed journals shows elevated risk for brain tumors. In seven brain cancer control studies since 1985, "most of these studies have shown elevated odds ratios for electrical-related occupations".7 Some odds ratios were high. For example, Speers (1988) observed an odds ratio of 13.10 among Texas utility workers. "At least three studies indicated the presence of a dose response relationship between EMF exposure and brain cancer."7 A significant excess of all leukemias is reported from twelve studies (1982-1988) in electrical occupations.? ' A significant excess of acute myeloid leukemia was i 4-99 S AG. E I ,"7w1 ENVIRONMENTAL CGiNSUITANIS tnoteworthy. Five other casecontrol studies on leukemia among occupationally exposed workers published since 1985 show excesses for all leukemias and acute myeloid leukemia.? Exposure assessment is not available from these studies, since occupational classification is used as a surrogate for EMF exposure rather that field measurements. Section 15145 is intended to "relieve the Lead Y a Agency from requirement to engage in idle speculation".8 This section has been applied, for example, where future development of the University of California is "purely speculative" and no purpose would be served in preparing an EIR rbased on sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences.$ An association between EMF exposure and cancer is not purely speculative. An association (in many studies a statistically significant association) has been doctunented in the available scientific literature, even though a carcinogenic mechanism has not been identified. The use of Section 15145 is inappropriate because an association between EMF ' exposure and adverse health effects is not purely speculative. 3. This document fails to characterize magnetic field strengths associated with existing 230 kv power lines and planned 500 kv power lines which are currently under construction within a 200 foot right-of-way 1 which bisects the proposed project. 4-100 r , 1iSAGE ENVIP.CNMENTnI CUNSUITANI; A technical study should be prepared prior to final certification of this EIR to document magnetic field levels outside the ROW which may be elevated from both the 230 kv and 500 kv power lines. This study should be prepared by a qualified firm and include computer modelling by an , acceptable program (for example, the Bonneville program). A map should be magnetic Pre ared to document existingand future field levels out to 1 ' milligauss (1mG) contours parallel to the ROW. Assumptions for the modelling program should include conductor minimum height, spacing, phasing and loading and should correspond to the actual characteristics of the 230 kv and 500 kv lines. The modelling should take into account both normal and maximum loading conditions for single and multi-story homes. Following the completion of stringing of the 500 kv lines which appears to be imminent, a field measurement program should be ' undertaken to verify magnetic field levels which affect property outside the ROW and within the proposed project development area. 4. Once modelling and field measurement programs have been r conducted, the areas showing elevated magnetic field levels should be i compared against proposed building envelopes for residences, day care center areas, parks, and other uses where the public would be spending prolonged periods of time. Any sensitive receptors, including schools, day care r convalescent home a e cente s, public recreation areas, hospitals, conlesce t s, etc. should be carefully reviewed for exposure to elevated magnetic field i levels. 4-101 ` SAGE EN`✓IRCNMLNTAL CONSULTANTS 5. In the absence of more conclusive scientific evidence that prolonged exposure to elevated magnetic fields will not cause potentially significant health effects, EMF should be categorized as a potentially significant impact. Evidence of potential adverse health effects from epidemiology and laboratory studies is presently adequate to trigger a finding of potentially significant impact under CEQA, even though there is no conclusive proof of causality between cancer and EMF at present. 6. Identification of portions of the proposed project which will have elevated magnetic field levels should be required, together with an . analysis of all structures (single and multi-story homes and other structures, pre-schools, schools, active public recreation areas, etc.) which would be located within the area of elevated fields. Areas of theP Pro osed project where elevated magnetic field levels (above 1 mG) are found should be identified by inspection of the modelling and field measurement data in comparison to the proposed subdivision map. The median U.S. residential EMF level from power lines is 0.35 mG9 and the California average residential area EMF level is 1 mG or lessio. 7. Mitigation Measures- page 3-231. The proposed project map should be revised to eliminate residences or other sensitive land uses adjacent to the ROW where elevated magnetic field levels are anticipated based on modelling and field measurement data. For the interim, land 4-102 : SAGE ENVIRCNNAENTAL CONSUIT:.N,S uses which place people in elevated magnetic fields should be prudently avoided until there is more conclusive evidence on potential health effects, if any, of EMF exposure. It appears from a preliminary inspection that r several hundred lots within 400' adjacent to the ROW would be affected. There is no cost-effective shielding for EMF other than distancing from the source. Lots which are subject to elevated magnetic field levels over 1 mG should be "land-banked" or eliminated from the subdivision map. They could be made available for future phased residential or other development only if scientific. research confirms the absence of adverse health effects. The areas involved could be used for passive recreation, green belt or agricultural uses in the interim. 8. Mitigation Measures - page 3-231 Beyond elimination of lots within elevated magnetic field levels from , power lines, the EIR should require mitigation measures for written disclosure to the remainder of potential lot owners of the proposed project regarding potential health impacts where it can be presumed that these residents will use recreational areas or roads which lie within areas of elevated EMF. Balanced information should be prepared as a formal disclosure package to ensure that disclosure is adequate and timely. California State law required disclosure in real estate transactions of any factors which could affect the value or desirability of property. The "fear 4-103 .,. " SAGE ENVIRONMENT:., CONSULTANTS of" EMF has been determined to be a compensable damage under California law11 and this factor materiallyaffects the value and utility of Y property. 9. Responsible parties representing the project proponent(s) and/or homeowners should be required to review the status of EMF information P throu l-Nhe State Department of Health Services and California Public g Utilities Commission to periodically evaluate whether new information on health effects is available, and whether further land use modifications are ' warranted. A periodic measurement program adjacent to the 500 kv lines should be conducted to verify exposure levels are below 1 mG in areas of prolonged use. A g Mitigation Monitoring Program required under AB 3180 g g q should incorporate provisions for on-going EMF monitoring. 4-104 S A G E REFERENCES Protection Agency, 1. U.S. Environmental Prot June 1990, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields Draft Report, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 20460. 2. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report on Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields Background Paper, May 1989, Indira Nair, M.Granger Morgan and H. Keith Florig, Carnegie .Mellon University, Pittsburg, Pa. 3. Hill Doreen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1990, Poster Board Presentation on the Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields Draft Report, June 1990. 4. Guidelines to The California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, December 1991, Section 15065. 5. California Department of Health Services, 1991, EMF Workshop ' Handbook, from the Special Epidemiological Studies Program, Oakland and Newport Beach, 1991. 6. California EMF Consensus Group, Issues and Recommendations for Interim Response and Policy Addressing Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs), Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, March 20, 1992. 1 7. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1991, Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop on the Health Effects of Electrical and Magnetic Fields on Workers, pp 93-124. 8. Guidelines to The California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, December 1991, Section 15145. 4-105 ►.. SAGE '....5 ,'IL'ONAI.ENTAL CONSL117ANTS 9. Electric Power Research Institute, EMF Science and Communication Seminar, San Jose; California, October 16, 1992, Nationwide Residential Measurement Survey, Preliminary Results, by Luciano E. Zaffanella. 10. Testimony of Dr. Raymond Neutra, Department of Health Services, State of California, California Public Utilities Commission EMF Consensus Group, February, 1992. 11. San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Daley, 205 Cal. App 3d 1334, 253 Cal. Rptr. 144 (1988) 4-106 i Response to Letter P: C. Elaine Dannelley, February 12, 1993 Response P-1: The report from Sage Associates, dated September 28, 1992, addresses the issue of potential human health impacts of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The DEIR addresses potential human health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields on pages 3-217 to 3-218 and 3-220. The DEIR identifies on page 3-217 that numerous studies have been performed to look for associations between exposure to electromagnetic fields and various diseases, and that some of these studies have found a statistical association between exposure to electromagnetic fields and increased cancer rates as suggested by the commentor. However, these studies have not resulted in conclusive evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields would result in increased human health risks. In addition, as stated in the DEIR on page 3-217, the State of California does not have any standards for exposure to electromagnetic fields, or siting criteria for residential development near power lines or other EMF sources. As stated in the impacts discussion to the DEIR, page 3-220,_0, a determination as to the significance of electromagnetic field exposure, and the associated health risks to project residents, would be too speculative based on the existing studies and data available. While studies conducted to date have indicated a potential link between electromagnetic fields and certain diseases, these studies are not conclusive, and therefore, the finding that the project will expose residents to a substantial adverse effect cannot be made. Because the potential health risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields have not been conclusively determined, the DEIR includes mitigation (Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, page 3-222) to ensure that incoming property owners are aware of the potential human health issues related to living near electrical transmission lines. 4-107 Letter Q . Fred Davis Rt. 2, Box 226C Oakley, CA 94561 n r;. February 9","'1991-3 -- Community Development °3 FEB 12 aN 11: 53 651 Pine St. 4th Floor North Wing Tf "'�`' ;v W DEPT. Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Beresford; Re: December 1992 - 7 Environmental Impact Report for Cypress Lakes and . Country, Club Project, County of Contra Costa, California Ref. Page Topic 1.6 DISCRETIONARY 1. LAFCO - stated purpose for being in existance is for discouraging and limiting urban sprawl. 2. FINANCING & MAINTANCE DISTRICT - The language is so ambiguous and vabue as to defy rational understanding of the entire paragraph. 3. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM - N.P.D.E.S. PERMITS - It is my understanding from Reclamation District 799 a ,! permit' shall'be required and or a water treatment prior to discharge into Sandmound Slough. 4. SECTION 404 PERMIT - According to E.P.A. , Section 404-1B Guidelines generally precludes issuance of .a permit to backfill wetlands for a subdivision. Residents will request a public hearing on permit application. 5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - In absence of a present agreement how can the terms and conditions be reviewed by the public under which the project will be developed? 6. STREAMBED ALTERATION PERMIT - The local residents will request a Public Hearing upon application for a streambed alteration permit from California Department of Fish and Game. 2.4 3-1 LAND USE PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY a. General Plan Policy that development plan density should be at density maximum causes nearly all the problems associated with attempts to mitigate the adverse impacts of that density. Q�2 b. JOB/HOUSING IMBALANCE - is not mitigated by calling a 10 year build-out a short term unavoidable impact The E.I.R. should provide a description of the number of jobs, types of jobs, pay scale, and whether or not those job holders could afford a house in the project. 3.56 3.2 TRANSPORTION/CIRCULATION - E.I.R. has various lists of 10,287 vehicle trips/day on page 2.6 to 12,017 vehicle trips/day on page 3-39. In addition, page 3-56, second paragraph -- states without the Delta Express Way Project and Route 4 Improvements the Bethel Island area cannot be accommodated without severe 0'3 traffic and congestion problems. Deferment of road improvements to the future is not a mitigation. We are in agreement with well planned communities, such as Brentwood, who require street- road improvements to be in place before the first douse is built. Anything less than this tends to make East County residents second class citizens. 4-108 Page 2 3.56 3.2 - b. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACT - does not begin to address the discomforts and inconvenience, associated with health hazards from living down wind from a 700 acre dirt storm for 10 years. There should be mitigation measures for cleaning people's homes, boats, and vehicles on a weekly basis and indemification for damage to resident property (personal Q-4 or real) and rest homes. Simply stating that the traffic exceeds Bay Area Management District Guidelines for ROG and NOx by 150 lbs. pollution does not relieve the developer and the county from responsibility for compliance with the Bay Area 1991'C2ean Air Plan: ' In light-of the :Clean Act of 1991, why would the applicant use 1970 federal standards and 1967 state standards for the pollutants mentioned on AIR QUALITY DATA TABLE for Bethel Island 1988-91? 3.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE - animal population and tabulation was was done inefficiently and incorrectly, mainly by omitting many species, incorrectly stating others may be present when in fact, they are. We feel that the removal Q-5 of 700 acres of habitat adversely impacts the wildlife. Simply to infer that this is not detrimental to wildlife because there is still some habitat left is woefully ignorant and inherently dangerous to the survival of all wildlife. 3-106 CONFORMANCE WITH VISUAL RESOURCE POLICIES - 1. The statement that the project site topography would not be cttan„ed. visually is outrageously wrong. We feel that it is impossible to dig a 60 acre lake and channels 20 feet Q-6 deep and pile the recovered spoils into a containment dike 20 feet High, and at the same time contour grade a 160 acre golf course, and erect 1330 homes with associated streets, gutters, and sidewalks, and then say that the visual characteristics have not been changed significantly. This is a museum grade example of fork-tongued English. 3.5-8 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES - 1. The entire paragraph about landscape maintenance district or other funding source is vague, inprecise, and ambiguous in 0-7 that no one place in the E.I.R. ever states how much of a monthly burden home owners are assuming in terms of assessment district or hothe owner association dues and other, so far not revealed, costs. 3.6 NOISE - It is idle speculation to attempt to quantify the Q-$ noise level generated by doubling the area population. 3-116 3.6-2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE - b."Operations of any machine or device which generates a noise level greater than 95 DB at 50 feet should be prohibited-where ever feasible." Who decides what is feasible and why should the prohibition be conditioned? That is an example of an Q'9 inadequate attempt at noise mitigation. This'.'temporary , 11 short-term impact would be unavoidable". This bears keeping in mind that their definition of short-term impact appears to be as long as 10 years, based on their own build-out schedule. 4-109 Page 3 3-120 3.7 HYDROLOGY 6 DRAINAGE - a. In general detention basins are poor design features and cause more problems than they solve. Q-10 b. Parks and playing fields should not be required to act as detention basins, particularly_-when the park is the Highest point on the project site. 3-125 GROUND SUBSIDENCE The EIR attempts to downplay the seriousness of the ground subgidence potential, when the following factors are considered; ground liquifaction during, but not necessarily limited to seismic events, dewatering of the ground during construction, and following excessive Q-11 pumping 805,200 gallons a day of ground water. The above, combined with a new and relatively untested method of compaction, by the soils engineers report- admission could very well damage existing levees and residences. Therefore, we insist a BOND should be put up by the applicant to indemnify present homeowners and Reclamation District 799 against any damage caused by the applicant's construction activities. 3-134 SEISMIC RESISTANCE - In regards to .seismic resistance, engineers in general have a very POOR TRACK RECORD in Q-12 designing earthquake resistant structures, as evidenced by the number of buildings, bridges, overpasses and dams that have failed during earthquakes in the last 30 years. 3-139 WATER QUALITY - The quality of Contra Costa Water District Q-13 depends on what you are comparing it to. Few people drink it. Those who do generally regret it. 3. The Delta is not subject to a "tsunami (wind generated) waves", 0-14 I any school boy in California that a tsunami is generated by seismic activity and not by wind. The statement that the storm drain system would be a wet 0-15 system with water standing in storm drain pipes all- the time converts the storm drain system to a sewer system. Truck disposal of storm drainage is the most inefficient and expensive method I've ever heard proposed. Last paragraph on page 3-139, states, "no additional pumping ' of ground water is proposed to maintain the water level of the lake and channels". This cannot be true in view of the 0-16 statement elsewhere in the E.I.R. that irrigation of the golf course and landscaping requires 805,200 gal/day taken from the lake. The lake would go dry without being replenished by groundwater. This is extravagant and wasteful use of water resources, considering the constrants and restrictions placed on everybody else due to the six years of drought. 3-140 The last half of page 3-140 and top third of page 3-141 in an 3-141 attempt to describe the damage control efforts to keep the lake clean, wind up making what is an accurate description of a Settlement Pond for toxic wastes. Nobody seriously 0-17 believes that plants would filter out contaminants any more efficiently then the fish decimate the mosquito population, in lieu of a modern water treatment facility and a mosquito abatement district. 3-146 3.7-15 The weak proposal regarding street sweeping again appears to be an attempt to push on to the already overburdened 0-18 shoulders of the Homeowners association responsibility for a traditionally governmental function. 4-110 . page 4 I3-155 Kleinfelder's analysis of a 6.75 earthquake doesn't include include the information from the U.S. Geodetic Survey in Menlo Park that states, a quake of that size or greater has a high probability of occuring in the next 30 years. Additionally, tie goes on to say, "Seismic Activity alone has Q-19 never caused a levee FAILURE IN THIS AREA. I would like to point out that neither has a volcanic erruption, a direct hit by 'a meteor, or a nuclear accident. From analysis by ot:�er independent soils engineers, this entire soils report seems to be flawed and seriously tilted towards describing major hazards as seemingly minor inconveniences. 3-177 Says "Cypress Lakes Project would be expected to have 918 students from kindergarten through high school, requiring one Q'2� new elementary school, 30% of a new middle school and 20% of a new high school". 3-27 3.1-2 States - "Tile project marketing should be oriented toward seniors and .retirca people to reduce commute traffic from Q-21 the project." What a novel idea - to build new schools for seniors and the elderly, simply to reduce- traffic from the project. THAT A NICE TOUCH. 3-209 Addressing the lack of a natural gas distribution system by by substituting an electric system in its place is not a mitigation of a substantial effect. Rather, it is one of 0-22 the most expensive ways to heat water and space known with the possible exception being - the burning of paper money in a fireplace. ' Ask anybody who has an electric water heater or furnace to describe their. PG&E bills. 3-217 The small section of E.M.F. demonstrates, once again that the preparers of this document are dangerously ignorant, witness the following statement, "only seven states have adopted regulations to limit intensity of electric fields in transmission lines right-of-ways." The state of:. Q-23 California does not have standards.. Sounds like we are �. going to rank last nationally once again. This is a very important aspect of health related issues. If they had read read our privately commissioned. study by the state's._leadirlg expert in this field, they couldn't possibly have come to the same conclusions. We wish the planning commission to take note of the following assertions: 1. The vast majority of the area residents don't want the project, don't need the recreational opportunities because . they're too busy trying to survive, and certainly wouldn't trade what they have for quote, "housing opportunity in a P.U.D.". That, by the way, is a government euphemism for 6-24 uniform mediocrity. 2. Because of the county's potential liability for a failed project, we feel it is only prudent for the planning commission to reserve their decision until all present litigations and government investigations have -run their course. Tile applicant so far has struck out in every court decision. One can only expect similar results in the future. i Sincerely, Fred Davis 4-111 Response to Letter Q: Fred Davis, February 9, 1993 Response Q-1: The following responds to the various points identified by the commentor: 1 1. LAFCO has several purposes. One of these purposes is to provide for orderly urban development within the County. 2. Financing and Maintenance.districts are common entities in Contra Costa County. 3. Comments noted. See Mitigation Measure 3.7-17 in the DEIR. 4. See Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 in the DEIR. 5. A development agreement, if entered into, would be the subject of a public hearing. 6. See Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 in the DEIR. Q Response -2• P Comments noted. The proposed project is not proposing the maximum density allowed under the Off-Island Bonus Plan. Page 3-27 of the DEIR specifically identifies that the project would worsen East County's Jobs/Housing balance until additional businesses and jobs could be attracted to East County. Response Q-3: The trip generation estimates for the project are contained in Table 3.2-3, page 3-39 of the DEIR. 10,287 average daily trips would be generated by the approved 1,330 single-family homes. 12,017 average daily trips would be generated by the entire development (including single-family homes, golf course, clubhouse, swim club, day-care, and other proposed uses). The statements on page 3-56 of the DEIR identify that the Delta Expressway and improvements to SR4 are necessary to accommodate cumulative development in Oakley, North jBrentwood and the Bethel Island Area, not just the proposed project. The intent of the mitigation measures is not to defer improvements, but rather to have them constructed when traffic and development warrants; see Page 3-58 of the DEIR. Response Q-4: Dust control measures ares specified on page 3-70 and 3-74 of the DEIR. These measures P are proposed to avoid the types of impacts identified by the commentor. The DEIR on page 3-75 identifies that the project would result in an unavoidable adverse impact on regional air quality. 4-112 The current Federal and State ambient air quality standards are listed in Table 3.3-1, page 3-65 of the DEIR. Response Q-5: Comments noted. The comments reflect the opinion of the commentor. No other response is necessary. See Response C-1. Response 0-6: The comment is correct that views from Sandmound Boulevard will be significantly g Y impacted. To reduce this impact, landscaping has been proposed as mitigation. Page 3-106, third paragraph states that "even with landscaping of the levee and outside the levee, the views for residences located across from the project site along Sandmound Boulevard would change significantly with the proposed project...The resulting change in'views with the project would be unavoidable." Response Q-7: Comment noted. The comment pertains to financial issues and does not address an environmental impact. No other response is necessary. Response Q-S: Comment noted. The noise analysis in the DEIR was prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant; see noise discussion, Chapter 3.6, Page 3-109 of the DEIR. No other response is necessary. Response Q-9: Comments noted. Contra Costa County would be responsible for monitoring compliance with these mitigation measures. Construction period noise would generally occur within the first year of construction which would include the levee system and lake/channels. Once the levee system is.completed the noise from on-site construction activities would be reduced in off-site areas because the levees would act as a noise barrier. Response Q-10: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. Parks and 1 playing fields would not be used as detention basins. The 100-year storm event would be fully accommodated within the lake/channels. See Responses L-7 and Z-20. 4-113 . Response Q-11: The DEIR discusses the potential impacts of subsidence, liquefaction and seismicity in Chapter 3.8, page 3-156 to 3-159. See Responses 0-8 and Z-20. Response Q-12: Comment noted. The comment addresses an issue unrelated to the proposed project or an environmental issue. No other response is necessary. Response Q-13: Comment noted. Theualit of water from the Contra Costa Water District is not the q Y subject of this EIR. No other response is necessary. Response Q-14: The DEIR on page 3-139 is incorrect, and is corrected as follows: "The Delta area is not subject to tsunami (earthquake-generated) and seiche (wind- generated) waves." Response Q-15: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The project includes a water quality maintenance plan which includes continuous circulation of the water so the water will not stand in the underground pipes for extended periods of time. Response Q-16: No additional pumping is proposed for the direct purpose of maintaining the lake level. �. The water level in the lake and channels would be maintained by the natural groundwater level. Response Q-17: Comments noted. The comments represent the opinion of the commentor. The proposed water quality plan utilizes techniques that have proven to be effective in providing and 1 maintaining adequate water quality. Response Q-18: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. See Mitigation P P g Measure 3.7-15 of the DEIR which addresses the potential need for funding of the street sweeping through the Homeowner's Association. No additional response necessary. 4-114 Response Q-19: The DEIR at page 3-155 states that a "6.75 earthquake creating peak ground acceleration of 0.2g or greater would probably result in liquefaction of near surface sands and silty sands over most of the site, unless proper mitigation measures are implemented." Mitigation Measure 3.8-5, page 3-161 of the DEIR specifically addresses methods to mitigate the liquefaction potential present on the project site. Response Q-20: The meaning of the comment is unclear, and consequently, an appropriate response is not possible. The impacts of the project on school facilities is discussed in Chapter 3.9 of the DEIR. Mitigation measures are proposed on Page 3-179 of the DEIR. Response Q-21: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The project is not proposed to be a seniors-only development. Therefore, children would be expected to reside within the project. No other response is necessary. Response Q-22: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding whether the. proposed project should be served by electrical or natural gas lines. No other response is necessary. Response Q-23: Comment noted. See Responses P-1 and FF-22. Response Q-24: Comment noted. See Response 0-18. 4-115 LAW OFFICES OF DICKSON & KOSS 1970 BROADWAY, SUITE 1045 f• O 7 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 I CS KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON .� ^, PHONE:(510)2G8-1999 IEFFREY A. RCSS Letter R - ' ' �`- " !.I- �`�;-�.�_: n- FAX' (510)268 3627 February 16, 1993 Via Facsimile with Hard Copy AIPM By U.S. Mail WRC! 5 t u1 c4 cS ON Art Beresford Contra Costa County COL PN 5 Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez, ,CA 94553-0095 Re: Draft EIR on Cypress Lakes and Country Club Proi ect Dear Mr. Beresford: My office represents the Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club, and Mount Diablo Audubon Society. On September 28, 1992, we submitted extensive comments on the original draft environmental impact report (EIR) for this project. The revised draft EIR addresses some, but not all, of our original comments. We therefore incorporate our original comments to the extent they remain applicable. These environmental organizations continue to oppose the proposed project for several important reasons, including the precedent for additional growth and suburbanization of fragile delta lands; contribution to cumulative traffic impacts, particularly on Highway 4, as well as regional air quality impacts, neither of which can be adequately mitigated, worsening of the jobs/housing balance in the area; impacts (both direct and indirect) on wetlands and the delta environment; and loss of open space. We also continue to be concerned about the County's lack of wisdom in allowing urbanization in areas prone to flooding and destructive peat fires. We have, nonetheless, attempted to work with the developer to explain our views, and to provide input. We have met and talked with the developer and the developer's representatives on a number of occasions. Such meetings are currently on-going, and we intend to continue to submit both formal and informal comments throughout the proceedings. We submit the following comments on the current draft EIR, several of which have been discussed previously with the developer. Table 1-1, Page 1-6 R'1 The original EIR had three additional acres of "wetland 1 4-116 Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 2 mitigation/buffers" and three fewer acres devoted to single-family R-� residential housing. Why was this acreage (nearly 20%) removed from wetland mitigation and added to housing? Section 1. 6, Page 1-12 What is the status and schedule for these various permits? R-2 What are the opportunities for public involvement regarding these permits? Section 2 , pages 2-1 through 2-34 The summary does not consistently report on the level of significance of the various impacts. For example, no level of significance is attached to "vegetation and wildlife impacts" on page 2-11, an issue of critical importance in this particular R-3 Project area. Similarly, section 3.5, subsection b (visual quality) lacks any identified level of significance. In addition, the summary appears to assess the remaining significance of environmental impacts after mitigation, for only some of the mitigation measures, but not for many others. This inconsistency is confusing. Pages 3-12 and 3-13 When discussing the General Plan's land use policies, the EIR omits General Plan policy 3-79, which requires "clustering" of development in the project area, "with development rights on the R-4 undeveloped land dedicated to the County. " The project does not consist of "clustered development" and therefore does not comply with this policy. Pages 3-18 and 3-19 The discussion of "Impacts of Other Planned Uses in Surrounding Areas" is inadequate. The "pending applications" for three other residential/recreation projects are not described at all. More information should be provided both in this section and R-5 in the cumulative impacts section. Diagrams of the proposed applications would be very helpful to the reader. A discussion of plans for, and the status of the Cypress Corridor project should also be added. Page 3-83 and Figure 3.4-2 The text and diagram indicate fairly limited wetlands on the project site. The wetlands delineation that was performed after four years of drought. Observations during this winter (normal conditions) indicate significantly larger areas of inundation used R-6 by wildlife. We therefore request that a further analysis and delineation of wetlands take place during the 1993 Spring. We intend to discuss this, as well as other wetlands issues, in discussion with the developer's biological consultant in the near future. 4-117 Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 3 ' Pane 3-88 The Final EIR should reflect the current status of the R"7 County's Wetlands Protection ordinance. Pane 3-125 With respect to ground subsidence in the project area, the EIR states only that "because the project site and Hotchkiss Tract is R-8 on the edge of the delta, ground subsidence has not been as significant as in other areas of the Delta. " This statement is inadequate since it provides no actual data or information regarding subsidence in the project area. How much subsidence has occurred? Pane 3-139 The EIR should more clearly identify the permitted or anticipated uses of the project lake(s) . It is our understanding from discussions with the developer that since the lake is R-9 essentially the drainage system for the development, motor boating and swimming are not allowable uses in the lake and channel areas. If this is the case, the EIR should clearly so specify since an identification of uses is necessary to determine potential impacts -- for example noise impacts, water quality impacts, and health impacts. Page 3-178 The EIR should more fully discuss the dispute between the developer and the school district as to whether a 7.4 acre potential school site is adequate, or whether a 10-acre site should be set aside. The EIR should evaluate a mitigation measure R-10 requiring a redesign of the project to include a 10-acre site. The EIR should more fully describe the project's impacts on the local school districts prior to the time a new school is built. For example, what class size differences will the project entail. Pages 3-194 through 3-198 This draft of the EIR appears to be the same as that contained in the original draft. Therefore, our earlier comments apply: The EIR has not demonstrated that the Oakley Water District has the water allocation or ability to provide adequate water supplies to the proposed project. R-11 The EIR should provide data and analyses on the following issues so that the public and decisionmakers can determine the Oakley Water District's capability of providing service: 1) actual and average annual water delivery to the Oakley District during the past five years; 4-118 Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 4 2) water usage by the District's users in 1992; 3) projected water demand for approved but unbuilt units 1 within the service area of the Oakley Water District; 4) projected water demand for buildout of units under R-11 the Contra Costa County General Plan within.the service area. of the Oakley Water District; 5) a demonstration that the drought emergency identified in Drought Emergency. Regulations, Regulation 9, is over. Section 4 of that regulation states no new landscaping may take . place unless the plans for irrigating and landscaping are approved by the District. Paste 3-195 More expPanation of the following statement should be provided: "Service to the BIASP area has been discussed by the District in their October 1992 (sic -- should be 1991] Master Water Plan, but the necessary treatment capacity, transmission facilities, and storage requirements were identified as a developer and/or possible condition of annexation cost. " First, what does R-12. the Master Water Plan actually say about service to the Bethel Island Plan area? Second, what are the costs of the facilities the developer would be required to supply, and has the current developer committed to providing those facilities or costs? The EIR should provide more information on "service by a new district. " No real data, information, quantity of water rights, or cost figures are provided. ' Page 3-197 The EIR should provide further information including specific R-13 data and analyses, on the impacts of use of groundwater for the domestic water supply. Page 3-197 The "will serve" letter from the Oakley District (Appendix F) provides no assurance that the District has the available capacity to supply this project. The letter merely says it will serve the project if all District regulations are met. Regulation no. 7 states that no new water service will be connected with the R-14 District's water distribution system unless "the District solely and conclusively determines that its water treatment storage and distribution facilities . . . are sufficient permanently to provide a safe, reliable and adequate water supply to the land to be served. " (Appendix F) The EIR contains no demonstration that the District has arrived at such a formal conclusion. If it has, the data supporting such a finding should be included in this EIR. 4-119 I Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 5 Page 3-205 The groundwater management plan contained in mitigation measure 3.10-1 should be prepared now and made available for public review and comment, as well as environmental analysis. Deferring R-15 the preparation of such a plan for later staff review and approval violates CEQA's requirements for public participation and adequate environmental review. Pages 3-202 through 3-206 This draft of the EIR appears to be the same as that contained in the original draft. Therefore, our earlier comments apply: The EIR's discussion of sewage treatment capacity is inadequate. The EIR has not demonstrated that wastewater treatment and discharge capacity is available for the project. The ostensible "will serve" letter (Appendix G) is so highly conditioned as to be meaningless, by stating, for example: "Service will be provided at the time of issuance of building permit subject to there being available treatment plant capacity" and that "this letter is . . . not to be taken as a guarantee of service. " The EIR should provide data and analyses on the following issues, at a minimum, so that the public and decisionmakers can determine the Oakley Water District's capability of providing service: 1) unallocated wastewater treatment capacity of Ironhouse Sanitary District; R-16 2) unallocated discharge permit capacity for the Ironhouse Sanitary District; 3) projected wastewater treatment and discharge needed for approved but unbuilt projects, buildout of projects allowed under the County and relevant local General Plans within the existing sanitary district boundaries; 4) level of treatment required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and cost of treatment needed for providing service to this project; 5) compare with the Capital Improvement Program to identify how and when wastewater treatment facilities will be built as correlated with the time schedules proposed for this project, which should be specifically identified in the EIR. Page 3-202 R-17 The EIR should provide more information regarding the plans 4-120 Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 6 for increasing the Oakley Treatment Plant capacity up to 8 mgd, R-17 including the projected dates. The date of the latest information provided in the EIR is May, 1992, and that information is now outdated. More current information should 'be provided. Page 3-202 through 3-203 The. figures on this page should be specifically related to this project, e.g. , how many acres of land disposal will be required for this project's treated effluent. More information R-18 should be provided on the status of the Regional Board's review of permit applications for additional land disposal area, as well as other discharge methods. The existing information is far too scant for an intelligent assessment of the true environmental impacts of the proposed project. Paste 3-203 As was , true with the earlier draft EIR, the information in I,-19 (this EIR does not demonstrate that the project will comply . with lGeneral .Plan policy 7-33 . Pages 3-216 through 3-217 Again, it appears that this revised draft has not responded to our earlier. comments, which were as follows: With respect to historical pesticide storage and application on site, the EIR should reveal the data and information available, R-20 rather than referring the public to yet another report available only at County headquarters. The information in that report should be summarized, at the very least. The types and quantities of pesticides used and stored should be provided, along with the known or suspected health hazards of such pollutants. Was any assessment done other than ground surface? Explain the results. If no such additional studies were done, why not? Page 3-217 The types and quantities of pesticides appl-ied -through aerial R-21 spraying should be provided along with the known and suspected health risks. Pages 3-217 through 3-218 Again, it appears that this revised draft has not responded to our earlier comments, which were as follows: Far more information should be provided on the controversial nature of high voltage transmission lines. Both the California R-22 Public Utilities Commission and the EPA have recent studies and reports available on this issue. The PLIC has recently held a series of hearings on these issues. The EIR should identify the width of rights of way and setback requirements that at least seven other states believe necessary to protect public health and safety, 4-121 Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 7 particularly for children who are much more highly affected by such lines. The EIR should investigate and disclose whether "ball fields" are an acceptable use within the right of way for multiple R-22 500 kv lines. The issue of the effects of high voltage lines is particularly sensitive for this project which proposes to place 60 or more homes in close proximity to these high voltage lines. The EIR must discuss these issues in greater depth. Page 3-221 Mitigation measure 3 . 11-1 does nothing to actually reduce the impacts and health risks from placing new residences in an area R-23 adjacent to aerial pesticide spraying, and cannot support a conclusion that such risks have been fully mitigated. It is one thing to say that risks have been disclosed -- it is quite another to say that they have been eliminated. Page 3-222 similarly, mitigation measure 3 .11-4 does nothing to actually reduce the impacts and health risks from placing new residences in an area adjacent to high voltage transmission lines, and cannot upport a conclusion that such risks have been fully mitigated. R-24 s The EIR should consider as a mitigation measure a redesign of g g the site plan to ensure that all homes are at least 1000 feet from the edge of the right of way of all 500 kv transmission lines. Paste 4-5 This alternative should be revised to include true "clustered" R-25 development of the 136 units, and should be re-examined. Paste 4-10 There is no support for the assertion that this alternative would result in placing residential uses next to agricultural uses, natural gas extraction areas and electrical transmission lines. R-26 The project could easily be designed to avoid such areas for the 510-unit alternative, if it were properly clustered. The Final EIR should properly analyze such an alternative. Page 5-9 The EIR provides inadequate information on the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. This proposed project will inevitably lead to the need for commercial facilities and will increase pressure for conversion of other agricultural lands in the Delta. The EIR should provide specific information about the R-27 surrounding area in the Delta which will be threatened by these pressures, identifying the acreage involved, its location, 'and status as agricultural land. A clear diagram would be helpful. In addition, the EIR should identify any pending applications for 4-122 Art Beresford February 16, 1993 Page 8 development in these adjacent areas so that a clearer understanding R-27 of the near-term growth inducing impacts can be analyzed. . These comments are supplemental to any other written comments or oral testimony presented by or to be presented by the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance and Mount Diablo Audubon Society. We thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We will further address them in our discussions with the developer and the developer's consultants. Sincerely, Kathryn Burkett Dickson KBD:dt cc: Mark Evanoff Dave Nesmith , Al McNabney r i 4-123 i IResponse to Letter R: Dickson & Ross, February 16, 1993 As indicated in the commentor's letter, their previous letter is incorporated by reference. However, the commentor specifically identifies those areas of the previous letter that have been incorporated by reference. These comments are addressed below. Response R-1: Table 1-1, page 1-6 of the revised EIR was revised by the project applicant's engineers to more accurately depict the proposed land uses. The amount of land devoted to single-family residential uses has been reduced from 246 acres to 242.9 acres. The wetland/buffer acreage was reduced because the original number included some park land which should not be considered buffer. jResponse R-2: 1. LAFCo Approval - The applicant is in the process of writing a letter to the County requesting it to adopt a Resolution of Application which will request LAFCO to start the proceedings for the reorganization/annexation. Since there are multiple reorganizations/ annexations, the Board of Supervisors will be designated the local agency on these actions. State law requires LAFCO to hear the application within 90 days from the date the application is deemed complete. This hearing is a public hearing. Within 35 days following LAFCO's adoption of a Resolution approving the reorganization/annexation, the Board of Supervisors must set the matter for another public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board will make a decision on the request. 2. Financing and Maintenance Districts - These districts would not be established until after the project is approved. The establishment of these districts would be the subject of public meetings. 3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit - This permit would be issued prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project and prior to allowing any discharge from the project site into Sandmound Slough. This permit is generally not subject to public review and comment. 4. Section 404 Permit - This permit would not be sought from the Army Corps of Engineers until after the project is approved. As part of the permit process the Army Corps of Engineers posts a notice of the intent to issue a permit in the Federal Register for public review and comment. 5. FEMA Approval - An application is currently being assembled to request that the project area be removed from the 100-year flood plain. This application would contain complete construction documents (plans and specifications) for the internal levee. FEMA does not 4-124 review these plans in public meetings. The appropriate time to object or support the , internal levee is during the public meeting on the project. 6. Development Agreement - A development may be requested if the project is approved. Hearings on the Development Agreement would be open to public comment. 7. Streambed Alteration Agreement - This agreement would not be obtained until a project , is approved. In general, the California Department of Fish and Game does not solicit public comment regarding streambed alteration agreements. These permits are typically obtained after certification of the environmental document. With' regard to the Section 404 and Streambed Alteration permits, the. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game have their own noticing requirements. , Response R-3: The level of significance of item 3.4.a. should be indicated as Potentially Significant (PS). The level of significance for items 3.5.b. should also be Potentially Significant (PS). In cases where more than one mitigation measure is proposed for a particular impact, the level of significance is indicated at the end of the Mitigation Measures in the right-hand column, not after each mitigation measure. .Response R-4: The project area has two land use designations: 1) Agricultural Lands and 2) Off-Island Bonus Area. Clustering is required for development under the "Agricultural Lands" land use designation. The project proponent has elected to develop under the "Off-Island Bonus Area" land use designation which does not require clustering. This distinction is discussed on page 3-9 of the DEIR under "Agricultural Lands (AL)." Response R-5: T 'The three other reside ntial/recreational projects in the Bethel Island area include South River, North State Development and Lesher Landing. These projects, in addition to others, are discussed in the cumulative impacts discussion beginning on page 5-2. These projects, including their size and location, are listed on page 5-2. Figure 3.1-1, page 3-4 of the DEIR depicts the location of other planned projects in the Bethel Island Area in relation to, the proposed protect. There are no development applications on file with the County for property in the Cypress Corridor. The future development potential of the Cypress Corridor is derived from information (i.e. land use designations) contained in the General Plan. Please see Letter X which indicates.ihat the Lesher Landing application has been revised as of February 5, 1993 for 571 units or approximately 361 acres. Because this project has been reduced substantially in size from that reported in the DEIR (see Page J-2), the corresponding 4-125 cumulative impacts of the proposed project when considered in conjunction with proposed adjacent development would be reduced. Response R-6: 1 See Response C-1. Response R-7: The County Wetlands Protection Ordinance is still in a draft form. No specific date for approval by the Board of Supervisors has been set at this time. Response R-8: Ground subsidence in the project began with reclamation of the area, construction of the existing levee system, and the beginning of agricultural practices. Since ground subsidence has been occurring over such a long period of time, the precise amount of subsidence cannot be determined,However, ground subsidence is a serious concern in some areas of the delta underlain by thick deposits of peat. Extraction of oil and gas deposits and oxidation of surface peat soils have also been known to cause a lowering of existing ground surface. None of these conditions exist at the project site. Numerous test borings confirm that except for an upper loose sand layer, approximately 10 feet in thickness, the underlying materials are not organic and consist of dense sand and silt soils. Response R-9: The uses permitted for the lake and channels are described on page 3-183 of the DEIR. Non-motorized boating would be allowed on the lake and no skin-contact (swimming) would be allowed. The lakes are also proposed to provide an aesthetic feature to the project. Response R-10: ' The DEIR on page 3-179, Mitigation Measure 3.9-7, clearly states that the school site should be enlarged to 10 acres per the OUESD requirements. The intent of the Mitigation is to enlarge the proposed site by redesigning the loop roadway and reducing the number of units south of Cyprtss Road or through the acquisition of neighboring parcels with the cooperation of OUESD. The DEIR, beginning on page 3-177, clearly identifies that the project would have a significant impact on local school facilities if additional school facilities are not provided. It is the intent of the project and mitigation measures in the DEIR that the project provide sufficient funding and a school site so that a new school facility is completed early in the phasing of the project so that the project would not result in an adverse impact on the local school districts' facilities. Also see Response I-1. 4-126 Response R-11: The water distribution of the Oakley Water District over the past five years by month is shown in the following table. WATER DISTRIBUTION (IN MILLION GALLONS) ' Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Total 1988 72 79 100 0101 110 124 147 138 129 112 82 75 1,194 1989 64 70 67 106 145 161 174 158 132 99 86 98 1,360 1990 77 63 96 126 141 145 162 153 130 119 84 70 1,366 1991 66 51 40 62 115 131 135 116 116 75 75 82 1,100 1992 80 76 82 115 160 141 160 170 148 130 106 87 1,455 OWD estimates that the ultimate average day water demand for the proposed sphere of ..,iwence of OWD and the Bethel Isldnd/Hotchkiss Tract area at build-out will be approximately , 18.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and 30.7 mgd for the maximum day. The estimated average day demand of the Cypress Lakes project under full development is expected to be 1.6 mgd, which is included in the 18.1 mgd ultimate demand-for this area. OWD's current average day demand is approximately 4 mgd with a maximum day of approximately 6.8 mgd. Seeing the need for approximately 30 mgd of treatment plant capacity to accommodate the ultimate maximum day demands, OWD constructed jointly with Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant which is now in operation. By agreement with CCWD, OWD is currently paying for, and has the right, to use 15 mgd of this 40 mgd facility. The plant has been designed to permit enlargement to 80 mgd which entitles OWD to increase its allocation up to 30 mgd. The Joint Powers Agreement between OWD and CCWD for the Kandall-Bold Plant states that OWD shall have.first rights to serve the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area with treated water. As a result, OWD has the water allocation and ability to adequately provide water service to the project. The District's regulation No. 9 is still in effect. The District has and continues to review plans for irrigation and landscaping to verify that they comply with,Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 90-59 (Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments). Once the landscape plans for a new development are in compliance with said ordinance-the District then approves the plans. Response R-12: The Oakley Water District has sized its mains in order to meet the flow requirements.for not only its current service area but also for water service to the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract. area. As mentioned in the DEIR, page 3-191, OWD has secured adequate treatment plant 4-127 capacity to serve both these areas to build-out. District policy states that the developer shall.bear the cost for extending mains to his or her development. OWD's 1991 Master Plan anticipates that water storage and pressure boosting pump facilities will be needed in addition to the main extension for the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area. These costs would also be born by the developer. The exact costs and the scope for these facilities are generally determined after the developer has an approved project. It would be premature to try to determine what the exact scope of these facilities should be at this time. After the facilities are installed and accepted by OWD the developer is then reimbursed for the portion of the facilities that were installed to serve areas beyond the boundaries of the development. The funds for reimbursing the developer are included as a part of the connection fees paid for each water meter that is set anywhere within the District. Since the OWD has expressed interest in serving the proposed project and has 1 adequate capacity to serve the project, additional analysis of service by a new district is not warranted at this time. Response R-13: The project is not proposing to use groundwater for domestic water supplies. Groundwater pumped from on-site locations would be used for landscaping purposes only. . Response R-14: OWD has the capacity at the present time to provide adequate water service to extensive areas beyond its present boundaries. The District's Master Water Plan demonstrat--s the feasibility for possible extension of water service to the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area. Completion of the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant further demonstrates OWD's capability to provide water service to not only its current service area but also the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area which includes the Cypress Lakes project. Response R-15: Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 is on page 3-199 of the DEIR. This mitigation measure clearly ' states the contents of the groundwater management plan and the issues it should address. The specific requirements contained in the measure provides an opportunity for the public to address the adequacy of the scope of the groundwater management plans and does not violate the ' requirements of CEQA. Response R-16: The Ironhouse Sanitary District has a current treatment capacity of 2.3 mgd.and disposal capacity of 2.9 mgd. Of this capacity, 0.7 mgd is currently unallocated. The 0.7 mgd would be sufficient to serve approximately 3,000 units. Therefore, there is currently sufficient available unallocated capacity to serve the project. (David Bauer, Ironhouse Sanitary District) 4-128 The District has indicated that they are near their discharge permit limit. However, the RWQCB has stated that the District may exceed the flow limits with no consequences. The RWQCB does not want to update the permit until the plant expansion is completed, which is currently scheduled for 1995. (David Bauer, Ironhouse Sanitary District, March 1993) The District knows of only.50 units which are approved but not connected to their system. These units would require 11,250 gal..per day of the currently available treatment capacity. The level of treatment required for this project is the same as for all projects in the District. The District is preparing and EIR for plant and disposal capacity expansion to approximately 8.0 mgd. The EIR is scheduled for completion in 1994. Phased construction of the plant would begin when flows approach 2.3 mgd. When compared to the construction timeframe for the proposed Cypress Lakes project, which is ten years, the District has adequate available capacity at the present time and the District's capital improvements and expansion plans would be completed before completion of the Cypress Lakes project. Therefore, adequate sewer treatment and disposal capacity currently exists would continue to exit through implementation of the Districts current capital improvements plans. Response R-17: See Response R-16. Response R-18: As discussed in Response R-16, the Ironhouse Sanitary District currently has unallocated capacity (including disposal capacity) for 0.7 mgd. Because the proposed project could be accommodated within this unallocated available capacity, it is not necessary to determine the q._ecise amount of disposal area necessary to serve the project. (See Response R-16.) Response R-19: Policy7-33 of the County General Plan states that the Count shall require new tY Y q development to demonstrate that wastewater capacity can be provided either by existing available capacity or through a funded program for additional capacity. There is currently. adequate r unallocated capacity available to serve the proposed project. See response R-16. Response R-20: The Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the project site is contained in Appendix B to this EIR. The Environmental Assessment is summarized on p. 3-216 through 3-217 of the , DEIR.. No additional studies were warranted based on the findings of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment. 4-129 During the public hearing process, issues regarding underground storage tanks on the project site were raised. Response L-10 addresses this issue. Response R-21: 1 See Response R-20. According to the Preliminary Environmental Assessment, no permitting through the Contra Costa Department of Agriculture for pesticide use on the Del Porto property has occurred in the last five years. Prior pesticide use has consisted of only light pesticides, for example paraquat, which generally decomposes rapidly. Response R-22: The DEIR on pages 3-217 to 3-218 and 3-220 discloses the current issues regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields as well as the fact that to date these studies have not shown conclusively a direct association with certain diseases and electromagnetic fields. The limits imposed by other states is shown below. State regulations that limit field strengths g g on transmission line rights of way (ROW) STATE FIELD LIMIT Montana lkV/m at edge of ROW in residential areas Minnesota 8 kV/m maximum in ROW New Jersey 3 kV/m at edge of ROW New York 1.6 kV/m at edge of ROW North Dakota 9 kV/m maximum in ROW Oregon 9 Kv/m maximum in ROW Florida 10 Kv/m (for 500 kV), 8 kV/m (for 230 kV) maximum in ROW 2 Kv/m at edge of ROW all new lines. 200 Mg (for 500 Kv single circuit), 250 Mg (for 500 Kv double ' circuit) and 150 mG (for 230 Kv) maximum at edge of ROW Mitigation Measure 3.9-10, page 3-187 specifically calls for active recreational use areas to be located outside the power line easement including baseball diamonds, soccer fields, and playground areas. The proposed project includes design features to minimize development in the areas adjacent to the power-line easement. This was done by orienting the majority of the project around the proposed golf course and lake. The WAPA line easement is 50 feet wide, which provides a sufficient buffer to reduce exposure to EMFs. See Page 3-220 of the DEIR. 4-130 Response R-23: Aerial spraying of pesticides is not considered a problem in this portion of East Contra Costa County. Inquiries of existing residents indicate that aerial spraying has.rarely occurred and is not a problem (Bob Gromm, Dave da Porto). The Preliminary Environmental Assessment indicated that permitted pesticide applications have not occurred on the project site since 1984. In addition, the areas adjacent to the project site are used for cattle grazing, for which aerial application of pesticides is generally not done. No evidence of increased spraying is assumed because the adjacent properties are currently being proposed for urban-type development. For these reasons, the potential for adverse impacts to project residents from aerial application is quite remote and considered less-than-significant. Response R-24: ' See Response R-23. The impact from electrical powerlines was not identified as potentially significant. The mitigation measure is provided as a way to inform project residents regarding the current level of knowledge regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields. The proposed project design addresses this issue (see Response R-22). Response R-25: The Ranchette Alternative does not include clustering but rather was evaluated under the existing agricultural zoning. The following response addresses the commentor request that a clustered approach to the Ranchette Alternative be evaluated. Land Use, Planning and Public Policy The land use pattern under this alternative would provide a cluster of 136 units on one P portion of the site. The remaining portion of the site would remain in its existing rural character. This alternative would provide significantly fewer housing units than the proposed project. The provision of additional housing in the Bethel Island area is a goal of Contra Costa County and has been planned for through the establishment of the Off-Island Bonus Area. By significantly ' reducing the number of housing units possible on the project site, this alternative could be considered to have a significant adverse effect on reaching the housing goals of Contra Costa County in the East County area. This alternative would not provide the recreational opportunities (i.e., golf course, lake, pedestrian/bicycle trails) that would be provided with the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation This alternative would substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips generated from the project site by approximately 85 per cent when compared to the proposed project (this alternative , would result in 1,500 vehicle trips per day, 140 vehicle trips per hour). Very few roadway improvements would be necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by this alternative. 4-131 r i I' Air Qualitv This alternative would reduce the air quality impacts by roughly 90% when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would also reduce emissions of ozone precursors and potentially avoid exceeding the BAAQMD's threshold for these emissions. Construction- generated dust emissions would also be substantially reduced with this alternative as a result of less soil disruption. Vegetation and Wildlife This alternative would reduce impacts on vegetation and wildlife. By clustering the 136 units on one portion of the site, the rest of the site would remain in its existing character and continue to provide the habitat for existing vegetation and wildlife. This alternative would however, displace the vegetation and wildlife associated with the portion of the site developed with the 136 units. Visual Quality ' This alternative may reduce visual impacts by clustering the homes together thereby avoiding development on the majority of the site. However, clustered development would not provide a rural character consistent with adjacent land uses. This impact would be similar to that of the proposed project. Noise This alternative would decrease noise levels relative to the proposed project as a result of less traffic and no recreational uses. As a result, the need for localized noise barriers along Cypress Road would not be expected with this alternative. Construction noise would also be substantially reduced with this alternative. Hydrology and Drainage This alternative would result in additional storm drainage runoff entering RD-799 drainage facilities as a result of development of additional impervious surfaces on the project site. ' However, by clustering development on the site, storm drainage facilities could be provided to adequately serve the 136 units.. This alternative would not provide an internal levee system, nor would it be large enough to fund improvements of the existing RD-799 levee system on Hotchkiss Tract. Therefore, additional people would be exposed to the flood hazards which currently exist on Hotchkiss Tract. Under this alternative, new housing would be constructed on stilts which would create an aesthetic impact. This would be a significant adverse impact associated with this alternative which would not be avoided with the proposed project. 4-132 Geology, Seismicity and Soils , Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed to the existing geologic; soils and seismic conditions within the project area. However, the same mitigation measures identified in this EIR to mitigate soil and geologic hazards could be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Public Services This alternative would reduce the demands on local public services associated with the proposed project as a result of fewer people living on the project site. However, it is not expected that this alternative would. be able to provide the necessary level of financing to ' improve various public services (i.e., fire, police and schools) which would be needed. This alternative would also not provide the recreational facilities and opportunities associated with the proposed project. Utilities This alternative would reduce the level of demand for new utilities associated with the proposed project. However, it is likely that under this alternative, a non-groundwater source would not be developed for the area. Development of a non-groundwater source is a significant benefit of this proposed project. Human Health Clustering of the homes would allow additional space between the homes and the electrical powerlines and drill sites. However, the homes would still be exposed to adjacent agricultural activities similar to the proposed project. Cultural Resources Clustering of the homes would provide additional avoidance of archaeological sites. However, the proposed project would avoid these sites as well. Energy ' This alternative would significantly reduce the amount of energy consumed when compared to the proposed project. The clustered alternative of 136 units would reduce or avoid many of the adverse impacts of the project. This alternative would not provide certain benefits which would be provided by the proposed project, such as: increased property tax revenues to the County and other agencies; payment of certain development fees to various agencies; and the development of additional housing units and recreational amenities. In accordance with CEQA Section 21085, a public 4-133 r r agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project g Y alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if there is another feasible specific mitigation measure that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. Response R-26: Clustering is only required when using the "Agricultural Lands" designation. This alternative was analyzed under the "Off-Island Bonus Area" designation. The project site 1 contains potential natural gas extraction sites, electrical transmission lines and is adjacent to agricultural uses. For this reason, any development on the site would be near these features. However, this alternative would have less of an impact on these areas than the proposed project 1 because of the fewer units. Response R-27: The growth inducing effects of the project are substantial) limited b the Contra Costa t� g P J Y Y County Urban Limit Line and topographic features of the Delta area to the north and east. Possible growth to the south and west is discussed in detail in the Cumulative Impacts discussion beginning on page 5-2 of the DEIR and in the EIR or the County General Plan. The Delta Protection Act (discussed on p. 3-16 and 3-26 of the DEIR) is intended to limit growth in portions of the Delta Area. This Act will also help in reducing growth inducing impacts. The General Plan permits limited commercial development to the Bethel Island Area. The future residents are expected to utilize the commercial development as identified in the General Plan. There are no plans for the Board of Supervisors to amend the General Plan to allow for additional commercial development in the area. 4-134 r Letter S t Darrell B. Edwards r.� 4292 Sandmound Boulevard �;�� }'Y Oakley, California 94561 "6- (415) s(415) 684-9749 s Fz . 1 1 i f � . r . 1 1 4-135 124 S-1 S-z - - S-s -AV _.-- ,. .--J � 74 ( 3. .� 3� S-s S-sem r� S:9 •� , S-10 '� G ' O i 4-137 i S-12 S-13 S-14 I, ■ S-18 /70 i S-19 { 4-138 -71 47 r S-20 /o 3.3 �a 1 ---� -- -- - 4-139 -- r r . � _ ... S-21 2- S-22 S-23 ` _..._S-25 - - .r.. / _ _.✓ . -- -- - - r _ - - S-27 i S-28 S-2,9 .s J 1 S-32 S-33 4-141 S-35 � / S-36 Ci S-37 1-7 -3-17J S-38 --- S-39 -3-17 4-142 S-a2 Id"'7 -3, 9-.,' S-43 5-45 i 4-143 I� ' Response to Letter S: Darrell Edwards, February 12, 1993 Many of the comments are related to the financial burden that would be placed on the future homeowners of the proposed project. These issues are unrelated to the adequacy of the EIR and therefore, no response is necessary. Response S-1: ' Comment noted. The comment addresses the financial burden that may be placed on homeowners within the proposed project. This issue is not an environmental issue but rather a financial issue. No additional response necessary. 1 Response S-2: ' The DEIR in Chapter 5.2 specifies roadway improvements to be paid for by the project as well as projects for which fair-share contributions would be necessary. ' Response S-3: See Response EE-6 Response S-4• The DEIR in Chapter 3.3 presents the air quality impacts of the proposed project and concludes that the project would result in an unavoidable impact on regional air quality. ' Response S-5: No response necessary. The landscaping would be installed by the project applicant. r Maintenance of the landscaping would become the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association, which is a financial issue. ' Response S-6: No response necessary. The comment is not related to a significant effect on the environment. Response S-7: The project applicant would be required to pay their fair-share of noise mitigation costs ' necessary to mitigate the project's impacts. Noise mitigation would not necessarily be in the form of soundwalls. Architectural treatment could be used, as pointed out in Mitigation Measure 36-1 of the DEIR. The noise mitigation would be installed when noise levels warranted. 4-144 Response S-S: ' No response necessary. The comment reflects the opinion of the commentor. The public entity responsible for maintenance of the drainage and levee system has not yet been.determined. Also see Appendix C. Response S-9: See Response Z-20. Response S-10: No response necessary. The comment is the opinion of the commentor. Levee ' landscaping plans would need to be approved by the public agency responsible for maintenance of the levees. Installation of landscaping would be the responsibility of the project applicant. ' Response S-11: See Response Z-20. ' Response S-12: Mitigation Measure 3.7-13, p. 3-145 of the DEIR provides specific measures and criteria to be contained in the final maintenance plan for the golf course including pesticide, herbicide ' and fertilizer management. Response S-13: See Response Z-20 and S-3. Response S-14• Comments noted. Please refer to Response EE-6, above. The project applicant proposes ' dust control measures which include posting the name and phone number of a designated dust control coordinator on the project site. Response S-15: See Response Z-20. Response S-16: Comment noted. The comment addresses a financial issue. 4-145 Response S-17: i Please refer to discussion under Funding on page 3-172 of the DEIR for information on ■ funding of sheriff facilities. Response S-18: The proposed project proposes to dedicate a 7.4 acre site for a school. See page 3-178 of the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.9-7 on page 3-179 recommends that the school site be enlarged to 10 acres. Response S-19: No response necessary. The comment is related to a financial issue. Response sp a S-20: No response necessary. The comment is related to a financial issue. Response S-21: Comment noted. As indicated on p. 3-20 of the DEIR, residents of the project would probably work in the Concord, Walnut Creek, Hacienda Business Park, Bishop Ranch and other East Bay job centers. Response S-22: Comment noted. The comment expresses the opinion of the commentor. The proposed cost of housing within the project is from $175,000. Senior and retired individuals are often attracted to golf-course developments. Response S-23: Comment noted. The comment addresses an existing condition and is unrelated to the project as an environmental issue. No response is necessary. Response S-24: Refer to Response EE-14. Response S-25: Comment noted. The comment is related to a financial issue. No response is necessary. �I 4-146 1I Response S-26: Comment noted. The first part of the comment restates the findings documented in the DEIR. The issue of drowning would vary by individual. See Response S-27 which addresses the Emergency Evacuation Plan for the project. Response S-27: The comment is unclear; however the text on page 3-137 and Mitigation Measure 3.7-10 on page 3-144 of the DEIR describes the proposed plans for emergency evacuation in the areas adjacent to the proposed project. Response S-28: ' As the text on page 3-137 notes, a breach is highly unlikely to become bigger than 50 feet. This size of breach would lose energy very quickly. The 50 foot breach was selected based on historical data regarding past levee breaches in the Delta. Fifty (50) feet was the average size of those breaches.. ' Response S-29: See Response EE-22 and EE-23. ' Response S-30: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding the ' County's ability to maintain storm drainage improvements. If the County cannot maintain these facilities, maintenance would become the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association or of a Special District. Response S-31: Comment noted. The comment does not address an environmental issue and represents the opinion of the commentor. Response S-32: Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-15 identifies that if the County cannot afford the street sweeping program, that it should be funded by the project residents. Response S-33: , See Response Z-20. Dewatering would occur when levee and lake/channel construction occurs. The water that is pumped out would be conveyed into the existing open ditch system. ' 4-147 ' Response S-34: Refer to Response Z-20. Response S-35: Short-term in the context of dust emissions refers to the period during which earth moving activities would occur. Major earthwork is estimated to take approximately one-year and be ' completed as part of the first phase of the development. Response S-36: ' Comment noted. As Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 on page 3-161 states, the ground settlement monitoring plan would identify contingency plans. Contingency plans would generally consist of stopping construction if ground settlement exceeds acceptable levels and implementing alternative construction techniques. ' Response S-37: Comments noted. Please refer to Response S-3 above. Response S-38• ' Development Fees/Funding are discussed on page 3-178 of the DEIR. Mitigation Measures 3.9-6 through 3.9-8 on page 3-179 are proposed to further mitigate the proposed project's impact on school facilities. Also see Response I-1. Response S-39: Comments noted. The comment references a financial issue. Also see Response I-1. Response S40: The referenced policies on page 3-181 of the DEIR pertain to the location of parks. These policies recommend that neighborhood parks be located near elementary schools but do not require it. ' Response S-41: No response necessary. The comment is too speculative and relates to a financial issue. 4-148 Response S-42: ' The County's General Plan requires a community park in this area. The project complies ' with this requirement. See mitigation measure 3.9-9 of the DEIR. Response S-43: No response necessary. ' The comment is related to a financial issue. Response S-44: ' Comment noted. The mitigation measure referenced was added at the request of ' CCMAD. Response S-45: No response.necessary. The comment expresses the opinion of the commentor and is unrelated to a significant environmental issue. , Response S-46: Comment noted. The comment expresses the opinion of the commentor. The County.can ' approve a project which would result in unavoidable impacts if it can make findings that the project's benefits outweigh its adverse impacts.- 47109 mpacts.4-149 Handle w Care Pkg TEL N0 .415-355-6584 Feb 16 ,93 15 :51 P .01 Letter T i 4�04—e— 74� ' o � v 0032 -'7d OV s 7::: 400'7i— T-1 / , . G 4e�— 1 1 �, 4-150 psi r�� .a7Z 4.7s3 95- lot ell 00. WL 74 0/1 1 4-151 1 1 /11 mui LI n apA�� rcamming vypre� �Kv* uv 1 WENT TO THE East County to close this public comment nul- Regional Planning CommiWoz Bance. She whined about how long + imecting Monday. I hadn't tht: permit i5rocess had been, and meant to write anythirig on it since,.about how much.she had tried to my column was already written. Wotk with the totnmrtnity. , But what happened at that meeting More effectively,her father,AJ. was so disgusting 1 had my column Solomon,'said the magic rv¢rds, ' held till I could get time to bvrite "We'll pay., this. He meant thYt he would Out up The subject was the proposed .the money for i special hurry-up Cyprctw Lakes development, and meeting of the planning commis- ' the first problem,as readers of this cion next week, When it was point- space already know,wa*that those ed out that another developer was y� { who were entitled by law to be already paying for a special meeting 3.I bine tKdtt t tlils'i6ai k Idol .:..s> .vde f1ig11 fight them on the notified weren't.The second prob- on that date (Monday, Feb. 8) he Playing field.:;l o.lo 'ti hedE;:bhstehea,>1rHf�ti�b ah811 fight them in lem was that the Revised E1R,the said he'd pay more;he wanted that that. ut lxliei�11�;wd'D ton:" the~streets And we shale!never sur- document under discussion, 'was day, he would "work it out" with 11el+doh t 61111 Wt 1 luau Ii-: 'Ydti�Ei 1 Wen he turned to his not made available to the people the other developer. land for ftothing; Ntl h6W*e'ik !friend and whispered. "And we'll who needed to sco IL Again,this Is . Done deal. survived. hit thein over the head with beer a matter of law. Hotchkiss residents were treated The County ind devetoptt'1 Aire bottles. 11tat'a about all we've got I found out about the metting kine dirt.I have A few things to!ay len for trouble ttAW the Inst poor::'," because a neighbor put a mimeo- to Earl Wetrel Stan'Planchon And soul is duped Into aj hie iaort= 'Witch out for flying beer bottles. graphed flier len myy mall box,as did the hest bf the planning commis-' Sage. It will be-!!either easy normost of my nelghborA. slon, and to Lyhn)ochim and AJ. profitable to tato this.thing doian Some rushed out to buy the$30 Solomon: our throats. document and stayped tip half the 1.We are hot r ndisancel We ale . 4. When I.(Ind bift aili`�tlft�. 64 : night, trying to figure out rbhAt part of the democratic process.Out 'ernraent off cW reoett+im(5tle.tt ,; changes had been made to protect concerns are rational, reasooible has received onelime,.or wilt te- them, the homeowners and real• and well reseaiched. ceive one disc fi t a•Wotb Ar l I ' dents affected by the plan. 2.It's going to be changed again, tion he or she took'in favor of this They merle notes, ran calarla- because the developers have not project,I will climb the tallest pole lions, called experts tri hydriul d ingde thin a prt> & neighbors can to blow the lewdest whistle I can 'soils engineering, traffic manage- live with.It takeiM time to get peE- Vid. ment. In short, th6y worked very !Mesion to turn p6opte's lives up- i Winston dtirchW!!lade a faitio�te long, and very hard, in the brief aide down,even in a rubber-stamp speech during Hitler's bombing of' timespan (about two weeks) they county like Contra Costa. London.To the microphone he chid were given by developer Lynn)o- chim and the East County Regional Planning Commission. When the time came for the meeting, about 50 residents of the area showed up.They were disl,p. . pointed when they saw that Cy- press lakes was but one of nine or no items on the agek%, but they Red patiently while four other platters were discussed. ' At about 8 p.m., chairman Stan Planchon announced A schedule + change; all the other items on the agenda would be moved ahead of the public hearing on Cypress , Lakes. ' It wasn't until 9:30 that he sighed and opened the f16&to dis- cussion of the Cypress Lakes EIR. ' Because it was now so late,he tried to limit the respondents to five minutes each. This went over very badly with those who had worked . so hard, and waited io long. Most of the comments were un- der five minutes anyway, but the meeting still tan past the 11 p.rh. deadline. When it was obvious no one.was going away, the board agreed to continue the mattei until the next meeting. At thio point developer Lynn Jo; chim stood up to complain about whits hardship she would endure 9 she had to wait an extri two weeks 4-153 PARCEL NO. Return Address: 032-172-022 CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA, 94553 GARCIA GEORGE FATOOH VERA P O BOX 964 BETHEL ISLAND CA 94511 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE SUPPRESSION ASSESSMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT The Board of Supervisors as the governing body of the Bethel Island Fire Protection District will hold a public hearing on March 16, 1993, on this matter at 10:30 AM In the board of Supervisors' Chambers, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, for final consideration of the report submitted by the Fire Chief of Bethel Island Fire Protection District proposing that fire suppression assessments be levied on your real property located ' in the District. Your Initial annual assessment for Fiscal Year 1993.94 could range from $0 up to a maximum of $ 546.00 , depending on the property tax losses the District may experience as a result of State budget action. At the time, date and place specified above, the Board wUl hear and consider all comments or protests, If any, to the sald report, and may, thereafter; by ordinance or resolution, determine and levy tre assessments. At any time not later than the hour set for the hearin on March 16, 1993, any holder whether a fee owner, lessee, or otherwise of the Interest in the property which is proposed to be assessed and who will be obligated to pay any proposed assessments, may make written protest against the proposed assessments. The protest shall be In writing, shall contain a description of the property including the above parcel number and the name of the fire district mentioned in the first paragraph and the Interest in the property which ¢ach signer of the protest represents, sufficient to tdantify the..nrcnerty..and._If-the..signers are not.-shawn_on.the .lastequaUzed. assessment raU.. ' as the owners of that property, shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the signers are the holders of the property Interest proposed to be charged and who will be obligated to pay the proposed charge. Any such protests shall be delivered to the Clark of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at 651 Pine Street, Room 106, Martinez, CA, 94553. No other protests or objections shall be considered. A majority protest would cause the assessment to be abandoned. The Fire Chiefs report, briefly summarized on the reverse side of this notice, containing data Indicating the need for the proposed assessments, the amount of the assessments proposed for Fiscal Year 1993-94, the types of property to be assessed, and other related Information is on file in the District's office located at 3045 Ranch Lane, Bethel Island, CA, and is available there for public Inspection prior to the meeting. Any questions concerning this notice, the report on the proposed assessments, and protest procedure should be directed to Jack Whitener at telephone number (510) 684-2211. PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator s!s epu y 'r-EE REVERSE SIDE OF THiS NOTICE 4-154 Response to Letter T: Vera Fatook and George Garcia, February 12 and 16, 1993 Response T-1: ' The comments in this letter represent the opinion of the commentor and do not address a significant impact on the environment or the adequacy of the DEIR. No response necessary. Response T-2: The comment relates the project's effect on the flood hazard situation in adjacent areas. The proposed project would not affect the flood hazards in adjacent areas. Construction of the project levees would remove the project site from the flood hazard zone and provide a safe evacuation point in the event of a levee breach of the existing RD-799 levees. 1 i 4-155 LAW OFFICES OF^ nt111 jT GAGEN, MCCO "'_iFG`D ON"& XkMSTEONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA 10�� DANVILLE OFFICE PATRICKGREGORYL. CMAHON CCOY 03 FEB I • t1 ` 279 FRONT STREET _ P. O'. BOX 216 MARK L. ARMSTRONG I�. ('t%�•Y�I�� 1`?I. DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 84526-0218 LINN K. COOMBS J !: 1 r'" 1'- ff�:5.f.�'�1 „tet�-=" TELEPHONE: 15101 637-0585 STEPHEN W. THOMAS FAX: (SIO) 838-5985 CHARLES A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE MICHAEL W. CARTER RICHARD C RAINES 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315 VICTOR J. CONTI Letter U NAPA, CALIFORNIA fl4554fl-3017 BARBARA CON71DUVAJEWELL TELEPHONE: (707) 22 -8396 FAX: (707) 224-5817 ROBERT M. FANUCCI CAROLE A. LAW PLEASE REPLY TO: ALLAN C. MOORE ALEXANDER L. SCHMID February 16, 1993 PATRICIA E. CURTIN MICHAEL P CANDELA CHARLES A. KLINGE DanYiuC HAND DELIVERED Mr. Art Beresford Community Development Department Administration Building ' 651 Pine Street, Second Floor, N. Wing Martinez, Ca 94553-0095 Re: Cypress Lakes & Country Club Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Dear Mr. Beresford: This firm represents Chartered Land & Cattle Company on its .development in the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the Cypress Lakes & Country Club project. The following are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project ' 1. Channel Enhancement Plan at page 1-8 and 1-9._ U-Y There is a typographical error on page 1-9 with reference to the second channel. The second channel would be approximately 11 acres in size, not 110 acres. 2. Report Evaluation of Proposed Levees (February 2 . 1993) . Enclosed please find a copy of the Report Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering - Cypress Lakes Project, dated February 2, 1993. ' U-2 This report will be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for approval of the internal levee system. This report is a modified version of the report that was evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The borings included in 4-156 February 16, 1993 Page 2 U-2 this report are the same borings attached in Appendix E of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions with regard to above comments please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, GAGEN, McCOY, McCOY, ARMSTRONG A rofe na , orporation Patricia E. . Curtin PEC/cjt 1 Enc. cc: Lynn Jochim is\vo12\client\19018\Art2-15.1tr ' 4-157 ' REPORT EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ' LEVEES BORDERING - CYPRESS LAKES PROJECT HOTCHKISS TRACT ' CONTRA COSTS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ' PREPARED FOR: CHARTERED LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY 101 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE #400 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 BY: KLEINFELDER, INC. 2825 EAST MYRTLE STREET STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95205 I i i i I i I 1 • 4-158 ,II . TABLE OF CONTENTS , PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 HISTORY OF HOTCHItISS TRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FIELD EXPLORATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' SURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5 TABLE 1-A SLOPE STABILITY PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TABLE 1-B SETTLEMENT PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 6 TABLE 1-C SEEPAGE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ENGINEERING ANALYSES Description of Various Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 65.10 - Embankment Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Section 65.10 - Embankment and Foundation Stability Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tablet . . . . . . . . . 10 Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , Seepage . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3 - Summary of Seepage Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65.10 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 w CONCLUSIONS . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 DEEP.DYNAMIC COMPACTION 13 4-159 . ' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. i RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ADDITIONAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IV 4-160 r / File No. 20-3179-01KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 REPORT EVALUATION OF PROPOSED LEVEES , BORDERING CYPRESS LAKES PROJECT HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION r This report presents the results of an evaluation of the proposed levees associated with the approximate 681 acre Cypress Lakes project in the Hotchkiss Tract area of eastern Contra Costa County, California. The project will consist of constructing a ring levee system of approximately 27,000 feet in length. The proposed levee will surround a development , comprised of twelve to thirteen neighborhoods or clusters consisting of detached single-family homes, access drives, approximately 30 acres of park land; and several lakes. A public golf course is currently planned to be located within the property limits. The elevation of the ground surface within the proposed development generally varies from ' approximately -8 feet (USGS Datum) near the southeast corner of the property to +7 feet on the west side adjacent to Bethel Island Road. There are also several hill areas up to approximate elevation +24 feet in the northern portion of the project. ' To provide protection from the 100-year flood, the levees surrounding the tract will.be raised to a minimum elevation of +10.2 feet (USGS). This elevation includes the required 3 feet ' at freeboard. According to Bohley/Maley Associates, project civil engineers, the proposed levee will be 18 -feet wide at the crest and have minimum slopes of 3:1 and 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) for the riverside and landside slopes, respectively. Proposed on-site lakes , are anticipated to serve as borrow areas to provide fill for the levee improvements, including using near-surface clays and organic materials beneath proposed levee locations. The several high areas in the northern portion of the development will be cut down to a minimum elevation of +10.2 feet, and the soil will also be used to construct adjacent levees. The base portion of the high areas will remain in place, creating an extremely wide "levee" varying from approximately 50 to 200 feet wide with-minimum slopes of 10:1. Additional details of the planned development are not known to us at this time. 4-161 Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. page 1 of 17 ' KLEINFELDER r,f s ` File No. 20-3179-01 r February 2, 1993 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The purpose and scope of this investigation were planned in discussions with Chartered Land and Cattle Company in March 1992. The purpose of our study has been to evaluate the proposed levees surrounding the proposed Cypress Lakes project with respect to the risk of breaching of the levees during a 100-year flood event. The 100-year flood, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is an event which has a return period on the average of 1 in 100 years. According to published FEMA flood elevation data, the 100- year flood elevation is +7.0 feet for the entire region of study. The proposed dry land levees were evaluated using this criteria for static and seismic slope stability, seepage, erosion, and settlement, in accordance with Section 65.10 of the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program and related regulations which refer to the Corps of Engineers (COE) design manual EM-1110- 2-1913 for loading conditions and analysis. This report contains the following information: • Summary by Kleinfelder, Inc. of previous_studies on and near Hotchkiss Tract r9 Description of the field explorations and laboratory testing performed for the current study • Summary of the soil and groundwater conditions along the levee alignment • A discussion of the history of Hotchkiss Tract area • Summary of our engineering analyses, including the following: ' • Embankment Protection-Section 65.10 (b)(3) • Embankment and Foundation Stability-Section 65.10 (b)(4) rSettlement-Section 65.10 (b)(5) • Conclusions • Recommendations ' PREVIOUS STUDIES Previous studies made by Kleinfelder, Inc. on or near Hotchkiss Tract include the following: • Report entitled "Willow Point Marina No. 2," File No. S-2309-01 4-162 Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 2 of 17 K t E t ry t E:D E R File No. 20-3179-01 February 2, 1993 . r • Report dated December 22, 1988, "Phase I Study, Proposed Bethel Island Area Project," r File No. 11-1956-01 • Report dated March 8, 1979,"Geologic Hazards Report, Proposed Subdivision No. 5409, r Sandmound Road," File No. S-2361-01 • Various reports for "Sandmound Woods Subdivision," File No, 20-2909-01 r We have also reviewed several reports by Harding-Lawson Associates, ENGEO, and Balbi r and Chang that pertain to Hotchkiss Tract. SITE DESCRIPTION -i. _ r The project is located in the Hotchkiss Tract area of eastern Contra Costa County,.California, and consists of approximately 681 acres. The site is bounded by Sandmound Boulevard to the north and east, Bethel Island Road to the west, and grazing land to the south. A site r vicinity map is shown on Plate 1. As mentioned earlier, the site is mostly flat with moderate elevation changes. The proposed r Ievee ground surface generally ranges in elevation from approximately -8 feet to +7 feet. The north central portion of the site is covered by areas of fine-grained, wind-blown sands that exhibit slight to moderate cementation. The site is predominantly used as rangeland, is r covered with grasses, and is divided by fences. A high voltage power line crosses the southwestern corner of the site on the Dal Porto property. The interior of the site contains r several shallow drainage canals used for irrigation. A Swale is located along the east portion of the site. HISTORY OF HOTCMSS TRACT While the existing levees protecting Hotchkiss Tract have not been subjected to the.100-year flood level, they have performed well under conditions only slightly less severe. Based on r tidal information from the California Department of Water Resources and Ms. Barbara Burns, District Engineer, the normal average maximum monthly tidal range is about 3 feet (mean high 3.3 to mean low 0.3). The normal annual extreme tide levels in the local area range r from a low water level of approximate elevation-1.5 feet to a high water level of approximate elevation +4.0 feet. In addition, water elevations over +5.0 feet are common during the winter months when high tides combine with storm runoff. For example, in the winter of r 1986, Ms. Burns measured the water elevation at +6.3 feet next to the Bethel Island Bridge. According to Ms. Burns, even though this water level was only 0.7 feet less than the 100-year flood level, there were no observed areas of excessive seepage or other signs of instability, r In summary, the principal effect during the 100-year flood will be a sustained high water level in the adjoining sloughs that would approach a water level about 2 feet higher than the normal r 4-163 Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 3 of 17 r ' KLEINFELDER File No. 20-3179-01 �� February 2, 1993 i annual high tide and 0.7 feet higher than what the existing perimeter levees have already withstood. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Reference is made to Kleinfelder, Inc.'s report dated December 22, 1988 which was prepared for the subject site. That report includes detailed discussions on regional and local geology, ' faulting, and seismicity at the subject site. It is our opinion that these sections of the 1988 report still apply to the site. Although there has been a significant earthquake in northern California since our 1988 report was prepared, .(Loma Prieta, October 1989) the estimated ' seismic accelerations at the site have not been revised. FIELD EXPLORATIONS The field explorations for this study consisted of drilling and sampling twenry-eight test borings to depths varying from approximately 21 to 31112. feet below existing ground surface. ' The approximate locations of the borings drilled for this investigation are shown on Plate 2. Logs of the borings drilled for this investigation are included in Appendix C along with logs of additional borings and 19 cone penetrometer tests performed for our earlier study. The ' borings drilled for our earlier study extended to a maximum depth of 128.5 feet and the 19 cone penetrometer tests extended to a maximum depth of 28.5 feet. All borings were drilled under the direction of an engineer from our firm who maintained continuous logs of the soils encountered in the borings and assisted in extracting relatively undisturbed soil samples for visual examination, classification, and laboratory testing. A ' truck-mounted drill rig equipped with rotary wash drilling equipment was used, and samples were obtained by driving either a Modified California or Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer falling approximately 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches into the soil is noted on the Logs,of Borings at the corresponding sample locations. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As noted in our preliminary report, the near-surface soils varied considerably in both type and ' density. In other words, high blow count, very dense, partially cemented surface sand deposits were encountered adjacent to areas with 2 to 3 feet of low blow count, soft, organic silt underlain by loose sand. During our field explorations, it was hoped that delineations could be made between the dense and loose areas. However, at least around the perimeter of the project, the more-prevalent soil profile was found to consist of a 1 to 3 feet thick surface layer of organic silt or peat underlain by loose clean and silty sands to depths of ' approximately 10 to 15 feet. Test Borings such as B-5, B-6, B-7, B-14, and B-15 were located on higher ground and encountered either cemented or clayey near-surface materials- 4-164 Copyright 1993 Kteinfetder, Inc. Page 4 of 17 .�� File No. 20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 Generally, below depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet, medium dense clean and silty sands were encountered to the maximum depth explored. At the time of our field explorations, free groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths as shallow as 2 feet in the low lying areas to as deep as 251/2 feet in the vicinity of the high areas. Four piezometers were installed during our Phase 1 study and the groundwater levels are presented in our previous report. It should be noted that groundwater conditions within the area may vary depending on rainfall, irrigation practices, runoff conditions, tidal fluctuations, or other factors not apparent at the time of our field explorations. ' More detailed descriptions of the soils encountered beneath the proposed levees are presented in following sections of this report. All soils have been classified according to the Unified 1 Soils Classification System which is described on Plate 2 in Appendix A. LABORATORY TESTING , Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples of the soils.encountered in the borings to evaluate the strength, density, grain-size, compressibility, and permeability characteristics of the soils. The tests performed consisted of Moisture Content and Dry Density ' Determinations, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Triaxial Shear, Direct Shear, Consolidation, Gradation Analyses, Organic Content, and Permeability. The results of these ' tests are presented in Appendix B. The primary purpose of our laboratory testing program was to provide input for our slope ' stability, settlement, and seepage analyses. For your information, we have summarized on Tables 1-A through 1-C the engineering properties used in our stability, settlement, and seepage analyses for the various soil types encountered at the project. In our selection of soil ' properties, we have attempted to be consistent with previously-approved levee projects where similar soil conditions existed. • 1 Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-16 5 Page 5 of 17 ' • '' File No. 20-3179-01 K l E 1 N F E L D E R February 2, 1993 TABLE 1-A - SLOPE STABILITY PARAMETERS FRICTION ' SOIL UNIT ANGLE DESCRIPTION WEIGHT (PCF) COHESION (PSF) (DEGREES) Engineered Fill - Clean Sand 115 50 360 1 Engineered Fill - Silty Sand 130 100 300 tClean Sand (DDC)* 110 50 340 Silty Sand (DDC) 125 75 280 ' Silty Y Cla 130 400 140 Clean Sand 100 40 300 * Deep Dynamic Compaction TABLE 1-13 SETTLEMMNT PARAMETERS Coefficient of Unit Soil Weight Void Description (Pcf) Ratio Compression Recompression Consolidation ' Silty Clay 120 0.7 0.11 0.029 0.18 1 ' ' Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-166 Page 6 of 17 File No..20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 c TABLE C-1 SEEPAGE ANALYSIS Permeability Permeability , Soil Description (cm/sec) (ft/day) Clean Sand 1.5x10' 4.2x10-` Silty Sand 5x10 1.4x10-3 SiltySand w/trace organics 1.1x10-S 3.1x10'' ' Silty Clay 10-' 2.8x10 ENGINEERING ANALYSES Description of Various Se<ments Based,on the results of our field.explorations, we have divided the proposed perimeter levee system into seven different soil profiles. Each profile is described below and presented graphically in Appendix C. o Profile 1 is composed of a sandy levee underlain by relatively clean sand. o Profile 2 is composed.of a sandy levee underlain by silty sand to depths of 8 to 12 feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand. o Profile 3 is composed of a sandy levee underlain by silty clay to depths of 8 to 10 feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand. o Profile 4 is composed of a silty sand levee underlain by relatively clean sand. o Profile 5 is composed of a silty sand levee underlain by silty sand to depths of 8 to 12 feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand. , o Profile 6 is composed of a silty sand levee underlain by silty clay to depths of 8 to 10 feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand. o Profile 7 (located within the vicinity of the sandy hills) is composed of relatively clean sand. • 1 Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-167 Page 7 of 17 , I • I File No. 20-3179-01 Aon KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 i It should be noted that our analysis assumes that all near-surface organic soils will be removed and the underlying loose sandy soils will undergo Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) prior to levee fill placement. SECTION 65.10 (b)(3) -EMBANKMENT PROTECTION It is important to keep in mind that the dry land levees utilized in the project will never be exposed to wave action, unless there is a levee failure along Sandmound or Dutch Slough levees. These dry land levees will be composed of Engineered Fill and will need to restrain only 3 to 7 feet of water. Thick vegetation will eventually cover these dry land levees. In four opinion, the water velocities adjacent to the dryland levees, particularly in the event of a typical break next to Sandmound Boulevard, will still be less than 3 to 4 feet per second. ' Published research consistently states that vegetated slopes can accommodate flood velocities in this range. Additional erosion studies have been performed by Bohley/Maley Associates, project civil engineers. Their studies cover a wider range of hypothetical situations, such as. narrow to wide levee breaks. The velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second assume a levee break, of approximately SO feet which is typical of previous levee failures in the San Joaquin Delta. SECTION 65.10 (b)(4) - EMBANKMENT AND FOUNDATION STABILITY Slope Stabilitv The slope stability analyses for this project were performed using the computer programs TSTAB and PCSTABLE which both 'use the Modified Bishop's method. TSTAB and PCSTABLE analyze circular slip surfaces and have the capability to research critical circles. These programs use conventional limit equilibrium methods to compute Factors of Safety against sliding using circular arc failure surfaces. The main difference between the programs is the method of selecting trial failure surfaces. ' TSTAB utilizes a horizontal tangent line which all circles will be tangent to. A search obtains the critical circle for this tangent line and then the program proceeds to analyze other tangent lines, thus obtaining the overall critical failure surface. PCSTABLE utilizes a method in fwhich all the potential failure surfaces are randomly generated during initialization and then after performing the stability analyses on these circles, the ten wont failure surfaces are presented. Stability was analyzed on both water and landside slopes for each of the representative levee cross sections described earlier. The analyses were performed as described in Table 6.1 of the (COE) Manual EM 1110-2= 1913, "Design and Construction of Levees" dated March 31, 1978. Design parameter input consisted of the geometry of the levee embankment and foundation, and the unit weight and shear strength properties of the levee embankment and foundation materials. In all cases; 'i steady state seepage was considered with the water elevation at +7.0 feet. A water elevation of +2.0 feet was used for the intermediate water stage conditions. For rapid drawdown, the �� copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-168 Page 8 of 17 File No. 20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 r water level was assumed to drop from +7.0 to +2.0 feet. This water level drop is very �. conservative, as explained in the "History of Hotchkiss Tract" section of this report. The effect of ground shaking on the computed Factors of Safety was evaluated by applying a pseudo-static seismic load of 0.20g. The values of mean and maximum accelerations to use in the analyses of delta levees has been a matter of discussion for years. Bolt (1977), recommended that a peak acceleration of 0.25g be used in engineering design. The probability of such an event was estimated at approximately 1 in 100. This corresponded to a return period of over 10,000 years, which is far more than a normal return period used in engineering design. Interpolating back, a 500-year return period event results in a peak mean acceleration of ' approximately 0.15g to 0.20g. These mean peak values correlate well with ground acceleration attenuation relationships by Idriss(1985), Campbell (1981),and Joyner and Boore (1981). On this basis, it is our opinion that a realistic upper mean bound acceleration for average conditions in the delta is in the range of 0.15g to 0.20g. The practice in this area is to utilize a mean acceleration roughly approximated by a pseudo-static analysis. Based on the proximity of the nearest faults, it is our opinion that a 0.20g design acceleration value is appropriate for this study. As previously discussed, circular arc failure surfaces were analyzed using the Modified Bishop's method. This method utilizes the levee slope configuration, unit weight and shear strength properties of levee and foundation materials, and boundary and internal distribution forces due to water pressures. After a potential failure surface has been assumed, the soil mass located above the failure surface is divided into a series of vertical slices. Forces acting on each slice include the slice weight, the pore pressure, the effective normal force on the base, the mobilized shear force (including both cohesion and friction), and the horizontal side r. forces due to earth pressures. The factor of safety is calculated by determining the ratio of the moment of resistance (cohesion and friction along the failure surface) to the moment of the driving forces about the center of the assumed circular failure surface arc. Both programs performed automatic searches of different potential failure surfaces to compute a critical failure surface having the lowest factor of safety fora particular analysis condition. The results of the slope stability analyses are summarized on Pltes to a d are graphically presented with a profile and failure surface in Appendixes all equal or exceed the minimum requirements established by the Corps of Engineers summarized in Table 2 below. ' - r r Copyright 1993 Kteinfelder, Inc. 4-169 Paye 9 of 17 I File No. 20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 1 TABLE 2 ? Minimum Required Design Condition Factor of Safety Case I: End of Construction 1.3 Case II: Sudden Drawdown 1.0 ' Case III: Intermediate River Stage 1.4 Case IV: Steady Seepage from Full Flood Stage 1.4 Case V: Earthquake 1.0 .� Liquefaction Under the discussion of. "Case V: Earthquakes," in the referenced COE manual, the requirement to evaluate liquefaction for important levees is discussed. The manual mentions that earthquake loading is not normally considered along with full flood stage conditions because of the low probability of an earthquake coinciding with periods of high water. As discussed with you, an evaluation of liquefaction has been provided to FEMA on all previous levee projects. For the dry land levees of the Cypress Lakes project, it is our opinion that liquefaction is a distinct possibility with the close proximity of several major fault systems and the presence of loose, saturated sands near the ground surface. To mitigate the risk of liquefaction, the near-surface loose sandy soils along the entire levee alignment, except where the sandy hills are located in the northern portion of the site, will be densified using DDC techniques for overexcavation and recompaction. A more detailed description of DDC is presented in a later section of this report. ' Recent work by Seed on the residual strength of sands suggests that the risk of gross instability is minimal. ' Regarding slope instability within the vicinity of the sandy hills, reference is made to his report entitled "Reevaluation of Slide in the Lower San Fernando Dam and the Earthquake of February 9, 1979," dated April 1988. We have included in the Appendix C, Figures 8-1 and 8-3, of the referenced report showing the relationship between earthquake motion, the initiation of sliding, and the relationship of residual strength and blow count. Using procedures described by Seed and corrected blow counts of 8 in the upper 15 feet of slope and 15 below that depth, we estimate from Figure 8-3 residual strengths of 200 pounds per square foot (psf) and 700 psf, respectively. These values were substituted into the TSTAB �I Copyright 1993 Kteinfelder, Inc. 4-170 Page 10 of 17 �i� File No. 20-3179-01 K L E I N F E L D E R February 2, 1993 program as the residual shear strength for the native sandy soils. The computed Factor of r Safety using these values and a minimum slope of 10:1 were 1.7 which further suggests that the consequence of liquefaction (i.e. slope instability) within the proximity of the sandy hills would be low. In addition to using DDC techniques in the flat portions of the site, we also recommend that DDC be performed on the sandy hills where slopes are less than 10:1 and or the width of the plane at elevation +10.2 feet is less than 50 feet. The actual details of DDC should be determined by field tests as described in a later section. The ultimate goal will be to density ' the inplace sandy materials so that Standard Penetration Tests indicate blow counts greater than approximately 14. Reference is made to our more detailed liquefaction evaluation contained in our Phase I report included in Appendix C. Seepage 1 Since the proposed dry land levee will be composed entirely of compacted Engineered Fill t and the underlying sandy soils will be densified by DDC, we do not anticipate that significant seepage will occur even in the unlikely event of a break on the existing perimeter levee system. It is also tentatively planned to leave in place the dewatering system located near the inboard toe of the proposed levee system. This dewatering system could be pumped in the event of flooding. We recommend that maintenance of this dewatering system be considered as part of the operations and management plan for the project. To comply with requests to furnish seepage calculations, however, we have performed seepage analyses using the program PCSEEP for levee profiles 1 through 6 previously described, which represent the range of soil conditions encountered. Because of a lower head difference and a drainage path approximately three times longer than Profiles I through 6, seepage analysis was not performed for Profile 7 because seepage associated with this profile �. will be significantly less than Profiles 1 through 6. As reported earlier, layers of clean and silty sands were consistently found below the sandy and clayey soils. ' For your information, PCSEEP is a computer program that utilizes a finite element numerical method for solving steady state seepage problems of free surface or confined flow of groundwater, in"a two-dimensional or axisymmetric porous region. In our testing program, three vertical permeability tests were performed and the results varied from 104 to 10-6 cm/sec. In our analysis, more permeable material was assumed based on soil type. In past FEMA submittals, vertical permeability was assumed to be an order of magnitude less than horizontal permeability. However, it is our opinion that this assumption is invalid for this project because of soil disturbance and mixing from DDC and new levee construction. We ' feel that a horizontal to vertical permeability ratio of 2:1 or 5:1 is appropriate for this project. Behind each flow net diagram in Appendix D is a table describing the general soil types Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-171 Page 11 of 17 ' File No..20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 considered in our seepage analysis and the assumed permeability values. The results of our seepage analyses for each segment are summarized after the respective slope stability analysis in Appendix C. We point out that while laboratory permeability tests have been reported in units of cm/sec, PCSEEP utilizes ft/. Our analyses indicate that with even thick layers of relatively pervious material, such as clean sand with a horizontal permeability of 10'' feet per minute in Profile 1, the flow through and beneath the may approach the order of 5 cubic feet per day if exterior levees along Sandmound and/or Dutch Slough breach during high water levels. TABLE 3 - SUNI EV1ARY OF SEEPAGE RESULTS - Levee Seepage (ft'/day) Profile No. Ratio of Horizontal to Vertical Permeability 10 5 . 2 1 1 10 5.3 2.1 0.78 2 4.1 1.4 0.69 0.17 3 3.8 1.2 0.74 0.28 4 6.1 3.9 2.1 1.2 5 5.3 0.27 0.099 0.026 6 2.9 0.098 0.054 0.018 65.10 (5) Settlement _ ± Some settlement should be anticipated wherever fill is placed for the proposed levees, particularly those underlain by or containing clay soils. The greatest settlement is anticipated to occur in the southeast portion of the project. At these locations, the underlying clay soils are generally slightly overconsolidated. Estimates of the amount of anticipated settlement were calculated using the computer program CONSOL and confirmed by hand calculations. CONSOL calculates the total and time rate of settlement for one-dimensional layered soil masses using an implicit finite difference method. The program computes stresses caused by the placement of large area or strip fills, such as will occur beneath the new dry land levees. The stresses at any distance from the center of the strip are computed using poussinesq's equations for an infinite strip load. Two Copyright 1993 Kteinfeider, Inc. 4-172 Page 12 of 17 File No..20-3179-01 K L E I N F E L D E R February 2, 1993 conditions were analyzed in order to provide a range of expected settlement on the project. Settlement beneath levees in the northern portion of the project is expected to be minimal because of the lack of organic soils and the presence of firm underlying materials. The estimated settlement for a new dry land levee 16 feet in height underlain by approximately 8 to 10 feet of clay soils (Profiles 3 or 6) is on the order of 1 to 4 inches. This settlement is expected to occur mostly during the construction phase CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests, engineering analyses, and review of historical documents, we have formed the following conclusions regarding the proposed levees for Cypress Lakes: • It is our opinion that the proposed levees should be stable with respect to gross shear type failure which could breach the levee and cause flooding. • The risk of seismic induced liquefaction and resulting levee failure is very low, provided deep dynamic compaction is performed prior to levee construction and the sandy high areas are cut to a minimum 10:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. • The Iowest factor of safety against slope failure under seismic conditions occurs under the steady seepage from full flood stage condition. • The potential for uncontrolled seepage or piping is very low. • Material from the interior lake areas and top of several existing high areas should be suitable for use in levee fill. DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION (DDCI We recommend a strip extending 5 feet beyond either side of the final levee toe be treated i using DDC techniques. Further, we recommend in-place densification efforts achieve a minimum relative density as evaluated by a SPT blow count of 14 blows per foot of penetration. A depth of improvement between 10 to 15 feet is considered feasible using DDC, provided the underlying sandy soils are first dewatered. The recommendations outlined above are intended to address foundation soils considered likely to lose significant shear strength during a seismic event (and hence induce a slope failure or lateral spreading). Levee foundation soils susceptible to significant strength loss include loose sands and silty sands generally encountered to depths of about 8 to 13 feet r I below existing site grade in the vicinity of the proposed levee system. In general, these loose sands are underlain by medium dense to dense sands. 4-173 Copyright 1993 Kteinfelder, Inc. Pape 13 of 17 V KLEINFELDER File No. 20-3179-01 February 2, 1993 Prior to initiating DDC, the Contractor in conjunction with the project geotechnical engineer should conduct tests to determine the optimum drop weight, he of drop, number of drops, and spacing necessary to achieve the degree of densification stated above. We recommend the test section involve an area 40 feet by 40 feet in plan dimensions. The test section should be located at the western limit of the area to be treated (in the vicinity of our Boring B-19). iAs deemed necessary by the project geotechnical engineer, verification testing using SPT blow counts should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the densification efforts. Additionally, shear and compression wave velocities should be monitored to determine if they exceed published values for causing damage to adjacent residences. At this time, we anticipate SPT blow count testing should be performed at two additional locations to confirm -� the degree and extent of densification obtained by DDC. r Modifications in the contractor's procedures may be required if specified density requirements are not obtained and if shear and compression wave velocities exceed limiting values. Modifications may include additional number of drops or reduced drop spacing. Modifications may also include a change to more conventional overexcavation and recompaction techniques especially near existing residences. Specific modifications in the contractor's procedure should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer upon completion of each test section and in coordination with the DDC contractor and the owner. RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, as for any levee system, a maintenance and inspection program of the district levees is mandatory, if the risk of failure is to be maintained at an acceptably low level. Inspection of levees should include, in our opinion, at least the following: • Periodic scheduled inspection of the complete levee system, a minimum of every 6 months. Additional inspection for possible erosion should be performed during significant periods of rainfall. • Cross-section and elevation data on the levees kept current • During periods of high water, inspection of adjacent Sandmound and Dutch Slough levees should be instituted Prior to placement of fill materials for the areas receiving levees, we recommend that the exposed levee subgrades be stripped of vegetation. Organic material at the base of the levees rshould also be removed. Dewatering trenches will likely be required near the swale on the eastern portion of the development to facilitate the placement of Engineered F11 in the excavation. , Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-174 Page 14 of 17 File No. . 20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER February 2, 1993 All fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 test procedure. In our opinion, Engineered Fill used to construct the levee can consist of both organic or inorganic native materials from the borrow site locations and from excavations along the base of the proposed levee. We recommend that project specifications require that whenever organic soils are used as fill, that some blending with the nonorganic materials occur, possibly on a 80:20 (inorganic to organic) basis. We suggest that a maximum organic content, as determined by the burn out test method of 10 percent, be considered. During grading periodic samples of inplace Engineered Fill should be recovered for triaxial and permeability testing to confirm design strength and permeability values. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The review of plans and specifications, field observations, and testing by Kleinfelder, Inc. are an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. If Kleinfelder, Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume Kleinfelder, Inc.'s responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. The required tests, observations, and consultation by Kleinfelder, Inc. during construction includes, but..is not necessarily limited to: • Continuous observation and testing during site preparation and grading and placement of Engineered Fill • Consultation as required during construction The above listed testing and observations would be additional services provided by our firm. The costs for these services are not included in our current fee arrangements. LIl MATIONS - • The conclusions and recommendations in this report are for design purposes for the proposed Cypress Lakes project as described in the text of this report. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are invalid if. • The report is used for adjacent or other property • Changes of grades and/or groundwater occur between the issuance of this report and construction • Any other change is implemented which materially alters the project from that proposed at the time this report was prepared Copyright 1993 Kteinfelder, Inc. 4-175 Page 15 of 17 • File No. 20-3179-01 k"J K L E I N f E L D.ER February 2, 1993 • The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the borings drilled for this investigation. It is possible that variations in the soil conditions exist between or beyond the points of exploration, or-the groundwater elevation may change, both +� of which may require additional investigations, consultation, and possible design ■ revisions. • This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of practice which existed in Contra Costa County at the time the report was written. No warranty, express or implied, is made. • It is the CLIENT'S responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractor, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. • e the This report may be used only by client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder, Inc. of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, r Kleinfelder, Inc. may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder,*Inc. from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party. M Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-176 Page 16 of 17 I File No. 20-3179-01KLEINFELDER, February 2, 1993 We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project and trust this report contains the information requested. If you have any question after reviewing this ' report or need additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, I KLE=T-DER, INC. G. Steve Mahnke Staff Engineer Q�pEESS10Nq � ot�.RRY yfiy`r'y� W r No. 3&S F Ron Heinen, G.E. >to sum Regional Manager or OF CP`\E GSM:md 2/93 Attachments i 1 I Copyrfght 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-177 Pape 17 of 17 GOLF WORSE ; ` ` '' _: ♦ ''�\ I ,,,A Ay I At Tail Pat • t,. ''�,,.i�.-.....r.��•���. ,• GATEWAY ` - • RQdO1 ( .. f +o w VU 0. Betel Island 1} / A�^'d =<` . _ ... �,� --- •`mow t I :,���..r�/ ', Utif 'sl OUCHZ. •V•• Sta:_�. (j�j r, <�,�••\` 'F:•:%`' --^� ell ?:' q o TtaitlttC� �� �f '"•' \ 1 °��•.•` i �... �Pack �,� �� ;'•"^�' ,i�'f � �� J PROJECT SITE C S•,L 0 U H 4` G A ' i . . 0 1 •.�t�`'., r .::�+�. :;:rFp''="�+>•:_""• %tai 81 y •t 0. SLOUGH G"AS•, FIELD i v�.*.Lt;:�W�'��.T)a•Y.v., ,r fi x�iJ:O'.71ti:L'•O+•� � r.,. ��\rJs�i�S�� v+rxr,Iw+'• ..:: i•:(x:•:'y•''i:;V:it::tit �U!%:.ww:` � � :� ` f't.' �I .:.?�i>r.ri(i+•.•.n.i:ai::•:>.....%:.«::::., ... )�x.::�:r:)•;:,.: :y ',T i •+:t..}'/.w..+v,wO:I.i ri�Y ..... i ':�r°i•: �.�.xi: wi f rsr.atw waw •:f:l .. ; (.YGiys�x•,x,c w;ay.'�Srw c.:::r. �a}(' ;S.j::•.�f;v: �e � • Y ... .. . • • . .w a: 'daa(ra: '5MKK1i s_.��.s l•.. .�i�li w..w. .cf_r�vc�..rr.riw. .+v:o9i�ta :G:ti4V!s11V�aY✓'.�_`�!`i(::<i•y�1�:�7�j++i�•��v'•:`��:<')'.. q ; � 2 "♦ ..4.( y. yL�;:;r.lti;:;'^:'Y.!t(v •n.y::>'(Vf<:'.w•}..:•:1.4. ( ♦ +\ f 1`/ ,,r Yaw.:��:•x.G..::O:j:\^"i:}'/..fii+ti:w•TJdkY\wX<`w.}:;iY.•xi,:tY.. ♦ 1 I/ .,� �X�y�y:<iC^(•aJ:4 J:1•:i.(J:Fr.i%Gi:.. ;�r_'t'Y'+J_.b:+i7K4:j�j'+,:• ♦ t /!/ !J '(•..+..::.: .o.s•�w's>:7i aiil,i�Ji!i.}..:i:•�:.-.^_i.;.+..xMw ff y'� `♦ .i �tirivi.. v:<�1. ::ur`v(.\x0'.i:+�iv:X.i.!'iTi:(u... ......;J. ♦♦ � '.! row.-.xS%::.Ws:•r.:»%ic'•��i. :: <•.:t:,, �.-.;>:.,z::,x;^.i^>- '\ �' \ • '�';y��„ :•:,.r♦±:<*..�:li:w>':•:v.'t.::}:;ri/::.)):.S�:w:�li ..rte... 1 ;• t:,sh Stfet*is! 2 f T«Ct Ga$e SCALE Gas••' N�orra.......*z.±e.aLi!_y'!i:�a -_ -_- __••_- _ .• _..�— 0 2000 4000 ft J f Rack \•.'• slough _ i i SITE LOCATION HAP PLATE CYPRESS LAKES K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A-1 PROJECT NO- 20-3179-01 `� 4-178 -+- DENOTES APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION NO SCALE U C n C 111' X0 0V ['.'"U- t-4 IoU I� to Uj �n 1 = e C IJ o ; o co o mh II � II N - ,I Z tagIo r� , 1 i , co L^/r VI& m _-co y O C I♦j , 1 , dl I p, � 1 N1 `-' PROPOSED LEVEE I�~ it T 11 ftw m N . iG n q 1 � ' 1 n ,rr m ar � � ~• � � z i 735 z m c o h o oma+ 2 ORING /28 o � REFERENCE: BORING LOCATION PLOT.; BOHLEY/MALEY ASSOCIATES; UNDATED BORING LOCATION HAP PLATE , Wl K L E IN F E L D E;R CYPRESS LAKES HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA CouNTY, CALIFORNIA 2 PROJECT N0. 20-3179-01 -- 4-179 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR WASIONS LTR DESCRIPTION MAJOR DIVISKXZ LTA DESCRIPTION G W W04-graded gra"N or gravel aam rmmros,idb or no Rnaa M L 4+aW me sea ane rAry lry sands.mtk tbw, I SOY Or C"two Mnda or c4Yay Md vrrdf GRAVEL Poortrvfaded gratia of mor un.sand mn•lima SILTS slgrll OLMIMY. AND GP at no 1. t AND Inoroano drys of b.to maown PLIft", GAAVELLY CLAYS C L 78`mh MYe Urldf daYa.s2cY c4Ya.Man SOILS 0 M Silty grew",graveb-s as mariwoe. LL c 50 CLyt O L Organk sb and organ*A-cbrs of low COARSE G C CVYvY grew".grawl.eanectay m+alures. FINE daatrelly. GRAINED GRAINED SOLS S W W47sands or gnwsY sands.fah or no SOS M H tnorgand Oita,mieaoaote Or d'mtemaceous SAND floe& SILTS wo of sity sols,s"atic alks. AND S P Pn ooMmradad sans or gnwlty sande.INs or no AND SANDY rias. CLAYS C H Ir-9 .'c days at Npn Plam".-vials. SOS S M Silty Mnds.Mod,L d ata muaw.l LL s 50 O M Oryane days ce maoarm 10 high Plod . 1 S C CIAYeY sande,and day muaass. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt I Pant and other hg1W orgaNe sols. Standard penetration split spoon sample Modified California sampler I Shelby tube sample Water level observed in boring _ g • No recovery NFWE No free water encountered NOTE: The lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. The actual transition may be gradual. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil strata between borings. Logs represent the soil section observed at the boring location on the date of drilling only. PLATE kn KLEIN F E L D E:R BORING LOG LEGEND 1 A-2 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 as .n 4-180 i Surface Condition4o _Pasture Date Completed: 3/30/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Rotary wash boring. Total Depth: 21.5 feet FIELD LA$ORATORY DESCRIPTION '�- M L N r N W = +- a � c .'L m +" Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.5 0 e o 3 C w- ui+- a a .- a ' c L L '"t c L c USCS Classification 4! n — L GJ V O 6 O t Y1 +- CJ d (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black, Very Organic, Soft, Mout j ? (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist 5 11 (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Cemented, IO 33 Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Not Cemented, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense (SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Not Cemented, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 15 48 ; (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Cemented, Vary Fine to Fine Grained, Dense i . (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Less Cemented, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 20- 36 END OF BORING 25 I CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 or 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-3 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-017-1 LOG OF BORING B-1 4-181 Surface Conditions: Pasture Date Completed: 3/30/92 Logged By: JMi' Groundwater. Rotary wash boring. Total Depth: 25. feet FIELD LABORATORY, DESCRIMON ' � c {"- ° N - ai � C L a Approximate Surface Eleyation (ft): -8.5 d E 0 71 C 4- -f C E L 4- L N C a, A L W u o 0 0 4- %n •- v USCS Classification C3 W m o o a sUx v to «- o III 4III I I � (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black-Brown, Very Organic, Soft, Moist III III 5 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, 9 Very Silty, Soft, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Less Silt, ' Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Very Slight 10-1Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium 14 Dense r (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 15 25 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, 20- 28 SIightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SM) SII.TY SAND Light Brown, Cemented, Very Fine Grained, Dense 52 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT I of 2 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-4 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-2 4-182 i or FIELD LABORATORY; 141 } �, r DESCRIPTION 4- T L t N D r- at co d. E 0 71[4- •— [ E L 4- c N 1 a, b — LWU 00 0 + a 0 a (Continued from previous plate) o cn m cc CL s v x U cn +- o f- d (SP) SAND - Light brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense END OF BORING 30- 35 40 45 sO CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEINFELDEIR HOTCHKISS TRACT of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-4 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-2 4-183 i Surface Conditions: Pasture Date Completed: 3/30/92 4 Logged By: CMZ' Groundwater. Rotary wash boring. Total Depth: 31.5 feet FIELD - LABORATORY DESCRIPTION '+- T L+- N +- Un t W \v+ "- *- CU L c L N "- Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.0 + CL 3 to vi+.- a 01 a .6- a em C4- .— C E L 4- r U1 C a L Ci a o 0 0 V)o cn m + v a USCS Classification a o a �v x (n v rn t o �- a. (PT) SII.TY PEAT - Dark Gray-Brown, Soft, WW Moist 5 Organic Content = 1 55% 5 (SM) SILTY SAND - White-Gray, Very Fine 1 5 to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - White-Gray, Graded to Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 10 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, More Silty, — 27 Very Fine To Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 15 36 20- 35 � I 25 I CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT loft - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-3 A-5 4-184 FIELD LABORATORY 4- �, y L 4- DESCRIPTION +L 3 u+ a+a- La w aa)i 4-- d E O 71 c 4- — c E L `o- L 111 c a1 oo — L a Q 00 0 +- N +- v aontnuefrom reviousate Cid fl o m m a o a U N U cn } o F- a. � P plate) 42 30 32 END OF BORING 35 I 40 45 i so CYPRESS LAKES PLATE 1 K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT °f 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. , A-5 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-3 4-185 I Surface Conditions: Boring drilled 100 feet north Date Completed: 4/1/92 of stake. Logged By: JNA' Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2 foot Total Depth: 21. feet _depth. FIELD I LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4- 4- 01 L+- V1 +- U1 a' W ± } (U L C L W I. Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.9 +- CL 3 N tot Q, W Ql a- E O M C 4- — C E L �+- L to C a, m Lal U O O O *- N +- W USCS Classification t� to to cc) E U X U to + O t— cL SdL (PT) SILTY PEAT - Black, Soft, Moist 1 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, J $ Very Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 5 6 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 10-112 I 15 28 (Sl) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Slightly . Silty, Hard, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20- 44 END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE 1 or 1 KLEIN FELDE R HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT N0. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-4 A-6 4-186 ' Surface Conditions. On sandy hill 10 to 15 feet , FIDDateCompleted: 4/3/92 above most of site.d By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 25.5 foot , Total Depth: 31.50 feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4- 4- 01 L+ N + N m N W t o d+ } Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): 14.0 C. E a M C 4- — C E L 4- r N C o, b L a, u o 0 0 -4-- W +- of USCS Classification o v� Mo o a 1:c�� v U) + o ,-- o_ (SM) SILTY SAND - Brown, Slightly Silty, Yery Fine with Fine Grains, Loose, Moist 1 7 (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Loose, Moist S 8 Triaxial Comp. r 10 9 Medium Dense 15 14 20- 14 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATEI of 2 KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-7 PROJECT NO. . 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING 6-5 j 4-187 i FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION r N } +- 40 L C L N r. +- . N N+- d 4j C1 4- 0- E O MC4- - C E L 4+- L N a w m oo a =cox cin Ul o (Continued from previous plate) lI 30 _ 15 1 END OF BORING 35 - i 1 I40- 45 i 1 50 i CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT i of z - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-7 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-5 4-188 Surface Conditions:Q Lsandv hill. 7DateCompleted: 4/3/92 d By: _ j Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 15.5 foot Total Depth: 25. feet depth. I FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION I 94- +- M L d = + ai � c L N Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -2.0 +- 3 Ln UI t (L d a } a e o a at .- c e - 4a c USCS Classificailon v M — LaQ ov o .- +. a a� I ` ❑ cn m 00 a :Z c)X c) cn +- o E- Q. (SM) SELTY SAPID - Brown Very Slightly' + rY S Y 13 Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium Dense, Moist (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, 5 Very Slightly Silty, Very Fine with Fine 29 -200 -15% Very Medium Dense, Moist �. 10-114 15 20 (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20. 17 r- 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE loft KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-8 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-6 4-189 . 1 FIZLD LABORATORY: a L DESCRIPTION jai :3 c rAl M C. E O T C'r - C E L 4- N C a A — v u o 0 0 +- ,n +- a, v (Continued from previous plate) C3 cn m 00 a t U x U cn +- o r n. END OF BORING 30 r � r � . 35 r r 40- 45 0 45 r r 1 S0 _ CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN FELD E T'R HOTCHKISS TRACT � °f � J. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. _ PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-6 A $ 4-190 Surface Conditions: On side of s-al2dy hill. :bate Completed:_4/3/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 19.5 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. } FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4- 71 Lrj C3 r N + ul } 3 w4-' a C L 0 `" Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): 10.00. j d E O T C L�- •- C E L S L M C a to — L a U 00 0 +- a m USCS Classification O W to 00 b E U\ U N +- 0 F- o. 3 (SM) SELTY SAND - Brown, Very Slightly Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Loose, Moist i 5 15 Triaxial Comp. (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine with Permeability Fine Grains, Medium Dense, Moist 10 11 15 18 20- 21 , END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE , KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT' NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING 13-7A_g 4-191 Surface Conditions: On side of sandy hill. Date Completed: 4(3/92 Logged By: MY Groundwater. Rotsry wash boring. Total Depth: 21.5 feet I FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION } ``- n L+- N +- N L d a - ac, � C L a Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.0 + 3 0 W+_ a o! of +- (. E o 7)C4• — C E L 4- t N C a, m L v u o 0 0 .- N +- ar a USCS Classification o cn m 00 t LIX U Cl) +- 3 Organic iii (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown, g Content iii Very Organic, Soft, Moist = 17% (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown, 1 Less Organic, Soft, 5 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly 5 107 18 Direct Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose Shear -200 = 16% (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 10 8 (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly More Silt, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Loose (SP) SAND Black-Gray, Slightly Harder 15 Drilling, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium 19 Dense 20 )0 (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SP) SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense END OF BORING j 25 RESS LAKES PLATE CYP 1 of 1 KLEINFEL .DER HOTCHKISS TRACT - CONTRA COSTA .COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-8 A-10 . 4-192 Surface Conditions: Drilled 30 feet west of stake. Date Completed: 4/3/92 in a ditch. Logged By: _ JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 4 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. FIELD I LABORATORY DESCRIPTION L t N +- N a L C L a } Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.0 CL 3 0 u►+ a. a v +- ! I a, fu — L a u 00 Q +- to +- 41 m USCS CIassification o U) m cc M U x U cn +- o ►- o_ (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very 3 Organic, Soft, Moist 5 3 1 (SM) SILTY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Very Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Less Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Very_Loose (SM) SII,TY SAND - Light Gray, More Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium Dense 10 I1 (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 15 24 20- 32 Dense END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE lofl KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-11 , P120JECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-9 4-193 Surface Conditions:—Low area. Date Completed: 4/6/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Rotary wash boring. Total Depth:. 21.5 feet ' FIELD I LABORATORY. DESCRIPTION f 4- `.- 4- J1 L 0 + N +L 0 in 4- 1W L C aL, 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.2 d E O T C"+' - C E L `* L N C Qt L R1 u 00 o + w +- a) vUSCS Classification (OL) ORGANIC SELT - Dark Gray, Very i 2 Organic, Soft, Moist 18" 5W (PT) SILTY PEAT - Black, Soft (OL) ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT - Black, Soft 5 1 for w (ML) CLAYEY SANDY SYLT - Gray, Very p U Fine Grained, Soft 2 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, with Minor for Lenses of Very Silty Sand, Very Fine to Fine 10 Grained, Loose 10 SILTY SAND - Blue-Gra With Minor 12 (� Y, Lenses of Very Silty Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense i 15 37 (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense, 20- 35 END OF BORING 25 �j CYPRESS LAKES PLATE JjF0 KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISSTRACT ,loll CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. ' A-12 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-10 �� 4-194 • Surface n eCoiions: w Area adi o e Date Completed: 4/6/92 Logged By: My Groundwater. Rotary wash boring. Total Depth: 26. feet FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION w +• m a t .« V1 + N •« act � C L o } Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.0 a e o TCS* c E L w -Qj r N c c, A-- L v c o USCS Classification ❑ cn ❑ o cM Q r c� tj CA •. o r- 1 � for Organic (PT) PEAT - Black, Soft, Moist 10" Content = i i Z 56� I I ' (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very Organic, Soft for g" (ML) SANDY CLAYEY SILT - Black, Very 5 Fine to Fine Grained, Soft 5 (SA) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine _ Grained, Loose 16 113 16 Direct 4.8* Shear 0 (SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine to Fine _ 1 14 Grained, Medium Dense 15 25 r ' 1 (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine 20 25 to Fine Grained, Medium Dense to Dense —� .25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATEi of z � K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-11 A�13 4-195 ' FIELD LABORATORY B ATORY +, W '� zDESCRIP'T'ION +- W L C IA r 7 V1 N+- a W 4- CL 0. E O M C 14- — C E L '+- L 0 C v ro — LWO 00 0 +- m v a o (n cD o W� v V) (Coatiaued from prerio.us plate) o s + o a. i END OF BORING ! * Torvane 30 1 i 35 I 40- 45 50 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2or2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-13 PROJECT NO. 20-3I79-0I LOG OF BORING B-11 �I4-196 Surface Conditions. Slightly _y hip-her than , Date Completed: 5/2.0/92 fields. t Logged By: _SM Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 7.3 foot Total Depth: 26.5 feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION ' +-. a, N t %4- 71 L{- 0 *- N *t- 4v � C 4L a +_ Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -1.5 +- CL� 3 m a I-- a v a + N m71 - (_ CU C1 14- .00 E +- N 4-- 9) d o W m o C.C. r:U� ('30 - o a. USCS Classification (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Slightly 21 104 7 ilty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Loose, Dry (SM) SII.TY SAND - Light Orange-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, j 5 9 Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist (SP/SM) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 10- 4 -200 - 8% i 1 SP SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight 15 : Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium 15 -200 a 10°6 Dense (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20 29 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, i 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D R NOTCHKISS TRACT I or 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-14 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-12 4-197 - FIELD LABORATORY* DESCRIPTION _ 71 L+- N ci.- U� I \ « GCI L L W } 4- CL 7 UI N t !Z GJ GI w Q E O 71C4- -- C E L 'r c M C w m — L O1 U 0 0 0 r N +- cr a (Continued from previous plate) ' a cnl m o a az:u x L) cn *- o ►- a r Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 1 (SM) SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray, Very Slight ilt, Very Fine to Fine Grained j END OF BORING a i I 30 _ i I i 35 r � _ a 40 1 45 1 so PLATE CYPRESS LAKES 2 of 2 K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-14 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-12 4-198 Surface Conditions: Wheat field. Date Completed. 4/16/92 i Logged By: JMY ' Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.8 foot l Total Depth: 21.5 feet _depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION , w. t -- — ti- -11 L 4- In 4-- UI C co 3 iA N+cu. n a CL, L + Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.0 CL E o 71 C 4- �— C E L 4- t N J v 'v -- L W u o o o � In a m USCS Classification c cn co cc a z=v x U cn +- o f- a (OL) ORGANIC CLAYEY SANDY SILT - ' 4 11 i Dark Gray, Very Fine Grained, Moist (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black, Moist (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black-Brown-Gray, olst (CL) SILTY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Soft, Moist 5 6 118 25 -200 -28% (CL) SANDY CLAY - Blue-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained Consol. Sandy, Ver (SM) CLAYEY SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray, ' Very Clayey, Very Silty, 'Very Fine to Fine rained, Loose Z. (SM) SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray;Very Fine to Fine Grained .:-: _j I0__ (SM) SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray, Slightly 13 Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 15 30 (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 20 31 END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1< or ;t I � CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. . PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-13 A-15 4-199 �_ ,. .� Surface Conditions- Wheat e 1 Date Completed: 4/16/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater- Groundwater encountered at 2.3 foot Total Depth: 31.5 feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY: . DESCRIPTION 4- 1-1 L+- in +- N a' Q1 (. C L N" - Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.3 3 N. +N t a as a + (LE 4 T C 4• �— C E L 4- -C N C a ro — L W.Q 00 0 +- ka a+ USCS ClassifIcation ❑ cn m o a i 8 (OL) ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT - Dark Brown-Gray, Soft, Moist _ (CL) SILTY SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Very Sandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained 9 (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very 1 5 12 105 22 1.3 Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff (CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Slightly j Sandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff 10 12 ($P) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense j 15 34 20 41 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE ' K L E I N F E L D lr R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 ' LOG OF BORING B-14 A-16 4-200 �. FIELD LABORATORY. 4. DESCRIPTION ION � r D c 0) C rCL 3 N N r Q W C+ 4- C. E a TC4- •- C C L4- t 0 C m iv — c. 0 0 0 0 0 + v+ + a Continued from previous plate)na vv co o 0- 16 lb i i 26 1 END OF BORING 1 35 40- 45 . . i 1 50 . 1 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT z of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-16 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-14 4-201 ' Surface Conditions: Wbeat field. i Date Completed:. 4/16/92 Logged By: jW Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 8 foot- Total Depth: 21.5 feet p rose to 2.3 foot i FIELD I LABORATORY DESCRIPTION } ai r Z d 3 N +- 03 L a L 4- (A Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.2 4 E O 71 `� -- C E L '+- C 0 C a, CO — L 0 u 00 o +- u) +- v 0) USCS Classification C2 N m 0 D IL L U\ U U) +- O !— n. ' (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown, 9 I03 23 1.5 Hydrometer Very Organic, Soft, Moist Analysis X (CL) SILTY CLAY - Gray, Soft, Moist (CI..) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Slightly Sandy, droVery Fine to Fine Grained, Soft, 5 oist 8 118 18 Hydrometer - (CL) SANDY CLAY - Light Gray-Brown, Analysis More Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Soft, Co Moist (CL) SILTY SANDY CLAY - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Soft (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly IO Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium 22 Dense (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SP) SAND Light Gray Brown, Very Fine 15 to Fine Grained, Medium Dense _ 12 20- 14 - END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE � KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT IofI CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-17 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-15 4-202 i Surface Conditions: Wheat field. , Date Completed: 4f13/92 Togged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 4 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet 10 inch depth._ FIELD I LABORATORY DESCRIPTION w � r T L,- N N } Q � C L '' Approximate Surface Eieyation (ft): -4.6 0.c- E o TC I+- N C E L 4 - X LnC a, M — L m U a o o +- a + W ar USCS CIassification D cn co 00 a =U.S! Q (n .- O I•- a. 7 III i I I (OL) ORGANIC SII.TY CLAY - Dark Brown, III Very Silty, Very Organic, Soft, Moist (CL) SANDY SILTY CLAY - Gray, Very 12 Fine to Fine Grained, Moist �r (SM) SILTY SAND - Brown, Very Fine to i Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist 1 5 Trihxial 6 CotComp. I , ability (SP/SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight 1 -200 -10% Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Sliht Silt, Very Fine r 10-1to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 13 I j � 15 � 25 (SM) SILTY SAND - Buck-Gray, Slightly Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium Dense (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20- 21 END OF BORING I t 25 � CYPRESS LAKES PLATE I KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT r of 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-18 ' PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-16 4-203 i ;•..s ' Surface Conditions: Wheat field. Date Completed: 4/14/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at 8 foot" Total Depth: 26. feet depth, rose to 3.5 foot ' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION V- 71 L t LA y- N r °J N •+ a f- C L o Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -3.0 v LW u o 0 0 A + a a, USCS Classification ❑ cn m ❑o a s U x u ch (OL-CL) SILTY ORGANIC CLAY - Dark 5 71 32 0.9 Gray-Brown, Very Organic, Soft, Moist (CL) SILTY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Soft, = Moist 5 9 Triaxial Comp. (SM) CLAYEY SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, 10 2 Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, oose j (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Slightly Hard Drilling, Very Fine to Fine 15 21 Grained, Medium Dense ' 20— 22 1 IT 25 r CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-19 PROJECT NO. 20-3I79-01 LOG OF BORING B-17 4-204 FIELD LABORATORY v. DESCRIPTION v- 71 L i- N +- I 4 +_- 3 U1 N r a y I W d E O T C4. - C E L 4- .4 N C m _— L 0 u o 0 0 -0-- LnK- �+ (Continued from previous plate) o V) co c O a U x U cn +- .0 ►- 15 I END OF BORING : i 30 35 40- 45 0 45 I — I i 1 _ 50 — CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEINFELD E R HOTCHKISS TRACT ar 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, C.A. ' A-19 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-17 4-205 ' i Surface Conditions: Wheat field. ' Date Completed: 4/I4/92�' � Logged By: JMY j Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.3 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. ' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4- t QJ N L '- i- 71 L+- N +• N L 01 3 N m:' a a C Li n Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -2.9 0. E O Mcu- -- C E L `+ L N C v m L 0) U00 0 � a +- mW USCS Classification o <n m a n a s U x U cn +- o r- a (OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Dark Gray-Brown, Very Organic, Very Silty, Soft, 5 = Moist 5 6 93 29 Copsol. (CL) ) SILTY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Soft, 10 3 — (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Very Loose 15 (S') SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine 16 97 21 Direct Grained, Medium Dense Shear (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly 20 Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium 28 Dense (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K LEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT i °f 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-0I LOG OF BORING B-18 A-20 4-206 Surface Conditions: Pasture, Date Completed: 4/14192 Logged By: JMY - -_ Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.8 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION a. Approximate Surface Elevation ft S 3 In-- CL. a w pp )� —2. 2 E O •— C E L ' �' 41 W USCS CIassiflcation Cl to — L L QJ Os U U O P O 4- 0�A •r 4! pl O (n !n 0 C r-UN U N +- (OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Black, Slightly Organic, Soft, Moist (CL) SANDY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Very 10 Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Brown-Gray,'Very ' 5 13 Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SII.TY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 10 8 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose i 1S 22. r (Sp) SAND - Light Brown, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20- 15 (CL) SILTY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Stiff END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT ll of 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-19 A--21 4-207 i Surface Conditions: Pasture Date Completed: 4/13/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 7 foot Total Depth: 25. feet death. FIELDS LABORATORY DESCRIPTION r a 0 �- � W L c L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -4.5 4- M 3 N N+- 0. CJ Cl +- a E o 7t C_ •- c E L 4- r (AC rJ M — L 41 v 00 o m a •- m USCS Classification O to m 00 d Z U\ U to +- O E- d i i )VOL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown, ery Organic, Medium Stiff, Moist (OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Black, 9 Medium Stiff, Moist 2: (ML) CLAYEY SANDY SILT - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Grained, oist 5 11 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray, - Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist (SM) CLAYEY SELTY SAND - Black-Gray, Z Slightly Clayey, Very Fine to Fine Grainedj—J,oose, Moist (CL) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, VerySandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Mediutiff, Moist10 (CL) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, Slightandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Mediu tiff, Moist (SM) Sn.TY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense M 15 18 (SW SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20 (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine 26 Grained (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense (CL) SANDY CLAY - Light Brown-Gray, 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT iof2 - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-22 PROJECT No. 20-3179-0I LOG OF BORING B-20 4-208 FIELDLABORATORY 4- ,. �, �; DESCRIPTION , C w 0 *- N *- a L C L N CL 3 N N r a of .'v r d E o 71C4- �- C E L � � N C W d o m CIO Q. U\ U co a, Q. ❑ to 2 o o (I1 (Continued from precious plate) +- O I- Medium Stiff to Stiff, Very Fine to Fine J Grained, Stiff END OF BORING 30 35 40 . r 45 50 t CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN FELW4t( HOTCHKISS TRACT i of i - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 . LOG OF BORING B-20 A-22 4-209 � I Surface Conditions: Pasture, Date Completed: 4/2192 Logged By. JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.1 foot Total Depth! 21.5 feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY.- - DESCRIPTION 4- _n L+ N +- N WN at a C L Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -5.8 a e o T C4- — c E L 4- t N c a cn m oo a U X U n ,W- o ►°J a USCS Classification (OL) ORGANIC CLAY - Black, Very Soft, i Moist sit 1 105 22 Direct (PT) PEAT - BIack, Very Soft � yt ' for Shear 12" (OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Black, Very 2 Soft 5 for (CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Very 2 98 22 Consol. for Fine to Fine Grained, Soft 8" (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose r (CL) SANDY CLAY - Dark-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff 10 8 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine Grained, Medium Stiff ;;.. ;(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Gained, Medium Stiff 15 20 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff (CL) CLAY - Orange-Gray-Black, Medium Stif£ (CL) CLAY - Light Brown, Very Stiff 20 34 (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense END OF BORING .25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN FELDE: R HOTCHKISS TRACT iofI CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 j LOG OF BORING B-21 A-23 4-210 Surface Conditions: Pasture. Date Completed: 4/2/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 1.4 foot Total Depth: 21. feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION , 4• y+ Cl N .0 +- 4- ]7 L 4- 0 +. N -- -Ifun ,- L a + Approximate Surface Eleratlon (ft): -7.0 CL e o T c 4* - c F_ C. a c v A LW U 00 0 +- a - 0, d USCS Classification O (n r1] pp cL =U\ L) (n 0 r CL (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black, Very Organic, 4 Z Soft, Moist (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Gained, Soft ' 5 9 Triaxial - , Comp. ($M) QTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense r 10 12 113 15 Direct 3.0* Shear , (SP) SAND - Gray. Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 15 30 111 18 Di ect .0* Sh ar (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine ' Grained, Dense 20 (CL) CLAY - Light Brown, Very Stiff ' 42 •5* (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense END OF BORING 1 * Torvane 25 i CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEIN F E. L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT >< of 1 MIRI CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 i LOG OF BORING B-22 A-24 4-211 , I Surface Conditions: Pasture. Date Completed: 4/1/92 Logged By: JMY � Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 6 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. ' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION } OJ \ — - C C. Q1 +- } 3 a N+ a � � t 1 Approairaate Surface EIevation (ft): -4.0 a.a. EO :;IC•+- •— C e L 4- r 0 C ci M -- c_ a u o 0 o 4- Ln 4- (U W USCS Classification C1 m m 00 E U X U 0 +- 0 ►— n. 5M (PT) SILTY PEAT - Black, Soft, Moist 10 5 (SM) SILTY SAND - Brown-Gray, Slightly 9 102 20 Direct Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 1 - Shear Y. 10 7 (SM) SALTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine Grained, Loose 15 20 . (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dewe 20- 34 END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT Iof 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-25 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-23 4-212 Surface Conditions. 10 feet high than B-25 Date Completed: 4/1/92 Logged By: Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 15 foot Total Depth: 26. feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION ,- � T L f- UNI N a 3 a N i L C L Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): 3.2 CL E O T C 4- — C 6 L W t o 0 0 0 4- N +- W �+ USCS Classification 4 N an 0Oa >YUX U +- O H d (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very 17 Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, - edium Dense, Moist (3P) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist ) SAND 5 l 8 toPFin Grained, Medium Dense, Mos ht Gray-Brown, Very Fine . (SP) SAND - Light Brown-Tan, Very Fine to 10 16 Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist 15 x 10 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, SIightly Silty, i Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20 14 25 II I CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. ' ' A-26 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-24 4-213 FIELD LABORATORY a N L DESCRIPTION Q E O T C 4- -- C E L' v- c 1n C C3 a) a� oo a �� c{n +0- a ra- (Continued from previous plate) ' END OF BORING 30- 35 0 35 ' 40- 4.5 0 45 - SO — CYPRESS LAKES PLATE KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-26 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-24 4-214 Surface Conditions: Pasture. Date Completed: 411/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 3.9 foot Total Depth: 25.5 feet depth. � FIFLDLABORATORY ' DESCRIPTION � 4. N t Ul '- *n- W L. c L a Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.7 ,- 0 in+- G. Ql QJ LL E O 71 C4- •— C E L 4- C 0 C Q, rj — L Q1 u 00 0 + In Qj a, 0 fn Co USCS Classification O O Z U\ U to 4_ O 1— Q_ 4 (OL) CLAYEY ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, �c Very Organic, Soft, Moist uz (PT) PEAT - Dark Gray, Soft 1 � ' Z � 8 5 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray, Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine I to Fine Grained, Loose 10 9 (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 11 (SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine to Fine ' Grained, Loose (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 15 23 (SM) SILTY SAND Light Gray-Black, Very Silty, Hard, Very Fine Grained, Medium Dense 20- 53 (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Black, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense ' 37 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE , KLEiNFELDE: R HOTCHKISS TRACT i of 2 J. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A_27 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-25 I 1 1 4-215 MFIELD LABORATORY 4. �, L .,. DESCRIPTION — `r 7i L c of 0 N C 4J b -r L TA 3 N N r- 0. ri .4J +- a E 0 JI C 4- — C E L w- .L 0 C v A — L V u 00 0 +- U1 •- a v Continued from Previous plate)oas Ux L) to oo 'r, m r END OF BORING 1 r 30 _ 1 1 35 - r - r r40- 45 0 45 1 r So— CYPRESS 1 rLAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E: R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 or 2 ' - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. _ PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-25 A 27 r4-216 .. Surface Conditions: Cut wheat field. Date Completed: 5/20/9? Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 10 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. FIELD I LABORATORY I DESCRIPTIONej , '- 7n L+- 0 � N 3 �J a d L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -5.5 ' ci m LCuQ 00 O +L- N w d OCi o el m oo a r-U X 0 cn »- o ►- n, USCS Classification (OL) ORGAMC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown, I ' Moist 12 (CL) SANDY CLAY - Dark Gray, SIight Sand, Very Fine Grained, Stiff, Moist (CL) SANDY CLAY - Brown-Gray, More 5 I Il 111 19 Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Moist (CL) SANDY t'.:'LAY - Light Gray-Brown, Very Sandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Stiff, oist ' (CL) SANDY CLAY - Light Gray-Brown, Less Sand, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Moist (CL) SANDY SELTY CLAY - Black-Gray, ' Very Fine with Fine Graines 10 = 9 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained ' (SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slight Silt, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium Dense 15 21 -200 =20% (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very . 20 Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense 32 i END OF BORING 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L- E IN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-28 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING 6-26 . . 4-217 - I • a Surface Conditions: Cut wheat field. t' Date Completed: 5/20/92 Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 6.5 foot Total Depth: 26.5 feet _depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION 4• +• OJ N L `- 4- M L+- N W +- W � C L% n '" Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -5.9 N+ a L a +- a E O T C'4- •- C E L 4- L 1n C 0 ro -- L v (.) 00 0 +- W USCS Classification o cn m o t o. =U X U U) o o_ 111 8 109 14 (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Gray-Brown, Moist (SM) SILTY SAND - Yellow-Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray, 57 Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Very - Moist ' (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very Slight Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense 10 13 (SP/SM) SAND - Light Gray, Very Slight Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense IS 21 -200 =11% (SP/SM) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to ` Fine Grained, Dense 20 31 -200 = 7% 25 CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT I of 2 CONTRA COSTA' COUNTY, CA. A-29 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-27 4-218 FIELD LABORATORY '- DESCRIPTION _ N } r 4J L C L. 0 } d E O 71 C 4- C E L 4- L 0 = CU ro — L W u o o O +- m � w �+ Continued from previous laie o W cc 00 E v x U cn +- c >- A ) 32 • END OF BORING � 1 30 ' 35 — 40 , 45 SO ' CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. ' LOG OF BORING B27 A-29 - PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 ' 4-219 Surface Conditions: Cut wheat field. Date Completed: 5/20/92 ' Logged By: JMY Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at 10 foot Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION + t Ql UI t 4- 4- 71 L 4- M - N C N + .- aa) L C L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.6 +- 0. 3 o 04- a as a! -9- 0, eO T C`� -- C E L '� L 0 C W � L v u o 0 0 +- 0 +. W USCS Classification O (� Co 0 E U\ U to +- O t- d 6 70 28 (OL/ML) ORGANIC SANDY SILT - MGray-Brown, Slightly Organic, Slight Sand, Very Fine Grained, Moist sit (ML) CLAYEY SANDY SILT - Dark Gray, 3 58 69 Very Fine Grained, Moist ' I'll (ML) SANDY ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very Fine Grained, Moist ' S PT) SMTY PEAT - Black-Gray, Very Moist (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very 7 / rganic, Soft (CL) CLAYEY SILT - Light Brown-Gray, lightly CIayey, Very Moist CL) SILTY CLAY - Gray, Medium Stiff t CL) CLAY - Black-Gray _ (CL) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, Very Fine 10 9 -200 =11% with Fine Grains (CL) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, Very r andy, Very Fine to Fine Grained (SM) CLAYEY SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine to Fine Grained SP/SI) SILTY SAND - Gray, Slight Silt, ery Fine to Fine Grained, Loose 15 23 (SP/SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight ilt, Very Fine to Fine Grained (SP/SM) SILTY SAND Gray, Very Fine Grained, Medium Dense ' (SPJSM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained (SP/SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, ' 20 28 -200 -11% `. Medium Dense END OF BORING 25 ' CYPRESS LAKES PLATE K S IofI K L E I N F E L b E R HOTCHKISS TRACT ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-30 PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-28 r 4_220 r Response to Letter U: Gagen, McCov, McMahon & Armstrong, February, 16, 1993 r Response U=1: , Comment noted. The last sentence on page 1-8 (continuing on the top of page 1-9) is ' revised to read: "The second channel would be approximately 11 acres in size. . 1 Response U-2: Comment noted. No response is necessary. r i 1 1 r 1 1 r r r 4=221 i i ' Letter V '�`' _a ' February 1 , 1993 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERED Mr. Earl Wetzel ' Chairman East County Planning Commission c/o Art Beresford Planner Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94543 Re: Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 1992 Dear Art: ' This letter is to provide the comments of the Emerson Dairy and the Burroughs family on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report dated December 1992 (the "Revised DEIR") for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project (the "Project" ) . The Emerson Dairy and the Burroughs family own two of the three properties included in ' the Cypress Corridor area near the Project site. The Cypress Corridor area is the Oakley Community Center Mixed Use (M8 ) District in the Contra Costa County General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in January 1991 (the ' "County General Plan" ) . 1. We would appreciate clarification that the Cypress Corridor land use assumptions (Mixed Use) were incorporated into the traffic forecast data base used for the cumulative traffic analysis in the County General Plan. (See attached County General Plan EIR Response to Comments , to Letter D-14 from Robert Lamb Hart dated August 16 , 1990 , v-1 confirming inclusion of information for Traffic Zones 488 , 491 , and 492 within the Cypress Corridor. ) Contrariwise, the Revised DEIR states that it utilized traffic forecast information from the General Plan traffic model (the "County Traffic Model" ) which "does not 4-222 . i Mr. Earl Wetzel ' February 1 , 1993 Page Two , include full build-out of the Cypress Corridor project" ' (See attached, page 3-50 , Revised DEIR) . According to the Revised DEIR, the reason for this lack of traffic analysis for Cypress Corridor is related. to , V-1 the adjustments made to the General Plan land use data to reconcile Association of Bay Area Governments regional . development assumptions with the County's list of reasonably foreseeable projects . It is not clear from the text of the Revised DEIR that these adjustments were made by the Revised DEIR, if that is the case, and were not made in the County , Traffic Model . 2. We are concerned with the adequacy of mitigation measures for the Project traffic impacts listed ' in the Revised DEIR. This Project should pay its proportionate share of the mitigation measures listed in Parts. B and C of ' Table 3 . 2-6 . (See Revised DEIR pages 3-54 and 3-55 ) . An V-2 adequate mitigation monitoring program and financing plan should be adopted to assure this. , Mitigation Measure 3 . 2-5 fails to assess this Project's contribution to area and regional traffic and then measure the proposed mitigation measures against that impact to assess their sufficiency. We would appreciate your attention to the above matter. Please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned if we can be of any assistance. . Very truly yours , ' David A. Gold Robert L. Henn;`�`� Morrison & Foerster Henn, Etzel , Mellon & Weiss ( 510) 295-3310 ( 415) 392-4600 KB:abm , Enclosures cc: Robert Burroughs Stan Emerson ' Mark Gilbert Karen Bowers W63325 [15277/11 . 4-223 AvSj:r , b, D14.24 PQFULL Oa Data for typ"C=idor chm ?Raw TOW. No ioi yrs u�iti s,dCa 'loo 4" Nod w m 3AM 4 la-oeeMr"- OehOid 2.53 Towhpuklfon 1= i,Sit! 20,Np No of arlb"Raidaft 3)M 710 317W ftpi mem Data for Cypress Carrldar N.ai Type of Umplaymew EmPlayms get l IAW Otiw � TOW 2,Ot'fD Data Subdivided By Traf&Zones Zone 405 Una 4ft Zees 02 TOW No d Hau�dnlcfa _ Tas� 340 Sm 4 3 2,945 370 7i0 .2'713 ToMI i�i0 TJiD I,tSO 1.720 T,�D I,2i0 L7" 301M 230 160 ?to zom 490 3.70 �siNtt �� ?i�0 200 •200 520 flel+rltllr: UO ?at i00 L" come 10 20 ' 20 40 !ftl 460 um 4-224 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS LETTER D14 RESPONSE D14-1 Comments regarding the Cypress Corridor Study are incorporated into the Comments and Responses document. RESPONSE D14-2 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-1. RESPONSE D14-3 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-1. ' RESPONSE D14-4 All comments and responses become a part of the EIR issued by the County. Please refer to Response to Comment D5-5. ' RESPONSE D14-5 Graphics that are revised will be presented with the Draft General Plan and will be included as a part of the EIR ' RESPONSE D14-6 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-1. RESPONSE D14-7 No response required. These comments are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. The requested revisions to the General Plan map will be made. RESPONSE D14-8 Please refer to Response to Comment D1447. RESPONSE D14-9 See Response to Comment D14-7. ' RESPONSE D14-10 This comment was received on the previous Proposed General Plan, released in 1989. The requested change has been , incorporated into the current Draft General Plan and appears on page 3-23. RESPONSE D14-11 This comment was received on the previous Proposed General ' Plan, released in 1989. The requested change has been incorporated into the current Draft General Plan and appears on page 3-34. 1 RESPONSE D14-12 No response required These comments are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D144& RESPONSE D14-13 [TEXT) I Administrative Draft Subject To Revision 4-225 Responses to Comments Letter D14 RESPONSE D14-14 Figure 4.5-8 of the EIR of September 1990 (Figure 7-6 in the P DOP of October 1990) shows a future fire station symbol north of Cypress Road in the vicinity of its intersection with Knightsen Avenue as shown on the cornmentor's map. RESPONSE D14-15 Figure 9-4 in the Draft Contra Costa County General Plan (October 1990) shows the five proposed neighborhood parks and one proposed community park as shown on the commentor's ' attached map. RESPONSE D14-16 Page 291, Figure VIII-2, the Important Agricultural Areas designation will be eliminated for the Emerson, Gilbert and Burroughs properties, if appropriate after discussion with the County staff rRESPONSE D14-17 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-7. RESPONSE D14-18 See Response to Comment D14-7. RESPONSE D14-19 Sec Response to Comment D14 7. RESPONSE D14-20 See Response to Comment D14-7. RESPONSE D14-21 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-4& RESPONSE D14-22 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-4& RESPONSE D14-23 No response required. These comments are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D1448. RESPONSE D14-24 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through L ' D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. RESPONSE D14-25 No response required Responses to Comments D14-21 through D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. RESPONSE D14-26 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D1448. RESPONSE D14- 7 No response required. Ibese comments are note d as. r " Administrative Draft Subject To Revision 4-226 Responses to Comments Letter D14 background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. RESPONSE D14-28 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-11. ' RESPONSE D14-29 All proposed changes that are based on comments on the Draft EIR become a part of the EIR issued by the County. RESPONSE D14-30 No response required. These comments are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. RESPONSE D14-31 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-11. , RESPONSE D14-32 No response required. These comments are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. RESPONSE D14-33 No response required. These comments are noted as r background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. ' RESPONSE D14-34 No response required. These comments are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to ' Comments D14-39 through D14-4& RESPONSE D14-35 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-14. RESPONSE D14-36 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-15. ' RESPONSE D14-37 No response required. These comments are noted as ' background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. RESPONSE D14-38 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through ' D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48. ' RESPONSE D14-39 Page 3-7, Figure 3-3, is changed to include the three Cypress Corridor properties. �I RESPONSE D14-40 Page 3-34, the following paragraph is added after the third paragraph: ' tlMM �and�'arii>i'tle�elaped . saxi'i�s RESPONSE D14-41 The County land use map now shows that property M13 has Administrative Draft Subject To Revision 4-227 ' Responses to Comments Letter D14 been dropped, and that property M9 has been added as the Burroughs property. The M8 designation for Cypress Corridor ' accurately depicts the area as submitted by the commentor. The reference to Footnote 6 on page 4.2-22, change to Fogtnote ' S. RESPONSE D14-42 This information was incorporated into the Population, Employment and Housing Section of the EIR, page 43-22,Table 43-10. RESPONSE D14-43 This information was incorporated into the Population, ' Employment and Housing Section of the EIR, page 43-26,Table 4.3-11. 1 RESPONSE D14-44 This information was incorporated into the land use and circulation analysis of the EIR. RESPONSE D14-45 Figure 45-2 of the EIR is revised and is shown on the following page. ' RESPONSE D14-46 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-14. RESPONSE D14-47 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-15. RESPONSE D14-48 Please refer to Responses to Comments D14-43 through D14-47. Administrative Draft Subject To Revision 4-228 1. 4f.4 t Cumulative TraMc Forecasts (Year 2010) This scenario is assumed to approximate the land use and development conditions that will exist in the Year 2010. For this scenario, General Plan Amendment projects have bees added 1 to the travel model database. .The traffic forecast dam base is consistent with the cumulative traffic analysis included in the Contra Costa County General Plan. There are several new roadway projects that are included in the General Plan network. The proposed Delta Expressway ' 7 would be completed, with interchanges at Laurel Road and Lone Tree Way. SR 4 would be widened and 'improved'between Bailey Road and Highway 160. The Laurel Road extension would be completed to Cypress Road. Bethel Island Road would be extended to connect to ' Byron"Highway. O'Hara Avenue would be extended south to Brentwood Although the Delta Expressway is in the General Plan, construction would not be completed until Year 2005, and then only if adequate funding becomes available. Similarly, the SR 4 widening project between Bailey Road and Highway 160 would be a critical component of future cumulative improvements. Projected traffic forecasu will exceed the capacity of the existing four-lane freeway by the Year 2000. This section of mad will be significantly impacted by cumulative traffic. The resulting ADT and the estimated PM peak hour LOS that is fomcast to occur under ' cumulative conditions is shown on Figure 32-11. With this level of development, traffic problems can generally be mitigated to an acceptable Level of Service by the improvements , discussed above and listed in the General Plan. This EIR has utilized traffic forecast information from the Contra Costa Coiniry General ' Plan EIR. The cumulative land use assumptions in this EIR are a hybrid of the ABAG regional land use model, and the list of proposed projects that has been developed by Contra Costa Counry based on build-out of the General Plan. The traffic forecam in the General Plan dQnot _ ' (include traffic projections for the full build-out of the Cypress Corridor. The cumulative traffic forecasts have been based on the Year 2010 land use scenario. The 2010 land use data is based on General Plan build-out that has been adjusted to be consistent with ABAG regional forecasts. To make the adjustment between ABAG regional development assumptions and the County's list of seasonably forseable projects involved making the total land ' use conditions consistent with one another. Certain land use assumptions were reduced, while others have been deferred to occur beyond the year 2010 time period. The General Plan traffic model, therefore, does not include full build-out of the Cypress ' Corridor project. Since no specific Cypress Corridor project has been defined at this time, and the expected changes to the roadway network due to the Cypress Corridor have not been defined, the project at full build-out cannot be accurately modeled. However. the Cyprus Corridor ' project will need additional roadway links into Oakley and could result in significant traffic congestion impacts if the only access were to be onto Cypress Road. 4-229 LS'd N07-M '13213 WN3H E0:TT ES, 90 Ntir 1 A u N cs, u d IDA u N �aytd '�O�'h� W X43 90 4'a WOO to r1G Us u'nK anV 4D �r,aaa36 Gril N t0 Y T IR 1 ~ 04 Z r 0G, 9t6 � 4 r T t Q y r / ,ptt S, � T r s r 4-23fJ r Response to Letter V: David Gold and Robert Henn February 1, 1993 Response V-1: The traffic model that was provided by the County at the time of preparation of the DEIR was entitled as "General Plan Build-out for the year 2010." Although the General Plan does , include the Cypress Corridor project, it was not included in the traffic model. The reason for this is that the totals for the land use proposals in East County were significantly beyond what was projected by ABAG for the maximum growth that could occur by the year 2010. The County staff developing the model made decisions as to which parcels would likely be developed by 2010, in order to reconcile the differences between the two sets of land use assumptions. Many developments were assumed to be of smaller size, or to occur after 2010. Response V-2: The project applicant will pay their proportionate share of theprojects listed in Table 3.2- 6; Part B. All of these projects and the costs would be shared proportionately by all development in the Bethel Island Area. 1 For the projects that are described in Table 3.2-6,; Part C, there are a number of sources of funding that have been identified. These include the Oakley-North Brentwood Area Plan, and ' the County area of benefit (AOB) financing plan for the East Contra Costa County Bethel Island Area. With regard to regional traffic impact fees that could be used for projects such as the Delta Expressway, additional Highway 4 improvements, and other regional projects, there is no 1 procedure in place at the present time. If a regional traffic fee for East Contra Costa County is approved and implemented, the Cypress Lakes Project could be required to participate in this program. ' Mitigation Measure 3.2-16, Page 3-63, addresses the project's fair share toward area and subregional roadway improvements such as impacts to State Route 4. 1 i i 1 1 4-231 I ' 1 - z� -q3 Letter W 15 January 1993 93—CC-7E re: Revised EIR for Cypress Lakes and Country Club Dear Mr. Beresford: Our office has no additional comment on the above report. W-1 However, thank you for your continued interest in protecting cultural resources. 1 .�ice �Ly A �Ceig Jor n� Assistan Coordinator 1 I 4-232 Response to Letter W: Leigh Jordan, January 15, 1993 Response W-1: Comment noted. No response necessary. 1 1 1 1 1 4-233 I KLH ENGINEERING GROUP & Murphy, Inc. Ji^..: �C .Subsidiaryo KLH Engineering Group, Inc. ��►.rOrPr Letter X February 5, 1993 Mr. Art Beresford Contra Costa County Community Development Department ' 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 RE: Draft EIR for Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project ' Dear Mr. Beresford: KLH-Bryan &.Murphy Associates represents Mr. Dean Lesher on the property west of the Cypress Lakes project. We have an application on file with your department for Mr. Lesher's property(subdivision 7588). A revised application was submitted on 2/5/93 for 571 units on approximately 361 acres of the southerly land. .� I appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Cypress Lakes project and request that the Final EIR clarify the following matter relating to water service: • The project proposes 2-12" water lines to the project which 'would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project as well as some limited additional development in the Bethel Island Area." (P. 3=198). .However, the Oakley Water X-1 District Regulation No. 7 discusses the design, size, type and location of all facilities ". . . taking into consideration such factors as anticipated future land uses and water requirements of the entire area . . . (Section 3.a)" There seems to be an inconsistency here which should be addressed. ' X-2 • What is the Oakley Water Districts position on the proposed duel pipe system? • The Oakley Water District Master Water Plan and the preliminary design used for X-3 the Bethel Island Specific Plan concluded that a storage tank was required to serve this area. The project proposes that a storage tank can be eliminated due to the use ' 1 CMH62011.008 2527 Camino Ramon, Suite 160, San Ramon, California 94583 (510) 867-3380 FAX (510)867-3388 4-234 of the dual pipe system (P. 3-198). Please clarify this. What is the Oakley Water X-3 Districts position on this? Sincerely, Michael J. Helmes President MJH:ks cc: Jerry Alves 2 i CMHC2011.008 4-235 Response to Letter X: KLH - Bryan & Murphy, Inc., February 5, 1993 Response X-I: ' Mitigation Measure 3.10-8, page 3-200 of the DEIR suggests that the size and design of the off-site water system meet all standards and requirements of the Oakley Water District. As indicated on page 3-198 of the DEIR, the Oakley Water District Master Plan calls for an 18" line to be extended along Cypress Road to serve the Bethel Island Area. Response X-2: See Response X-1. Response X-3: f See Response X-1. If the off-site water system is constructed as proposed (two 12 lines) no water storage tank would be required. However, the Oakley Water District may require the off-site facilities to be constructed in accordance with their Master Plan which would require a storage tank to serve the area. The design of the off-site water improvements would be reviewed and approved by the Oakley Water District prior to their construction. 4-236 CO;r; 11n, 'Jed,TY February 16, 1993 93 FEB 16 PH 4: 10 Letter YVVI :c 11 t7 PT. Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553 ' Attention: Mr. Arthur Berefond THE SILENT SPRING* FOR SANDMOUND Others are interrupting our environmental existence. Donating our time and efforts since September 1, 1992 to review and comment in person and writing on the Mother Goose Fairy Tales presented to us, the people, as an EIR Report. EIR meaning Environmentally Ignorant Report. We use to believe that it is only when you have committed a serious crime that the County Officials can impede and alter your life style. This is simply not true. Please tell me, haven't we paid our taxes? Or maybe we haven't paid the right taxes . For five (5) individuals to be able to dictate to people who have lived in this area all their lives . is beyond me. What about a jury trial, 12 people that are un-bias not friends with the influential few. !. Are the hundreds that dwell on Sandmound Blvd. guilty of some crime where five appointed judges dictate their future living conditions and how their sentence of death is to be implemented? Air Quality alone, has already proven to be a hazard now, deadly in a few years given us 2, 300 more vehicles, 1300 bar-be-ques, gas lawnmowers, and fireplaces . Even convicted killers are subjected to a humane death. We, the t people, will be subject to a deliberate prolonged agonizing, decaying death, as sentenced by the supposed "servants of the county" . ' * The Silent Spring written by Racheal Caron 1962 regarding deteriorating existence._ + i 4-237 i Then you wonder why the officials have to hire more police to Y Y control these prisoners held on Sandmound Blvd. You'd wonder why this is . Could it be the polluted air from cars, dust, etc. eating at our lungs making simple things such as breathing and thinking difficult, or their drinking water so contaminated, it's unfit for fish? Are we dilirious or has the dust from Cypress Lakes Project finally deteriorated us? We, the people, are weak now, unable to fight and too ill to work and pay our taxes. We are now criminals . You know the rest or the story. It happens anytime the people ask the judges not to impose impossible, inhuman conditions on the now existing Sandmound Souls . aRespectfully submitted, P Y 4 ti*'k4,, -. Barbara LaFargue 4900 Sandmound Blvd. Oakley, CA 94561 BL: ld a 4-238 Response to Letter Y: Barbara La Far ue February 16 1993 ' Comments noted. The comments in this letter reflect the opinion of the commentor and does not comment on the adequacy of the DEIR. No response necessary. i I i 1 1 4-239 a Letter Z - G _a 8-- ��s 3 •'rT- 11 - Z-2 Z-3 _-- - -._...... 0OA4, �.. -rte ,, a --- r r 4-240 1 1 2-20 _ Atli 2023 -,_/�__a�_Q_'d—•� --�-�-C�-'--��"---.�- .,.". �y�.._..�- --_. -- a Z43 . .... 4-243 1 1 j== 1-7 fit -6v ;o 4-244 ' , . � --.- --- ---- -___-_'-_-_--___' _--_---__-__'--'__-'-----_-__-' Let Z'3* - � --- -�------�---------- --------' ---7�'----'' Z-35 ^ �� �-'------------''--- -'����^-------'-'------'--7/ --------------)�-----'--------'----- 4-2�5 � | t ol,-` t,4 � i 4-246 zo 2-45 , 48�.P? 42 �. ' C „ �� - /i,�. 1 I 1 _ 1 .54 Z-55 9414/- _ __ _ - wdlet; I� 9-248 am � � `� 1 10 lie ..Sit � Z-606-A/9 a, 7 � 4-249 1 62 �� 63 65 t-66i �Z-67 0 t--68 ------------- 4-250 zao 16 Li L,72�ele_ 2-73 -. c Z Z-760-/.7� Alt A6 9-251 i 1-78 79 c-'.4 ap --82 83 .. .... .. .. 4-252 Response to Letter Z: Diane Mavbee, received February 17, 1993 Response Z-1: The secondary access via Sandmound Boulevard was recommended by the Public Works Department in initial meetings and was included in the applicants' development plans. This access provides improved safety and an additional route into and out of the project site for project residents. It would also provide an additional emergency access in the event the primary entrance/exit at Cypress Road/Bethel Island Road is blocked. ' Response Z-2: Comment noted. This comment relates to the legality of the Protection Fee and how much it should be. These issues are unrelated to the DEIR and are a policy issue for Contra Costa County. ' Response Z-3: Comment noted. The page reference in the comment does not appear to be correct. The Agricultural Protection Fee is referenced on page 2-4. The Protection Fee is identified in the County General Plan and is currently being drafted by County Staff. The amount of the fee is not known at this time. Response Z-4: Comments noted. Caltrans warrants for traffic signals clearly show that traffic signals can be significant traffic and safety problems if they are installed before they are justified. The signals should be installed only when traffic volumes rise to the level where they will be safely used and effective in controlling traffic. The County will monitor future traffic conditions to determine when they are needed. Response Z-5: Comments noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding how regional fees should be allocated. This issue is a policy issue for Contra Costa County. Response Z-6: Comments noted. Mitigation measure 3.2-9 specifically addresses the need for the proposed project to provide right-of-way for the extension of Bethel Island Road to the south. 4-253 Response Z-7: Comments noted. The comments reflect the opinion of the commentor and relate to County policy regarding the timing of regional roadway improvements in East Contra Costa County. Response Z-8: Comments noted. The comments reflect the opinion of the commentor regarding how traffic mitigation fees should be spent. This is a policy issue for the East County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Response Z-9: The DEIR does not identify a specific entity for maintenance of on-site drainage at this time. However, RD-799 would be the most likely agency to take over the maintenance of on-site drainage facilities. If drainage facilities are to be maintained by RD-799 the drainage facilities should be constructed to RD-799 standards. Response Z-10: See Response Z-3. Response Z-11: 1 Mitigation measure 3.7-12 specifically states that the "project site shall continue to be a part of RD-799 and shall be prohibited from seceding from this district." It is also intended that RD-799 take over the long-term maintenance of the project levees once constructed. See Appendix C. Response Z-12: Compliance with the mitigation measure reference would generally occur by requiring project applicant to install construction routing signage directing all construction traffic via Cypress Road only. The method of compliance should be specified in the conditions of approval for the project. Response Z-13: See Response Z-9. 4-254 �r Response Z-14: , Comments noted. As identified in mitigation measure 3.7-5 the project levees shall be constructed in accordance with the standards and requirements of FEMA. Response Z-15: Comments noted. A number of soil compaction techniques were analyzed in the DEIR, including overexcavation and compaction. The type of soil compaction technique should be specified as a condition of approval of the project. Response Z-16: Comments noted. See Response Z-11. Response Z-17: , See Response Z-15. Response Z-18: Comment noted. If RD-799 will be responsible for maintenance of the project levees, the r design of the levees and construction methods should be reviewed and approved by RD-799. .Also see Appendix C. Response Z-19: Mitigation Measure 3.8-7 identifies that watering of exposed or disturbed soil surfaces be r conducted at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. It does not limit the amount of watering that would be required. Response Z-20: Comments noted. The project includes a ground monitoring program which is intended r to identify any ground settlement to avoid damage to off-site property and structures. The monitoring plan would identify ground settlement before any damage to off-site property occurred, so that contingency measures or alternative construction methods could be implemented r to avoid damage to off-site properties and structures. For these reasons a performance bond would not be necessary. Response Z-21: Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 identifies that, if necessary, a special district fee be required to provide funding to fully staff the new station. The project applicant is proposing to petition i 4-255 r r LAFCo for annexation of the site into the Bethel Island Fire Protection District (seepage 3-169 of the DEIR). Response Z-22: The fees for sheriff protection would be determined by the County at the time of issuance of building permits for the project (see Mitigation Measure 3.9-4, page 3-173 and 3-174 of the DEIR. ' Response Z-23: 1 Mitigation Measures 3.9-7 and 3.9-8, page 3-179 of the DEIR, specifically address the proposed school site and what should happen if the site is not acceptable to the OUESD. The Liberty Union High School District would receive school impact fees as established by state law. 1 (See Mitigation Measure 3.9-5, page 3-179 of the DEIR). Also see Responses I-1 and EE-33. Response Z-24: ' The special district would be made up of project residents to pay for maintenance of the proposed parks if Contra Costa County does not accept dedication of the parks. ' Response Z-25: FEMA would be consulted regarding the project levees and would be responsible for certifying the levees and removing the project site from the 100-year flood hazard zone before any proposed development could occur on the project site. ' Response Z-26: Mitigation Measure 3.11-1, page 3-221 of the DEIR, specifically requires disclosure of these issues in the CC&Rs. Response Z-27: Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, page 3-222 of the DEIR, specifically addressed this issue. Since studies have indicated a potential association of leukemia with exposure to electrical transmission lines, it would be appropriate to include in the CC&R's. Response Z-28: The five potential drill sites referenced on page 3-1 of the DEIR are depicted on Figure 1-3, page 1-5 of the DEIR. 4-256 Response Z-29: ' Comment noted. This comment addresses a legal issue which is unrelated to an impact on the environment. No response necessary. Response Z-30: The comment references Policy 3.74 of the Contra Costa County General Plan which is a policy directed at development in the Bethel Island Area. Response Z-31: ' Comment noted. The comment addresses a legal issue which is unrelated to an impact on the environment. No response necessary. Response Z-32: See Response Z-3. Response Z-33: See Response Z-27. Response Z-34: Responses See Re and Z-29. e sp Z-3 Response Z-35: M The reference to a 100-foot setback is derived from the Contra Costa County General Plan, Implementation Measure 8-k, page 3-87 and 3-88 of the DEIR. Response Z-36: Comments noted. A trail is only proposed for the proposed project levees, not the existing levees. Response Z-37: See Response Z-3. 4-257 i Response Z-38: Comments noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding needed traffic improvements. Response Z-39: See Response Z-4. ' Response Z-40: 1 See Response Z-7. Response Z-41: Table 3.2-6, p. 3-53 of the DEIR identifies specific timing of roadway improvements. ' Response Z-42: See Response Z-4. Response Z-43: See Response Z-4. Response Z-44: The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The traffic stud conducted for P P Y the project indicates that the improvement referenced is not warranted until 1,000 homes are ' completed on the project site. Response Z-45: See Response Z-1. Response Z-46: See Response Z-8. Response Z-47: The mitigation measures on p.3-63 of the DEIR are proposed in the event the Delta Expressway improvements are not implemented which addresses the concern of the commentor. 4-258 i Response Z-48: Comment noted.. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, page 3-97 of the DEIR is revised to include RD-799 in the review of the detailed Channel Enhancement Plan. Response Z-49: ' See Response Z-3. Response Z-50: r The comment appears to be referencing Contra Costa County General Plan policy 9-24 and its enforcement with respect to previous projects. No response necessary. Response Z-51: Comment noted. Other noise mitigation could be implemented, such as architectural treatments, desired by local residents and.the County. No additional response is necessary. Response Z-52: See Response Z-9. ' Response Z-53: ' The comment addresses levees undenthe control of the Contra Costa Water District which are not part of the proposed project or the subject of the EIR. No response necessary. Response Z-54: The comment represents the opinion of the commentor that they agree with RD-799s' comments. No response necessary. Response Z-55: Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding the legality of delaying the project to improve.the existing levee system first. No response necessary. Response Z-56: , Comments noted. Monitoring wells placed on private property would require the permission of the property owner. , 4-259 Response Z-57: Comments noted. The comments represent the opinion of the commentor regarding levee improvements. No response necessary. Response Z-58: The last sentence of the first paragraph under Water Quality on page 3-139 of the DEIR is clarified as follows: "Therefore, the proposed storm drainage system would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater quality." Response Z-59: If RD-799 is the public agency responsible for maintenance of the drainage facilities, the drainage facilities should be constructed in accordance with RD-799 requirements. Response Z-60: See Response Z-9. Response Z-61: As indicated in Mitigation Measure 3.7-10, page 3-144 of the DEIR, the emergency evacuation plan should address methods for notifying and evacuating "area" residents which would include residents along Sandmound Boulevard and other adjacent areas on Hotchkiss Tract. Response Z-62: Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-12, p.3-145 of the DEIR specifically addresses that the project site should not succeed from RD-799 to provide continued funding for maintenance of the existing levee and drainage systems. Response Z-63: Mitigation Measure 3.7-11, page 3-145 of the DEIR has been revised to include RD-799 as a responsible agency. Response Z-64: The agency responsible for maintenance of the lakes and drainage facilities was not known at the time of publication of the DEIR. However, RD-799 would be the most likely 4-260 agency for maintenance of the lakes and drainage facilities if acceptable to the District. Also see Appendix C. Response Z-65: Mitigation Measure 3.8-5, page 3-161 specifically addresses measures to mitigate liquefaction potential on the project site. Response Z-66: See Response Z-18. Response Z-67: i See Response Z-15. Response Z-68: The lake is proposed to be approximately 17 feet deep (see Figure 3.7-5, page 3-142 of ' the DEIR). Therefore, dewatering would not need to exceed 20 feet for excavation of the lake and channels. The intent of the comment regarding submersible pumps is unclear and therefore, , no response is provided. Response Z-69: Comment noted. The comment represents an opinion regarding on-site monitoring and who should pay for it. An engineer will be on-site or available during construction of the external levee system and lake/channels. The project applicant will be responsible for the cost of monitoring levee construction. Response Z-70: See Response Z-15. ' Response Z-71: See Response Z-18. ' Response Z-72: Comment noted. The comment addresses a policy.issue for Contra Costa County. The project applicant is requesting that the project site be annexed to the Bethel Island Fire Protection ' District, see p.3-169 of the DEIR. 4-261 Response Z-73: rSee Response Z-21. Response Z-74: See Response Z-21. rResponse Z-75: See Response Z-72. Response Z-76: See Response Z-23. The project site is not located within the Knightsen School District. Response Z-77: Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 3.9-10 of the DEIR recommends that active ' recreational uses (i.e., playfields) be located outside the powerline easement. Response Z-78: If the project includes a day-care facility adequate to serve the project, as proposed, no child care fees would be required of the project. ' Response Z-79: Comment noted. The project is requesting annexation of only the project site to the Oakley Water District. Adjacent areas would not be required to hook-up to new facilities as part of this project. Response Z-80: Comment noted. The project is requesting annexation of only the remaining portions of the project site to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. Adjacent areas would not be required to hook- up to new facilities as part of this project. ' Response Z-81: Comment noted. The PG&E gas line being constructed in East County is not to provide local service, but rather as part of the regional distribution system. 4-262 Response Z-82: As part of compliance with mitigation measure 3.11-4, the CC&R's are required to disclose specific health hazards associated with living near electrical powerlines. Childhood leukemia could be included as a potential hazard and included in the CC&R's. Response Z-83: Comment noted. See Responses Z-4 and Z-6. i 1 . 1 1 ! i ! 1 i 4-263 MONTAGUE & COCHRANE Letter AA Attorneys at Law 1500 River Park Drive.Suite 110 J. MICHAEL COCHRANE Sacramento,California 95315 JOHN D. MONTAGUE Telephone:'(916)9295018 GEORGE C.MARTINEZ San Francisco.Cafifwnia (Of Cuunso) ' February 11 , 1993 -n r•''1 --i Community Development FEDERAL EXPRESSED Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, -� 4th Floor North Wing o F Martinez, California 94553-0095 -� Attention: Arthur Beresford ' A. J. Salomon CERTIFIED MAIL 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 400 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Re: Deeded Easement - Dannelley ' Gentlemen: On behalf of C. Elaine Dannelley, you are hereby notified that Ms. Dannelley objects to, and does not agree with, any relocation of her easement for ingress and egress as described in the attached Corporation Joint Tenancy Grant Deed, document No. 84 16555, Book 11642 , Page 655, Contra Costa Official Reco S. Very truly you s, JohnzD n e JDM/blb cc C. Elaine Dannelley 4-264 MLLN 1(lll VIUJLU I(LAU144 'LV: Eb -G 1984 I> 1 LAZv c Lit �I Mr. & Mrs. Donald Dannelley,�� ifi55`�, Sr. M,corded at request A" ' f Route 2, Box 226-0 r Safoco Title Insurance Co. , Oakley, CA 94561 ---— A t. u 11:, ast M. S'IC #711910-JS011'It:Y RocuiJ:s of II v..j1f RA CLBZ:CA [ `A ConLra Cont:a County ivAWER TA,(' J. R. 01",.n OW I County Recorder FEF. ! : i �'I ItYEYI i t CORPORATIOU JO?NT TENANCY GRANT DEED I11,0SllN E THE UNDERSIC14ED GRANTOR DECLARES DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAXES IS $ 102.85 H computed on full value of property conveyed, or H computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledgced,ZGENERAI. MOTORS CORPORATION, a Corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its I� principal office at 3044 West-. Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan II48.202, hereby GRA14TS to DONALD R. DANNELLEY, SR. AND CLIDC E. DANNEL.LEY, IIUSRNR) S WIFE., AS JOINT U-NMUS, whose address is East Cypress II Extension, Oakley, California 94561 , the following described I real property in the City of Oakley, County of Contra Costa, ! State of California: PARCEL ONE: i Parcel B of Parcel Map filed October 12, C'> 1972, Book 24, Parcel Maps, Page 41 , r w CD Contra Costa County Records, r �, I i rn < m �- EXCEPTIIIC FROM PARCELONE: "All oil, < tv c gas and other hydrocarbons and minerals ;� a now or at any time hereafrFer situate = c� tl therein and thereunder" as reserved inCD the Deed from Bank of America Narional o Trust and Savings Association, recorded -< • ;� April 24 , 1942, Book 658, of Official i Records, Page 129. , PARCEL TWO: I Right of way granted in the Deed to Robert Campbell, et ux, recorded July 16, 1959, Book 3413, Official Records, ;i Page 352, as follows: it "A right of way (not to be exclusive) as 1 an appurtenance to Parcel One above, for j use as a roadway for vehicles of all I; kinds, pedestrians and animals, for water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines, t and for telephone, electric light and power lines, together with the necessary i poles or conduits over a portion of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of i 4-265 • I 1 t i i ' I Section 27 , Township 2 North, Range 3 i East, Hount Diablo Base and Meridian being a strip of land 20 feet in width, i the Fast line of which is described as ! folluwo: ! j BEGINNING at Station 'A' , as designated in the description o.f Parcel One above; i thence from said point of beginning North 28 degrees 08 minutes 59 seconds West 189.89 feet; thence North 14 I degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds Pest 21.19 1 ' I feet to a 2-inch by 2-inch hub; thence t North 14 degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds West 249.77 feet; thence North 34 degree-s 05 minutes 06 seconds West 289.56 feet to a point herein designated as Station 'B' which bears North. 89 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds East 23.22 feet from an ircn pipe. 1 ! i The South terminus of said strip of land � is a line drawn South 69 degrees 22 j minutes 17 seconds West from Station 'A' i i above and the North terminus thereof in a line drawn South 89 degrees 44 minutes 1 47 seconds West from Station 'B' above." ' PARCEL THREE: "A right of way (not to he exclusive)" created in reference to Parcel One above ' in the Deed to Howard R. Sullivan, et i ux, recorded November. 30, 1949, Boolc i 1469 Official Records , Page 19, "for use as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds , ' pedestrians and animals, for water, gas , oil and sewer pipe lines and for tele:- phone, electric light and power lines, together with the necessary Eoles or i conduits to carry said lines ' over a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, Mount { Diablo Base and Meridian, being a strip �I of land 25 feet in width, described as ! . follows: Commencing at an iron pipe set at the Northwest corner of the parcel of land described in the Deed to Harry E. Chesney, et ux, recorded January 28, i it � 1 I 4-266 1 i' 1942, Boole 657 , Official Records, Page I 274; thence from said point of commence- ment South 89 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds West 173.10 feet to an iron pipe , and the actual. point of beginning of the i herein described strip of land; thence from said point of /beginning South 89 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds West 645.80 feet; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes West 65 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 rainutes West 25 feet to the West line of said Section 27; thence South 0 degrees 30 minutes East along , said West litre at 65 feet an iron pipe, i a total distance of 90 feet; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds { East 685.53 feet to a point which bears South 30 degrees .56 minutes 42 seconds Fast, 29.07 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds West 29.07 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL FOUR: i� "A right of way (not to be exclusive)" , created in reference to Parcel One above in the Deed to Howard R. Sullivan, et ux, recorded November 30, 1949, Rook 1469, Official. Records, Page 19, "for ' use as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds, pedestrians and animals, for water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines, and for telephone, electric light and ' power lines, together with the necessary poles or conduits to carry said lines", J over a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 28, Township 2. North, Range 3 East, Mount -Diablo Mase and Meridian, i� being a strip. of land described as i follows: Commencing at an iron pipe set at the Northwest corner of the Parcel of Land i described in the Deed to Harry E. i Chesney, et ux, recorded January 28, 1942, Book 657, Official Records , Page I; 274 ; thence from said pointof j commencement South 89 degrees 44 minutes i 47 seconds West at 173. 1.0 feet an iron pipe a total distance of 818.90 feet; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes West 65 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30' li I , I 1 4-267 i 1 I minutes West 25 feet to the East line of said Section 28 and the actual point of beginning of the herein described strip of land; thence from said point of beginning South 89 degree: 10 minutes �I West 120 feet to the East line of the County Road known ap Bethel Tract Road; thence South 0 degrees 30 minutes East along said East line, 25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 10 minutes East 120 feet to the East lime of said Section 28; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes West, along said East line, 25 feet to ' the point of beginning. PARCEL FIVE: ' A right of way (not to be exclusive) for rise as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds, pedestrians and animals, for I it water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines , and for telephone , television service, electric light and power lines, together with the necessary poles , or conduits , as an appurtenance to Parcel One above over that portion of Parcel A of Parcel Maps, filed October 12, 1972, Book 24, Parcel Maps, Page 41 , Contra Costa County Records, designated "Proposed Easement for Access Roadway ✓r !� Utilities." it This Deed is prepared, executed, delivered and ii recorded in connection with General Motors Corporation's reconveyance of the subject property, which was acquired relative to its employe relocation program. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused its II Corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instrument 1 i I I ! 1, I II 4-268 I 1 , i+ i j � to be executed by its Director., CM Facilities, and Assistant li Secretary thereunto duly authorized. i I iW � Dated t-N;;1.1.��. j GENERAL MO '0 S CORPORATION BY ! Direct or, G ZFgclitiesA'1S fMar uetile A sistant Sec etary SPATE OF MICHIGAN ) I ss. COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 1 On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared W. J. O'Keefe . known to me to be the Director, CM Facilities, and Marguer6 Romzlck known to me to be Assistant Secretary of the Corporation that executed the within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf: of the Corporation ! therein named, and acknowledged to me that such Corporation I t executed the within Instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a I' resolution of its Board of Directors. i IN WITNESS [:HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and �j atfixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate II first above written. I LTi G Notary Public in nd for said State GORDON PHILIP PETERSON Notary Public,Oakland County,MI i My Commission Expires May 2s,1981 i. THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: `I William A. Hayes 3044 West .Grand Boulevard I Detroit, Michigan 48202 I �I �I ! END OF DOCUMENT ,I I 'i 4-269 ' li I ' Response to Letter AA: Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993 Response AA-1: The following mitigation measure has been added to the EIR on p. 3-27 to address the easement referenced in the comment. 3.1-5: The project site plan shall be revised to clearly depict the existing easement from ' the Dannelley property to Cypress Road. This easement shall be maintained in its existing location unless otherwise agreed to by the property owner and the County (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County). 1 4-270 1 !"T ,, r 1 TRA COSTA o� ' Letter BB FEB _I PM 2: 25 Y Y 1Manuel & Cecelia Peixoto DE/�, ELJPt�'bf,� OEPT Route 2, Box 387 Oakley, California 94561 January 30, 1993 1 Community Development Department ' 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 ' Dear Mr . Bragdon, , Director; ' This letter is to comment on the completeness and accuracy of the Revised Draft EIR for the CYBress lakes and Country Club, A.J . Salomon/Chartered Land & Cattle Co. County File #2918-RZ, ' Final Development Plan 3032-90, Subdivision 7562 . As stated on page 3-54, ' item #3 of the revised draft EIR , referred to above, the construction of the Laurel Rd . Extension to Machado Lane, including Marsh Creek bridge & RR overcrossing would not be needed until the Delta Expressway is completed . "Until that time, this project would not be necessary. " ' The second paragraph on page 3-50 states that "Although the Delta Expressway is in the General Plan, construction would not , be completed until 2005 . . . . " In numerous conversations with the Public Works Department I find an inaccuracy in item #3, page 3-54 as stated above . The Public Works Department informs me that an alignment for the Laurel/Cypress Connection has been established . A precise BB-1 alignment would be prepared for adoption by the Board of ' Supervisors in the 94/95 Fiscal year . It is possible that the construction on the Laurel/Cypress Connection would commence prior to the completion of the Delta Expressway. ' The Revised Draft EIR also states that the Roadway Improvement Project of widening Cypress Rd/SR 4 intersection along with additional turn lanes would be necessary. if the Bethel ' Island area is built out before the Delta Expressway is BB-2 completed. In addition, page 3-63 states that if the Cypress corridor development moves quickly to implementation, prior to the completion of the Delta Expressway, that a widening of Cypress Road on the east leg of the intersection would be necessary. 4-271 No where in the planning for the widening of Cypress Road on the east leg of the intersection has the issue been addressed of safety to entrances to the private driveways all along Cypress Road . That is my main concern. As my driveway fronts Cypress Road, the additional traffic caused by the construction of the ' Cypress Lakes project along with the increased traffic flow would make it a hazard to entering and exiting my driveway and those of my neighbors . BB-2 My recommendation to mitigate the above problem would be to create a middle turn lane into the various driveways along Cypress Road . This would allow a car traveling West on Cypress ' Road and wanting to make a left turn into a driveway to stop safely as it waits for the oncoming traffic to pass . This avoids any other cars traveling West to go off the shoulder to pass as is now often done . Most importantly it avoids any accidents caused by rear end collisions . Sincerely, Cecelia Peixoto ' 4-272 I'Response to Letter BB: Manuel and Cecelia Peixoto, January 30, 1993 Response BB-1: Comments noted. The comment provides additional clarification regarding the Laurel/Cypress connection. No additional response is necessary. i Response BB-2: The DEIR describes the future cross-section of Cypress Road. A precise plan line for this ' road has not been established, but it is understood that it will have four through travel lanes, plus a center area for left turn lanes and possibly a median island. The final design of the road ' relative to individual driveways on Cypress Road has not been established. The County will work with individual property owners during the final design process to ensure proper access, and . a safe, efficient design of left turn lanes. i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 4-273 XSRy L. Rmm Letter CC J=.12:1993 laSr CYPR= RD. OAK= GALIF: %561. PEONE: fistµ- 8 J ' DEAR MR. BERSFORD, 'jj, •� P;`-i !: 53 WHEN WE FIRST RECEIVED E; OR(_THE CYPRESS LAKES r ? _ 'PT ur- AND C OUNT'RY CLUB 'PRO.ECT, ),I WROTE YOU A LETTER EX- ' PLAINING MY REASON'S FOR PLOT WANMITG ,THIS PROJECT T'0 GO THROUGH. I STILL DO NTOT. AND My- REASONS ARE THE SAME. I AM ENCLOSING ONE OF THE NOTICES WE RECEIVE EVERY SO OFTEN FROM DU PONT. IN MY FIRST LETTER TO YOU, I MADE A MISTAKE AND NAMED DOW CHEMICAL CO. WHEN I REALIZED MY ERROR I. CALLED YOU AND ASK YOU TrO CHANGE MY LETTER TO READ DL; PONT'. IN FACT,YOU ASK ME HOW TO SPELL IT. THE REASON I ADD THIS, ' IS SO YOU MAY REMEMBER ME. SINCE I HAVE ALREADY HAD CAITCER , I THIN, I CAN ATTEST ' TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS NOTICE. SINCERELY, MARY L. REEWES 4-274 COMMUNITY NOTICE UNDER PROPOSITION 65, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates a facility at 6000 Bridgehead Road, Antioch, California, manufacturing white pigments and refrigerant gas. During the operation of this facility,substances which have been listed by the State of California as known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive harm are released to the ' environment.Detectable amounts of these chemicals may be found in and around the facility.Therefore,to meet its responsibilities under the California Health and Safety Code,Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13,Du Pont provides the following: WARNING:Du Pont's Antioch fmcility emits certain chemicals known to the State of California to cause ' cancer,birth defects or other reproductive harm Du Pont operates the Antioch Works in compliance with the law and is recognized as a responsible corporate citizen and a good neighbor.The overall safety and health of our employees,the public,and our customers is our ' number one priority. Should you require further information,please feel free to contaa us—P.O.Box 310,Antioch,California 94509. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:.................. Este es un aviso de E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company de 6000 Bridgehead Road,Antioch,California De conformidad con la Proposici6n 65 del Estado de California Du Pont les provee a uds.el aviso siguiente: AVISO: La fibrica Du Pont en Antioch emite unas substancias gaimicas conocidas por el Estado de , California como causantes de cancer,defectos del nacimiento u otros daiios reproductivos. Si requiere ma's information por favor esrnSenos—P.O.Box 310,Antioch,California 94509. a r i i . r 4-275 ' Response to Letter CC: Mary ReevesJanuary 12 1993 rComments noted. This issue has been addressed in the DEIR at Page 3-221. No additional response is necessary. 1 1 1 4-276 February 9 , 1993 �- 14 Letter DD �o , Mr . Art Beresford Contra Costa Co . Community Dept . 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA. - 94553-0095 RE : CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY CLUB Dear Mr. Beresford : As the lead agency for the above project , I would think that the Community ' Development Agency would have been MUCH MORE STRINGENT in checking the EIR to see that it was as accurate as possible BEFORE printing same . It is apparent that most of the items covered in the EIR have been dictated by ' DD-1 the developer and his crew, without any thought to the dangers this project will have on the owners and residents on Sandmound Blvd , and adjoining areas . As paid employees of Contra Costa County , I believe much more consideration should be given to the "people" and their safety rather than to a developer , whom the County is looking to for money to fill their coffers . It is hard to believe that you can ' t see the dangers of allowing the building , of an internal levee. Has any thought been given to the fact that IF there is a break on the existing levee where the water will go - it will go North and South and everyone in the area , including the Condos , will be subject to flooding and the possibility of bei-n.g stranded as well as the possibility of , DD-2 drowning . Can the Agency and the County live with that thought? How about the residents who have not been included in your haphazard mailings of notices (the Condos at the end of Sandmound) because the law states only those who are within 300 feet of the project are to be notified - these residents are in ' danger as much as anyone . Have you ever been near a pile-driver in action? Can you say that the constant hammering and shaking didn ' t bother you? I doubt• it - so what do you think is going to happen when this ten '( 10) ton monster starts for the dewatering DD-3 process? Are you going to insist that the developer post a bond for damages to property or is it possible that your Agency feels the residents don ' t count ' or maybe they will move out of the area and you and the developer can do whatever??? The County is in a budget crisis and it appears it is going to get worse - so who ' s going to pay for equipment and manpower for a fire station , sheriff protection , schools , etc . ? Who is going to live in this project - a great DD-4 percentage of the projects in the County now are empty - do you and the County ' expect to draw from other areas ? If so , how are they going to like the idea of commuting with insufficient roads? Can you provide a definite date as to when the highways will be built? Can you give the cost of same? 4-277 February 9 , 1993 Page 2 Art Beresford ' Contra Costa Coy Comm` Dept , The developer ' s map shows the tentative location of the proposed school VERY NEAR a drill site . It would seem to me that your Agency would have J-5 spotted this and would have moved the school to another site . Have you ever heard of a well exploding? What about the children - don ' t they count? When questions are asked of Staff , most of the time they have no answers and the East County Regional Planning Commission , for the most part , is so bored they don ' t even hear what is being said by the speakers . It certainly appears that this project is "cut b dried" and only motions are being gone thru in order to stay within the law. A perfect example was the meeting of 2/1 /93 the Commission set March 1st for the next meeting BUT the developer cried ' )-6 ( literally) to have the meeting on February 8th because they had already spent a lot of money , wanted to get started on their project , etc . . . . .no consideration given to the owners/residents . I am aware that the Commissioners ' are volunteers ; however , if they are willing and able to volunteer then they should be willing to put forth their obligations rather than making people feel they are ignorant and don ' t know what they are talking about . At the meeting of 2/1 /93 ( I believe I heard you correctly) you made the follow- ing statement when you were recapping the project - "developer wants an in- DD.7 ternal levee in order to get out of the 100 year flood plain" - where did this information originate , is it in writing and by whom? I don ' t recall seeing a document this important included in the EIR. As I understand from last night ' s meeting , your Agency assured all that when the final EIR is returned to the East County Regional Planning Commission ALL .8 QUESTIONS AND SUBJECTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE HEARING WILL BE ANSWERED . I personally find this hard to believe as NONE of the subjects have been covered to the satisfaction of the owners/residents in any of the draft EIR ' s . ' We were advised that letters would be received until February 16th . . .however , I quote from Page Two (2) of the East County Regional Planning Commission February 8 , 1993 agenda - "The Planning Commission at hearings on zoning matters , variances or land use permit applications , must base their decision 9 on competent evidence. LETTERS WILL BE RECEIVED AND FILED BUT CANNOT , IN GENERAL , BE CONSIDERED COMPETENT EVIDENCE UNLESS PERSONALLY PRESENTED AT A HEARING BY A WITNESS , SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION . " I believe someone needs to elaborate on this statement - it appears that letters you do receive WILL NOT BE IN ORDER AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED . Please comment . sVe rruly your F1 s .�Wm.jM M . he rwood 4818 Sandmound Blvd . Oakley , CA. 94561 cc Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Co. 4-278 Response to Letter DD: Mrs. William Sherwood February 9 1993 p Y , Response DD-1: Comments noted. The DEIR was prepared by an independent environmental consultant hired by Contra Costa County. The County Development Department thoroughly reviewed the DEIR and feels that it discloses the potential impacts of the project on adjacent residents. Response DD-2: The DEIR discusses potential impacts from the proposed internal levee on pages 3-130 to 3-139. The county is required by law to notice all meetings of the East County Regional Planning Commission. Notification of all meetings involving the Cypress Lakes Project included direct mailing of notices to properties within 300 feet of the project site and placing an ad in the Antioch Daily Ledger so that all area residents who may be interested are provided notice of such meetings. Response DD-3: Refer to Responses L-7 and Z-20. Response DD-4: Impacts and mitigation for local service providers are discussed in Chapters 3.9 and 3.10 of the DEIR. The project would be required to pay its fair share to all local service providers. In addition, the applicant would construct the roadway improvements listed in Table 3.2-6(A) on page 3-53 of the DEIR. ' Response DD-5: Refer to Response Z-23. Also see the discussion in the DEIR at Page 3-218. Response DD-6: ' Comment noted. This comment addresses County staff and meetings held regarding the project, which are issues unrelated to the DEIR. Response DD-7: As discussed in Chapter 2.7 - Hydrology and Drainage (pages 3-118 to 3-146 of the DEIR) and two technical reports: Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lakes Project by Kleinfelder, Inc. (August 1992) and Informational Report for the Proposed Levee System by Bohley/Maley Associates (1992), the purpose of the proposed internal levee is to remove the project site from the 100-year flood zone. However, as stated on page 3-130 of the 4-279 DEIR, FEMA approval is necessary before the site can be removed from the flood zone. Also see Response EE-20. Response DD-8: ' Comment noted. The Draft EIR was not required by CEQA to include public comments and responses to those comments. This is the role of this Final EIR, which includes copies of all written comments and transcripts of all verbal comments made on the Draft EIR, as well as written responses to all comments made on significant environmental issues (Section 15088, CEQA Guidelines). Response DD-9- The public comment period on this project officially ended on February 16, 1993. All comment letters received through February 16 are responded to in this Final EIR. r 4-280 Diane Shipway M r Letter EE P.O. Box 872 Bethel Island, CA 94511 (510) 684-3967 FE8,3 January 20, 199306 ov. t. ��23 EC Or,i�`r7b, Contra Costa County Communuwdevelopment Dept. V7-,0FpT ATIENTION: Art Beresford ' 651 Pine St.North Wing -Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Cypress Lakes& Country Club Dear Mr.Beresford, , Again I am complaining about the meeting notifications on this project. My neighbor called me on 1/15/93 and asked if I was going to the planning meeting. I told him that you had personally called me a few weeks before and had told me about it but I hadn't received a notice of the meeting as yet. He told me he had his for about 8 days which gave him a chance to get a hold of this 13/4'document. I am not the only person who has attended these meetings and then have not gotten notification of the meeting (Rhonda Hansen, Bob Council, John Zukaukas, Richard Kent, ' Gus Bu&holtz). I called your office on 1/15/92 and left a message for you to call and I did get a call back a few days later. Beings that I couldn't even get through to a government office till EE-1 1/19/93 to obtain a copy of the ED?, I was luckily able to borrow a neighbors copy for a few ' days. I have read quite a bit but I still feel I am unprepared to address all the issues without more time to peruse the material. I am requesting that you hear what I have to say tonight but I am also asking that another public meeting be held to give everyone a chance to read the copious amount of material that has been presented to us. This is to big of an issue to be decided in such 1 a short amount of time, my neighbors and I will be effected by this project forever, the developer will be gone in 5-10 years,this commission will be filled with new faces and the supervisors will be on to other things. You have to listen to our concerns and apprehensions and realize why we want some guarantees. This is my families and my life and future you are planning so please take us into consideration when you make your decisions. Traffic (PG 3-35) This report states that summer weekend traffic can occasionally be quite heavy due to boaters and recreational activities on the Island. But the report doesn't think it will EE-2 be any problem. Did they take into consideration that Bethel Island's economy is based on these boaters and RV's to get here easily. If we are subjected to 5-10 years of road work (Pages 3-56 ' & 3-74) these people will go somewhere else because of the hassle of getting here. 5-10 years of construction traffic and road work is a long time for a small recreational area's economy. On Page 3-38 the report states that most of the bike traffic "were children riding to school". ' EE-3 That's because our area has grown so fast and the funds for schools are not enough to keep up with the schools and these parents dont have the $250.00 to pay the bus fees. A n page 3-40 It states "This traffic analysis has not been conducted im detail beyond SR 4 inEE-4 ntioch. Well don't you think it should? That's where the jobs are, and the hospitals. I'm worried that on page 3-53 the 'Projects that would be required by Cypress Lakes Itself EE-5 (without any other development taking place)" will come to be. Like the Hoffoian/Vintage Park School deal. Where are the guarantees? I 4-281 i Page 3-70 Name & phone number of a designated dust control coordinator will be posted at the site. Shouldn't the neighbors be given this information up front. How can we be sure where on the 685.9 acres this notice will be? Will an on-site construction office be on site? EE-6 will it have regular office hours? With a PERSON to talk to? What do they consider "High Winds"? Small Craft Warning? Gale Warning? Storm Warming?Hurricane Warning? We need a definition. On page 2-22 they state extreme winds. Small Craft is up to 38 MPH, Gale is 39-54 MPH Storm is 55-73 MPH, Hurricane is 74 MPH. Now what is their definition of Extreme winds? ' EE-7 Again on page 3-99 there are still no 4 story homes on Sandmound. Pg 3-101 Those pesky power lines again. Will Medivac be able to land behind the fire house? r EE-8 Would it be safe for pacemaker patients? I understand that there are experts on both sides of this issue but from a lay persons view I feel the power lines need to be studied more before we put homes right next to them, and parks and children's playgrounds underneath them. ' Pg 3-101 States "often times smoke and haze obscures the mountains making them less visible" EE-9 (See Figure 3.5-3) The views in Fig 3.5-3 face east, north and north west, there are no views toward the mountain If we have a hard time now seeing the mountains because of smoke and ' haze do you think we need 1330 more fireplaces BBQ's and traffic? Pg 3-105 States " Views to the west from existing homes along Sandmound would be obstructed by the levee and proposed project." FEMA states the levee system should provide protection from flood. From their standpoint it will protect them but from our view point it will increase EE-10 our damages. I would like to see a report from FEMA stating how this levee has to look from my side. The report says no rock- what does FEMA say? The projects describes landscaping - ' Will FEMA want rip-rap? wont that be a pretty site? Depends on which side of the levee you are looking. Again one of the unavoidable consequences of the project. ' Pg 3-106 Report talks of landscaping outside the project levee to provide additional screening. EE-11 Should be trees and shrubs if it doesn't affect levee maintenance. When the district cleans our ditches now there are no trees or shrubs left. Then these people want to plant cottonwoods? Not ' a good choice for those of us with allergies. Pg 3-109 "Noise measurement program was conducted during the weekday because it is typically noisier than weekends." Study done on May 26-27. How can it it noisier? The kids ' EE-12 are in school,the tourists are gone and every one else is back to work. Another report that can be written for the results you want to obtain. ' EE-13 Pg 3-113 States levee would reduce noise level ON THE PROTECT SITE but no mention of how the noise will echo between our levee and theirs down in our gulch. Hydrology and Drainage I would like to see Rec Dist 799 reports. But on a few things I do have comments. ' Water Quality Pg 3-129 Again pump station for benefit of project.and their capacity. During storm periods excess water would then be pumped to ultimate disposal in Sandmound Slough. This would EE-14 increase the amount of water into Sandmound Slough along with whatever else is in the water. ' will this have a great impact on us when we have 6' tides, full moons and a south storm happening? I THINK SO! Pg 3-130 Rock will not be utilized, generally placed on the exterior slope (our side) of the water EE-15 side to protect from erosion. The proposed levee will be built on dry ground and not adjacent to any waterway. For now that may be true but if we flood it will be adjacent real quick. ' 4-282 1 i Pg 3-133 To prepare for future raising of the levee the report proposes adding material to the EE-16 outside of the levee (our side), no change to the interior side of the levee (their side), and the toe ditch would need to be relocated (again our side). New levee may settle during construction. Consolidation would occur during levee EE-17 construction and possibly one or two years thereafter BUT would not have any effect on adjacent structures. Again what guarantees do we have? Ground water Pg 3-133 Along with the levee this is another major concern to me. While the project is de-watering and pounding a swath 100'wide by 15' deep I really feel My house will rattle itself apart -I don't care EE-18 what all their fancy engineers say. Also nothing was mentioned about our underground water ' and sewer pipes being affected by this pounding and de-watering. We need some sort of bond to protect us from such eventualities. Pg 3-135 If the existing levee fails the project will be protected by internal levee. Isn't that nice , EE-19 they'll be protected and stranded and we get to go over there for evacuation. Do we go to the golf club house or the beach club house? Then what? References to Appendix F which is the will serve letter from Oakley Water Dist. ' States flooding is speculative & cannot be quantified. But its a big enough possibility that a EE-20 levee needs to be built all the way around the project because their engineer says our levees are a ' night mare. Sounds ambiguous to me. EE-21 I Pg 3-139 I'm very concerned with excess storm water runoff. Pg 3-141 Who will monitor& maintain water quality of the lake & channels? States 'Pumping of this water into Sandmound Slough would provide a beneficial impact on water quality of EE-22 Sandmound Slough as long as the water quality of the lake and channel is properly maintained." ' The phrase "AS LONG AS" is very important. Well what if it's not properly maintained? Who will be responsible? Pg 3-143 States the County would periodically monitor storm water discharge for pollutant levels. Does the County have the man power and funding for this? Who is going to monitor EE-23 during the storms and periods of high run off. What if they have to make a choice between releasing polluted waters or them flooding, what would they choose? ' 3.7-2 They get underground storm drainage pipes EE-2413.7-3 Exterior side (my side) gets drainage ditches Water Quality Pg 3-146 EE-25 3.7-14 Information packet shall be distributed to project residents upon purchase of each house. What about on the resale? Down the road people will come and go and newcomers will not be informed? What about new residents who don't care to be educated? 3.7-15 I love this one. The street sweeping program, I can`t tell you how many times I've had to EE-26 swerve around all the street sweepers I've seen from the county on our road. I'm joking. I would like to see the Counties "existing street sweeping program" in June with new budget. EE-27 3.7-16 I don't trust the project to maintain the lake &channels. I think an impartial entity should maintain waterali . � ty I'I EE-28 What will the Homeowners fee ultimately be? They sure state in a lot of places that if the County wont pay the Homeowners will. What will that be on top of a 320,000 dollar mortgage 4-283 ' payment? ' PG 3-157 Liquefaction Excavate, rework and densify the loose clean and silty sands under the levee to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. That heavy weight has me worried. They say would not have any affect on adjacent EE-29 residences. If they are so sure of their statements then a cash bond would not be an unreasonable condition. I can feel the school bus come down my road now, what will constant vibration do to my house? I don't know but I know my homeowners insurance wont pay for it. I think this ' problem is going to make some lawyer, somewhere a very rich man. Pg 3-163 3.9 Public Services Fire Services- I would like to see the Fire Dept. responses. Building a site is one thing but the EE-30 emergency response equipment,administration, staff training and overall maintenance is another. We're facing a new assessment on us now because of state budget cuts and the county is talking ' of cutting fire services so how will they afford this addition? Police Protection- Another County service that is facing large budget woes. With the budget EE-31 cut backs how will we fund another officer and equipment? We'll know in June if the sub station stays open. Ifs already shut down at night. I would like to see the Sheriff Departments report. I still see no mention of the Marine Patrol. ' Schools-3-174 States "Liberty Union High School District provides busing" It should say that it provides busing for a fee of $250 per child. We've built 3 new schools and they are all at or beyond opacity. More funding will be needed to fund new schools. If we vote down Bond Measures well just be hit with a Mello-Roos tax on a permanent, annual basis. EE-32 What will happen to that 10 aces after OUESD determines the school site is unacceptable due ' to location within project, next to slough,wetlands,lake and pump out? Will this be 10 acres of RV storage? ' County Code says Street lighting shall be provided along all streets within one mile of schools. If we get a school at the designated site well be lit up like day time. That will be more than just a glow`. ' Parks&other Recreation Facilities EE-33 Pg 3-183 The Lake and channels would be cared for, maintained and operated by the homeowners association. I don't trust them to protect my interests on the outside of the project. ' It's my understanding that the project was paid big bucks for the easement for the power lines, now they can use that land as open space and parks, build right up next to them, then give it to EE-34 the county for public parks and the general find maintains it? Is that right? It still looks like the major portion of the Public Park is under the lines. This issue was sort of skimmed over. When incoming residents get a copy of the CC&Rs stating they are aware of the health issues related to living near the transmission lines will that release the developer of liability? The project still wants trails on top of the levees encouraging bikes, pedestrians and golf carts which is still inconsistent with the existing levee uses. If you can use one levee the residents will EE-35 assume they can use others and that's not the case. How do they plan to keep these people out of my yard? Water Pg 3-190 Still doesn't recognize the Oakley Mutual Water District wells. Does that mean EE-36 the,don't have to worry about us? 4-284 I know the project has spent a lot of money on the original report and this second report and it certainly looks like they have addressed all of our concerns but the out come is still the same. They paid big bucks to get the issues addressed so it would pass through you and on to the supervisors but nothing is resolved about the levee's and the de-watering, I'm still concerned and EE-37 I don't feel they have put in any protection for the neighbors already here. The phrase I find consistently is "unavoidable short term impact" which I translate to mean "Stuff Happens" and you know what I mean. I recommend a cash bond be posted so when "Stuff Happens" we will not have to spend years in court with high dollar lawyers trying to get compensated for problems vie are telling you about now. And again I would like to request another hearing on this matter so the people who didn't get ' notified have a chance to respond Respectfully., Diane Shipw ' 1 S 4-285 ' Response to Letter EE: Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993 Response EE-1: Comment noted. Two public hearings were held on the DEIR (February 1 and 8, 1993) and written comments were accepted from December 31, 1992 until February 16, 1993. This FEIR responds to all comments received regarding the DEIR. Response EE-2: The timeframe for constructing the road improvements necessitated by the proposed project is described in Table 3.2-6(A) of the DEIR. These improvements are not expected to require the 5-10 years of road work inferred by the commentor. Improvements to the Cypress Road/Bethel Island Road intersection would be completed when about 500 units are occupied. ' Construction of Cypress Road from Machado Lane to 1,000 feet east of Knightsen Road would be completed before 1,000 units are occupied. These improvements would occur in less than a five-year period. The timing of other road improvements would depend on other developments in the area, and is not possible to be estimated at this time. Response EE-3: Comment noted. See Response 1-1. Issues regarding school funding and bus fees are unrelated to the proposed project and EIR. No additional response is necessary. Response EE-4: The traffic analysis for the General Plan addresses traffic issues and impacts of regional development. A discussion of the jobs/housing balance appears on page 3-7 of the DEIR. While many East County residents now commute to various East Bay employment centers, the jobs/housing ratio is expected to improve with increased demand for new services and businesses in the East County area. Response EE-S: The roadway improvements identified on page 3-53 of the DEIR are specific mitigation measures required of the project. As such, they would be made conditions of the project's approval if accepted by the County Board of Supervisors. Response EE-6: The following mitigation measure should be added to the EIR regarding the dust control coordinator: 4-286 i • In addition to the dust control measures proposed as part of the project, the project sponsor should post the name and phone number (business and non-business hours) for the dust control coordinator along the perimeter of the project site and provide this information by mail to residents within 1,000 feet of the project site. =� It is not possible to specify a threshold wind speed that would result in the suspension of dust-producing activities since the effect of wind on dust production is greatly affected by soil moisture and other factors. The following mitigation measure has been added to address this concern: • Earthmoving and other dust-producing activities should be suspended when watering and other dust-control measures are unable to eliminate visible dust plumes. Response EE-7: According to field surveys, many homes in the project vicinity are three or four stories ' tall (two to three stories over a garage). However, there are a number of homes in the project vicinity that are single-story. Response EE-8: M' "Please refer to Response to Letter P for a discussion of potential effects.from power lines. Response EE-9: The air quality impacts of the project are evaluated in detail in section 3.3 of the DEIR, q Y P P J beginning on page 3-64. The DEIR identifies that the project would result in an unavoidable adverse impact on regional air quality ( for the pollutants NOx and ROG). Response EE-10: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any criteria regarding the visual appearance of the levee from surrounding areas. FEMA's engineering consultant will look at the levee proposed for the project and will evaluate not only the design r and maintenance issues, but also the proposed landscaping and other protective measures that would be built into the facility to assure its continued protection to the development. A portion of the information to be sent to FEMA is attached to Letter U. At the time an application is made to remove the project area from the flood hazard zone, complete construction documents (plans and specifications) would be required to be submitted along with the requests for removal. The project applicant is not proposing to rip-rap (rock) the exterior slope of the proposed levee. Rip-rap is generally required for levees that are exposed to water. The rip-rap is used on the water side to prevent erosion. 4-287 1 ResponseEE-11: Visual mitigation includes two types: 1) Landscape on the proposed levees (see Mitigation Measure 3.5-8) and ' 2) Landscape outside the levee cross-section (see Mitigation Measure 2.5-4) The second mitigation measure is proposed so that screening of the levee would occur even if no landscaping is allowed on the levee. This type of landscaping would not be affected by maintenance activities. The listing in the DEIR of trees suitable for planting on residential levees contains the Fremont Cottonwood Po ulus fremontii . The project sponsor will attempt to guide the landscape architect to limit the use of this tree on the levee system. Response EE-12: The noise measurement program was conducted during the weekday because the noise consultant's experience indicates that weekday noise levels are typically higher than weekend levels; the program, therefore, is based on conservative figures. The major noise in the vicinity of the project is vehicular traffic on Bethel Island Road. Normal commute traffic will generate the most noise during the day. This commute traffic will tend to control the 24-hour noise level (DNL). Although children are in school, they travel between their homes and school during weekdays and this would also contribute to the daily noise levels. On the weekends, children are not in school and, therefore, they do not travel to and from school. It is possible that mid ' day noise levels might be slightly higher on the weekend with heavy recreational traffic. However, it is unlikely that it would contribute significantly to the 24-hour noise level or exceed existing weekday noise levels. Another aspect of environmental noise that will help to clarify this issue is the relationship of traffic volumes to traffic noise. In order to increase noise levels by three decibels (considered "just noticeable"), traffic volumes must double, Consequently, a 10% or 20% difference in traffic volumes would contribute to a change of one decibel or less in the noise level in the project vicinity. Taking this into account, minor fluctuations in traffic volumes, whether during the peak ' hour or off-peak hour, would have a less-than-significant effect on the 24-hour noise level. Response EE-13: Sound echos (or reflections) are typically produced in rooms where there are many hard surfaces for sound to reflect. In the outdoor noise environment, achieving this situation with hard surfaces is difficult except for inner city areas where there are tall buildings and relatively narrow r streets. It can also be a concern on freeways where noise barriers are constructed. For the project site, the distance between the levees is relatively great with respect to the height of the ' levees. Since these levees are basically earthen berms, they are graded such that the faces of the 4-288 r feasible, other methods are available to obtain the same compaction results, such as excavation ' and recompaction. Response EE-19: , Comments noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-10, page 3-144 of the DEIR specifically calls for the preparation of a detailed Emergency Evacuation Plan to address these concerns. Response EE-20: The General Plan precludes substantial residential development in the flood plain. Response EE-21: ' As explained above (see Response EE-14), excess storm water runoff from the project would be contained within the project and pumped to disposal directly into Sand Mound Slough. Existing storm runoff from the project area that is presently being pumped by RD-799 to Sand Mound or Dutch Sloughs, would be pumped by the project pump station. Response EE-22: The Homeowners Association would be responsible for the continued maintenance of the quality of the water within the lake/channels. As outlined on Pages 3-141 and 3-142 of the DEIR, the County would perform periodic monitoring to ascertain compliance with the NPDES permit that will be required for discharge of excess waters into Sand Mound Slough. Response EE-23: ' The intent would be for the Homeowners Association to perform all of the monitoring, with the reports being furnished to the County on an agreed upon schedule. In the absence of, or a breakdown in, the water quality being reported, the County would probably take samples on an unannounced basis and perform their own analysis to assure compliance with the NPDES permit. Response EE-24: Comment noted. The project applicant is proposing an underground drainage system on the project site. Response EE-25: Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-14, page 3-146 of the DEIR is revised as follows: 4-290 1 ! . l ' 3.7-14 An informationalP acket shall be distributed to all project residents to educate them on the use and disposal of undesirable materials such as motor oil, paints, garden pesticides and other household products. The informational packet should be d•stFibuted t„ fll—i ^� r ';dents upon parehas of-e-ach hie contained in the CC&Rs for each house. (Responsibility: Project Applicant) 1 Response EE-26: ! Comment noted. The comment addresses the County's street sweeping program, not the proposed project or DEIR. Response EE-27: Please refer to Response EE-14, above. Response EE-28: No response necessary. The comment is related to the financial burden of future homeowners and is unrelated to the DEIR. Response EE-29: See Response EE-18 and Response Z-20. Response EE-30: Impacts to local service providers are discussed Chapter 3.9 in the DEIR. Both fire districts were contacted regarding the project's impacts and the proposed fire station. Their responses are provided in Chapter 3.9 of the DEIR. The applicant would be required to pay its fair share for all public services and utilities necessary to serve the proposed project. Response EE-31: Please refer to Response EE-30, above. Existing development would not be responsible for funding of improvements necessary to serve the project. Response EE-32: ' Comments noted. The comment expresses a personal observation of the commentor. See Response I-1 regarding school impact fees. The DEIR evaluated a school at this site. If a different site is proposed, additional review and approval by the County would be required. The County Subdivision Ordinance does require street lights on public streets within one mile of any school. The County could consider an exception to this requirement along Sandmound Boulevard. 4-291 r Response EE-33: ' Comment noted. The comment addresses mistrust of Homeowners' Associations to adequately maintain the lake and channels. Homeowners' Associations are often responsible for such maintenance activities. No additional response is necessary. Response EE-34: The location of the proposed park is discussed on pages 3-183 and 3-185 of the DEIR and mapped on Figure 3.9.3, page 3-184, and on all other maps of the project site. Mitigation Measure 3.9-10 proposes that no active recreational uses be located within the powerline easement. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 describes the CC&R's. The question of indemnification is a legal issue, not an environmental issue. The acquisition of easements for the WAPA line is not the subject of this EIR. Response EE-35: Comment noted. The proposed levee system would allow pedestrian and bicycle access, which is different than the existing levee system. However, pedestrian access to the existing levee is not allowed. Response EE-36: Figure 3.10-1 on page 3-190 of the DEIR is not intended to represent all wells in the project vicinity. The Oakley Mutual Water District is mentioned on page 3-189. As stated on page 3-189, there are also an unknown number of private wells, these are not all mapped. Response EE-37: Comments noted. The purpose of the revised DEIR was to address all concerns identified. The decision-making body may still approve a project that has unavoidable adverse impacts. Before doing so, however, the decision-making body must make findings demonstrating how the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts of the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must be approved with certification of the EIR. Also see Response Z-20. r 4-292 i _ � Linda Wadsworth 7» 4065 Woodhaven Lane -"'� Oakley, California9456l / U� Letter FF cn ^ �vrE±yPH 12: February 2, l993 Contra Costa County Community Dev�lopDEht Dept AttentionMr . Arthur Beresford 65l Fine Street Martinez California 945�3-0095 ' ! Re : County File # 2918-R2 - Request to rezone and approve EIR ' for property in Reclamation District 799, i . e . Cypress Lakes and County Club etc . � ]� ~~ Dear Mr . Beresford; The environmental Impact Report for this project does not reveal the impact of this levee on the property owners on Sandmound and the area in general . What will the effect of noise between these levees . be? What about our entrapment between these levees? What about air N� quality between the levees? I feel it is totally wrong for this subdivision to be considered for re-zoning in it' s present form . Almost everyone in the area would like to see a new development such as this come into our area . the keyword is into our area, and not be | allowed to become a community onto itself . Their levee within a levee would tear our neighborhood into separated spaces (safe and unsafe zones) . This would be extremely unfair to the people living on N� Sandmound, Cypress and all areas nearby . This subdivision would not be an improvement to the area and instead would be a total injustice to our entire community . It is obvious to anyone, that a levee surrounding the new subdivision would immediately speak a thousand words and the huge . statement would imply that the rest of the immediate area should be considered less than desirable and unsafe . If ' in fact a re-zoning ' were to be considered, the entire area rightfully should be included in this safe zone . This new subdivision should be part of this expensive recreational area and not be barricaded within a dry levee m� and become a interruptive community within our community . The only reason one would even consider such a disturbing venture' would have . to be the added tax revenue the county would gain . I certainly hope this re-zoning issue is re:&olved to benefit the entire existing area instead of just this particular developer . I sincerely hope our Board . of Supervisors will consider the devastating effect this will have on N� our property, and insist that this new development come into our ` neighborhood in a more friendly fashion . It is appalling to me that only recently has it become clear that � 0� they intend to surround the new subdivision with huge dry levees . Please stop this project with it' s levees now, and make sure we all become safe . . . . | 0� ) @� --- - Linda Wadsworth ' 4-203 Response to Letter FF: Linda Wadsworth, February 2, 1993 Response FF-1: See Responses EE-12 and EE-13 regarding noise impacts. See Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR and Response EE-9 regarding air quality impacts. ' See the •DEIR, Page 3-139 for a discussion of alternative levee improvements. The potential for internal levees was discussed as part of the Bethel Island Specific Plan, the County General Plan, and in the NOP and DEIR for these projects. Also see Response EE-20. Comment noted. The remaining comments represent the opinion of the commentor and �. does not address a significant impact on the environment or the adequacy of the EIR. No additional response is necessary. i 4-294 4.5 PUBLIC HEARINGS is 4-295 ' Letter GG (Public testimony) EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 1, 1993 ' Present: S. Planch6n, E. Andrieu, J. Hanson, D. Maybee, E. Sobalvarro and E. Wetzel Absent: H. Hern Staff: M. Fleming and Art Beresford Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, now we' ll get down to the stuff that all you people are really here for tonight. It's about time, ha. Before we get started, before we get started and open this up, any of you who wish to speak on the Hotchkiss Tract bring your papers up and give them to Debbie there. commissioner E. Sobalvarro: We have a whole stack, move to 5 minutes. Chairperson S. Planchon: Before we get started on this again, a little bit of background on this and what we're going to consider tonight so they' ll be no mistake in what we're trying to do. (In background, number 1 is on the top, thank you. ) We're going to open up number 4 on the agenda and .we're going to talk on the modified EIR. We're going to spend the evening on the modified EIR. Staff recommends that the East County Regional Planning Commission take testimony . concerning the revised draft Environmental Impact Report, close the hearing and allow further written comment on the EIR to 5 : 00 p.m. , Tuesday, February 16 . That's only a recommendation at this point. Last August, but rather last September and October, the East County Regional Planning Commission held hearings on the EIR for the Cypress Lakes Project. As a result of those comments the EIR was .revised and a new draft EIR was circulated. In December 1992 the State Court of Appeal set the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan aside. As a result of that court action there is no longer a Bethel Island Specific Plan. The controlling document in regards to development in the Hotchkiss Tract area is now the county-wide General Plan. Would you like to give us some background on this, staff? M. Fleming: Okay, just for the record I just want to clarify that this is A.J. Salomon Chartered Land & Cattle Company, Applicant, and Three Sisters Trust and it's County File 2918-RZ 3032-90 and Subdivision 7562 , and we will be taking testimony on the EIR and we just like to remind people that, um, the comments need to be on the adequacy of the EIR. We're not ready to address the project itself yet so we would ask the people confine their comments to the EIR question. Um, I don't think we have any other comments unless you'd like to have Art just go over the general 1:\vol2\cl is n t\19018\[CIt]'C.021 4-296 description of the application before you do this. Would you like to hear from him on that? Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, would the Commission like to hear? They nod "yes. " M. Fleming: Okay. A. Beresford: Well, you've heard this before Commissioners and the large map behind you is the site plan proposal for the so-called Cypress Lakes development which is a planned unit development consisting of the applications of 9-180Z to be zoned a site from general heavy agricultural zoning districts to planned unit developmental, P-1. Within that development would be a planned development, planned subdivision to create 1, 330 residential units surrounding partially a lake and a golf course. There's also a proposal part of the development is to levee the site, to remove it from the 100-year flood plain to allow for construction of residences on the ground surface and I might say there would be further development plans that need to be filed for the club house site and let me see, correct me if I 'm wrong, I think that's it. Uh, there is also a proposal for a fire station on the site which the developer would have to construct, a school site, a beach club and day care center. Uh, the extension of Cypress Road across the site to Sandmound Boulevard and, of course, off-site the improvement of Sandmound, excuse me, Cypress Lakes then Byron Road off-site. Also connection from the site to Sandmound Boulevard to the north. Um, that kind of covers the general gist of what the proposal is for. What it essentially is 1, 330 single-family residential units, um, surrounding a lake and channels and a golf club and golf course. There are also wetlands on the site probably in the area to the east so called Willows area south of the school site, I'm not sure along somewhere, but wetlands are to be preserved and, uh, protected along the site, oh, I 'm sorry, there's a wetlands area near the golf club house site. Um, as I say, this hearing is primarily on the adequacy of the revised draft EIR, taken particularly because some of the issues raised and also as you no doubt know as Chairman Planchon mentioned the Bethel Island Specific Plan does not exist. any longer so the EIR would have removed those references to the Bethel Island Specific Plan. The governing document now is the County General Plan. I could pin it up for you but it says Specific Plan and I would have to modify it but the land use designations are the same. This is still the off- island bonus area and it allows for residential developments up to 2 . 9 units per net acre if adequate publicly accessible recreational facilities are provided. It's one of the decisions you' ll ultimately have to make, is this adequate for the density proposed? I also mentioned there is the existing power lines which run through the extreme southwest corner of the site, the older power lines,. are you all familiar with that I 'm sure, and of course you, I always want to say WAPA but the new power lines that run through :\voi2\dic nI\I9oib\FCR11C.ai 4-297 the southeast corner of the site and those have recently been constructed. There are also three small, relatively small parcels which are not part of the project, uh, property owned, there's two one acre, approximately one acre sites and I 'm sure this site here I think is about a half an acre or a little less. They are not part of the project and you ought to consider some of their conflicts and I 'm sure you' ll hear their discussion on that with the project. I don't know, are there other questions? Essentially what you're hearing now is the adequacy or non-adequacy of the revised draft EIR for the project. Commissioner J. Hanson: You said there are still the three units that are within. A. Beresford: These three properties are not a part of the project. Commissioner J. Hanson: They're still within the project. A. Beresford: Those are still there, yes. Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay, thank you, Art. A. Beresford: Sure. Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, we're going to open this up for the public hearing. I have. . . A. Beresford: May I say. I should have introduced Scott Steinwert, who is the consultant on the Environmental Impact Report who will give a presentation and answer any additional questions you may have. Chairperson S. Planchon: At the end or right now would you like to have him? A. Beresford: Usually I think at the beginning of it. Chairperson S. Planchon: Sure, come forward. A. Beresford: Go over some of the changes that I should have mentioned. S. Steinwert: I 'm Scott Steinwert with Public Affairs Management .� and as Art indicated our firm prepared the revised draft EIR. Just as a point of reference our firm also prepared the first draft EIR that was before you several months ago. Um, I 'd like to just point out some of the changes. I know it's getting late and we got a lot of people here who want to speak on this subject so I ' ll try to be brief. ' I ' ll just try to highlight some of the changes that we've incorporated into this revised draft EIR. As Art mentioned in 1:\%,o12\clicnt\19019\1:('iil'('.021 4-298 response to comments on the first draft EIR, the project applicant revised their application to include some additional information about the project design and their mitigation measures. That information has been incorporated into this document into the. revised EIR and evaluated as to its ability to mitigate the impacts of the project. There has also been some additional technical , analyses that were conducted in response to some of the comments on the first draft EIR. To point out some of the areas that have been revised and where additional information has been included, some of the additional information that has been included regarding the landscaping of the project and the golf course maintenance issues. That has been added to the EIR and we've evaluated that as part of the revisions. Um, additional information about the wetlands on the site as well as the wetland mitigation plans have been included and evaluated as well as the amount of park land that is proposed, its location and the adequacy of that park land. One of the other issues that was raised in the response to the first draft EIR was the water quality . issues and the lake management plans. In response to that the project applicant has prepared more detailed management plans and those are included in the revised draft EIR and we have reviewed their adequacy as part of our revisions. The technical analyses that have been included since the first draft EIR primarily relate to excavation of the proposed lakes and the proposed construction of the internal levee system. The technical analyses primarily look at the potential for soil subsidence, groundwater draw down, which were two issues that were identified as important in the review of the first draft EIR. Another area that we looked at in more detail were flood hazards and what we did was looked at scenario in the event of a levee breach of the RD 799 levees if the proposed project was in place with its internal levee system and how the project would change the hydraulic characteristics of RD 799 . One of the other primary areas as Art mentioned that has been revised in the EIR is that the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan has been set aside by the courts. We have removed all references to that document and evaluated this project in its conformance with the policies and development guidelines of the Contra Costa County General Plan. Just to give you a brief orientation because I know it is a big document, there is a lot of things in here and I wanted to highlight two areas. The blue pages in the report are a summary of the project's potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level . I do want to point out that this is just a summary and you need to look to the body of the EIR for the full analysis of each of the topics that we have reviewed. One other important section is near the back: and that is where we identified the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. We identified five impacts that were considered unavoidable. One is with regards to air quality and the project would result in an unavoidable impact in that it would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's thresholds for emission 1:\vo12\c1icnt\190I8\1:C1U'C:.021 4-299 of ozone precursors. That is related to the amount of traffic and cars that would be generated by the size of this development. Um, we identified the visual impact as being an unavoidable impact in that this project would substantially change the visual character of the project site and would impact the views from adjacent residences. The project would also have an unavoidable impact on the jobs/housing balance of East County. East County has currently more houses than it does have jobs and this project, being that it is a residential project, would contribute to that imbalance. The project would also have unavoidable impacts during the construction period primarily noise and dust. There are mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts of construction activities on adjacent residences but there still would be a potential for short- term adverse impacts on neighboring residences. Um, I would just like to reemphasize that we are here tonight to take comments on ,�- the adequacy of the EIR and the process will be that we will take comments and written comments that are submitted during the review period, then prepare a final EIR which fully responds to all of the ,. comments that are received during that time. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Commissioner J. Hanson: I have a question, one of the or some of the concerns that were raised in the public hearings, I did not see addressed in the revision. It was pertained to the property owners within this development. Um, I 'm still concerned about showing the road going through, the new road going through one property owner' s home and then there was a question raised about the easement rights going to the other property owner's home that is adjacent to the park. I didn't see those questions resolved, we were supposed to get answers on them. I didn't see them answered in here. S. Steinwert: The easement, I 'm not clear on that issue and that pertains more to a planning issue rather than an environmental impact. We did look at the impacts on those three parcels in that they would have noise and dust impacts during construction and those types of issues. The road alignment and easement alignments are generally more of a planning issue rather than an environmental impact issue that we would address in this document. You might want to ask Staff in their view on those. Commissioner J. Hanson: I don't know. If I were living in a place where they were going to build a road through my house I think it would be affecting my environment. (Applause) I don't know how does Staff feel about that? Is that not an environmental issue to show this conflict? To me, it looks like a conflict of property ownership or you know, when I look at what the map looks like. M. Fleming: Well it is a matter of concern, it's an issue that we want to examine in making a determination on the project itself but it is not something that would seem to be an environmental L\voi2\ciicnt\IIX)ia\ixatrc.021 4-300 issue that needed to be addressed in the EIR. So that is something that when we talk about the project itself is an issue that should be included. That item will follow the EIR hearing. Once we have finished with that then we will open the hearing on the project again and discuss. Commissioner J. Hanson: So it's not appropriate to hear. It would be a traffic issue -- we don't hear traffic issues? M. Fleming: Yeah, when they are part of the environmental impacts and that is what we are hearing with the EIR, traffic issues. Commissioner J. Hanson: I mean, to me it would be a traffic issue because it involves a public, ' it involves access to property and a road. It just seems to me that that would be an environmental it is an impact. S. Steinwert: Right, in the fact that you have brought it up at this public hearing we will make sure that we will address it in the final EIR. Commissioner J. Hanson: I would like to see it. M. Fleming: Any comments that the Commissioners have as well as the public on issues in the EIR will be examined in the final. Commissioner J. Hanson: Okay. S. Steinwert: ThankY ou. Chairperson S. Planchon: What we are talking about mainly here is impact and mitigation measures. We are going to be talking again about the modified EIR. I have 12 requests here to speak and looking at the time over there, we'd like to be out of here by 11 if possible. If we take each one of these, when I have 12 and give them each 5 minutes maximum to speak. voices in audience: No, no, you're not fair. Chairperson S. Planchon: At this point in time let's try that and we will go from there. voices in audience: I have a certain amount of talking to do. So do I . So do I . Chairperson S. Planchon. Well, we will play it by ear. And one more makes 13 . (background voices) Again, we would like to have you confine your speaking to the impacts and mitigation measures of the EIR and if someone before you says certain things, r:\%,ol2\ciicnt\19018\rcttrc:.021 4-301 ;� try not to repeat that if possible, so we can move this thing along. So with that we will have the first speaker, Diane Shipway. Diane Shipway: I am going to try to be brief, it may not work. First, I have to complain about the meeting notifications of this project. My neighbor called me at 1 : 15 and asked me if I was going to the planning meeting. I told him that Art had called me a few weeks before and had told me about it but I hadn't received a GG-1 notice. My neighbor told me he had his for about 8 days, which gave him a chance to look over this 1-3/4" document. I 'm not the only person who has attended these meetings and then have not been given notification. Rhonda Hanson didn't get noticed, Bob Counsel, John Zoocaucus, Richard Kent, Gus Burkaltz . They haven't gotten notices. Anybody else? Some people didn't get notices. Chairperson S. Planchon: Just a moment, I will ask the Staff over there. Have they been properly noticed on this, everyone in that area? D. Shipway: I found out mine was the wrong address. I did find that out. I did call Art, Art called me back, it was a problem. I have had a post office box for 20 years that I have lived on Bethel Island. They sent it to my post office box in Oakley. Chairperson S. Planchon: My concern is, is have they been mailed out? That's my main concern. M. Fleming: Notices should have been mailed out to anyone that was within 300 feet as well as anyone that had given us a green card before. Now if something got overlooked, I 'm not aware of it. .� D. Shipway: I have been to all of the meetings and I put my correct address on everything I have spoken about and I still didn't get a notice. Female from audience: They sent this out 2 or 3 days ago telling us about a meeting the 16th. Nobody said anything about this meeting. (background voices -- I got that one, I didn't) D. Shipway: I got that one with my corrected address. A. Beresford: Chair, 400 notices were sent out about the meeting for hearing tonight. Chairperson S. Planchon: 400 notices were sent out. A. Beresford: And that may have been inadvertently . . . D. Shipway: I did talk to Art, there was a problem with my address. is vole ciicnt19015 nail'(:.02i 4-302 Chairperson S. Planchon: Let's go ahead and continue. D. Shipway: So I was lucky enough to get my neighbor's EIR and I borrowed that for a few days and I have read quite a bit, but I still feel that I am unprepared to address all the issues without more time to peruse the material. I am requesting that you hear what we have to say tonight, but I am also asking that another public meeting be held to give everyone a chance to read the copious amount of material that has been presented to us. This is a big enough issue to- be decided, this is too big of an issue to be decided in a short amount of time. My neighbors and I will be affected by this project forever. The developer will be gone in ' 5 or 10 years, this Commission will be filled with new faces and the Supervisors will be on to other things. You have to listen to our concerns and apprehensions and realize why we want some guarantees. This is my family's and my life and future you are planning, so please take us into consideration when you make your decisions. On page 3-35 the report on traffic, the report states that summer weekend traffic can occasionally be quite heavy due to boaters and recreational activities on the island but the report doesn't think it will be any problem. But did they take into consideration that Bethel Island's economy is based on these boaters and RVs to get there easily. If we are subjected to 5 or 10 years of road work, which they state on page 3-56 and 3-74 , these people will go somewhere else because of the hassle of getting here. Five to 10 years of construction traffic and road work is a long time for a small recreational area' s economy. On GG-1 Page 3-38 , the report states that most of the bike traffic for children riding to school . That is because our area has grown so fast and the funds for schools are not enough to keep up with the schools and these parents don't have $250 to pay the fees to get their kids bused to school. On page 3-40 , it states that, this traffic analysis has not been conducted in detail beyond State Road 4 in Antioch. Well don't you think it should? That is where the jobs are, that's where the hospitals are. It needs to be considered. I 'm worried that on .page 3-53 , the thing that states projects that would be required by Cypress Lakes itself without any other development taking place will come to be. I 'm sure everybody knows about the Hoffman Vintage Park School deal . What are our guarantees? On page 3-70, it states that the name and the phone number of a designated dust control coordinator will be posted at the site. Shouldn't the neighbors be given this information up front? How can we be sure where on the 685 . 9 acres this notice will be? Will an on-site construction office be on-site, will it have regular office hours, with a person to talk to? What do they consider high winds, small craft warnings, gale warnings, storm warnings, hurricane warnings? We need a definition. On page 2- 22 , they state extreme winds. Small craft is up to 38 mph, gale is 39-54 mph, storm is 55-73 mph, hurricane is 74 mph. What is their definition of extreme winds? And again on page 3-99 , there is still no four-story homes on Sandmound. On page 3-101, there [:\voi2\crcnt\[90[9\1:C[trc:.021 4-303 is pesky power lines again. Will Medi-Vac be able to land behind the fire house? Would it be safe for pacemaker patients? I understand that there are experts on both sides of this issue, but from a lay person's view I feel the power lines need to be studied more before we put homes right next to them and parks and children's playgrounds underneath them. On page 3-101, it states often times smoke and haze obscures the mountains making them less visible. And it says to see Figure 3 . 5-3 . But the views in Figure 3 .5-3 face east, north and northwest, there are no views towards the mountains. If we have a hard time now seeing the mountains because of smoke and haze, do you think we need 1, 330 more barbecues and traffic? On page 3-105, it states views from the west from existing homes along Sandmound would be obstructed by the levee and proposed project. FEMA states that the levee system should provide protection from flood. From the project standpoint, it will protect them; but from our viewpoint it will increase our damages. I would like to see a report from FEMA stating how this levee has to look from my side. The report says no rock, but what does FEMA say? The project describes landscaping, will FEMA want riprap? That is going to be real pretty. It depends on which side you are looking on and again it is one of the unavoidable consequences of this project. On page 3-106, the report talks of landscaping outside the levee project to provide additional screening. Should be trees and shrubs if it doesn't affect levee maintenance. But when the levee district cleans our ditches now GG-1 there are no trees or shrubs left, then they want to plant cottonwood. Not a good choice for those of us who have allergies. On page 3-109 , the noise measurement program was conducted during the weekday because it is typically noisier than weekends . The study was done on May 26 and 27 . How can it be noisier? The kids are back to school, the tourists are gone and everyone else is back to work. Another report that can be written for the results that you want to obtain. On page 3-113 , it states levees would reduce noise level on the project site but no mention of how the noise will echo between our levee and theirs down in our gulch. On the hydrology and the drainage, I would like to see 799 reports but I do have a few comments. On the water quality on page 3-129 , again the pump station for benefit of project and their capacity. During storm periods excess water would then be pumped to ultimate disposal and Sandmound Slough. This would increase the amount of water into Sandmound Slough along with whatever else is in the water. Will this have a great impact on us when we have 6-foot tides, full moons and the south storm happening? I think so. On page 3-130, it says rock will not be utilized generally placed on the exterior slope which is our side of the water side to protect from erosion. The proposed levee will be built on dry ground and not adjacent to any waterway. For now that may be true, but if we flood, it will be adjacent real quick. On page 3-133 , to prepare for future raising of the levee, the report proposes adding material to the outside levee which is our side. No change to the interior side of the levee which is their side and the toe ditch 4-304 would need to be relocated. Again, on our side. New levee may settle during construction. Consolidation would occur during levee construction and possibly one or two years thereafter, but would not have .any affect on adjacent structures. Again, what guarantees do we have? The groundwater, along with the levee this is another major concern to me. While the project is dewatering and bounding a swath 100 feet wide by 15 feet deep I really feel my house will rattle itself apart and I don't care what all their fancy engineers are saying. Also, nothing was mentioned about our underground water and sewer pipes being affected by this pounding and dewatering. We need some sort of bond to protect us from such eventualities. On page 3-135 , if the existing levee fails, the project will be' protected by the internal levee. Well that's nice. They are protected and stranded and we go over there for evacuation. Do we go to the golf club house or do we go to the beach house? Then what? On the same page, it makes references to Appendix F which is a will-serve letter from the Oakley Water District and has nothing to do with the water quality. State flooding is speculative and cannot be quantified. But it is a big enough possibility that a levee needs to be built all the way around . the project because their engineers say our levees are a nightmare. It sounds real ambiguous to me. I 'm very concerned with excess storm water runoff. Who will monitor and maintain water quality of the lake and the channels? The report states the GG-1 pumping of this water into Sandmound Slough would provide a �. beneficial impact on water quality of Sandmound Slough as long as the water quality of the lake and channel is properly maintained. The phrase "as long as" is very important. What if it is not properly maintained? Who will be responsible? On page 3-143 , it states that the County would periodically monitor storm water discharge for pollutant levels. Does the County have the manpower and the funding for this? Who is going to monitor during the storms and periods of high runoff? What if they have to make a choice between releasing pollutant waters or them flooding? What will they choose? On the same page in paragraph 3 . 7-2 , they get underground storm drainage pipes on page 3 , on the next paragraph 3 . 7-3 , exterior side--my side--we get drainage ditches. Something is not right there. On page 3-146 , paragraph 3 . 7-14 , the information packageshall be distributed to project residents upon purchase of each house. What about on the resale? Down the road people will come and go and newcomers will not be informed. What about new residents who don't care to be educated? On paragraph 3 . 7-15 , I love this one--this is my favorite--the street sweeping program. I can't tell you how many times I have had to swerve around all of the street sweepers I have seen from the County on our road. (Ha), I 'm joking. I would like to see the County's existing street sweeping program in the June with the new budget. On 3 . 7-16 , I don't trust the project to maintain the lakes and channels. I think an impartial entity should maintain water quality. what will the homeowner's fee be ultimately? They sure state in a lot of places that if the County won't pay, the 4-305 homeowners will . What will that be on top of a $320, 000 mortgage payment. I 'm getting there--I'm reading fast. Okay, on page 3- 157 on the liquefaction, it says excavate, rework, intensify the loose, clean and silty sands under the levees to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. Its heavy weight has be worried. They say would not have any affect on adjacent residents. If they are so sure of their statements, then a cash bond would not be an unreasonable condition. I can feel the school bus come down my road now. What will a constant vibration do to my house? I don't know, but my homeowner's won't cover it. I think this problem is going to make some lawyer somewhere a very rich man. On public services, for the fire department I would like to see the fire department responses. Building a site is one thing but the emergency response equipment, the administration, the staff training and overall maintenance is another. We are facing a new assessment on us now because of State budget cuts and the County is talking of cutting fire services. 1 So how will they afford this addition? On police protection, another County service that is facing large budget woes. With the budget cutbacks, how will we fund another officer and equipment? We will know in June if the substation stays open. It is already shut down at night. I would like to see the Sheriff Is Dept. report and I still see no mention of the marine patrol . On the schools on page 3-174 , states Liberty Union High School District provides busing. It should say that it provides busing for a fee of $250/child. We have built three new schools and they are all at or beyond capacity. More funding will be needed to fund such schools. If we vote down bond measures , we will just be hit with GG-1 a mello roos tax on a permanent annual basis. What will happen to that 10 acres after OUESD just determines that the school site is unacceptable due to the location within the project. It is too close to the schools, it is too close to the wetlands, it is too close to the lakes, it is too close to the pump outs. What will this 10 acres be when this 10 acres is not going to be a school site? What is it going to turn out to be, will it be 10 acres of RV storage? We'd like to know. County Code says street lighting shall be provided along all streets within one mile of schools. If get a school at the designated site, we will be lit up like day time. That will be more than just a glow. On parks and recreation facilities on page 3-183 , the lake and channels would be cared for, maintained and operated by the homeowner' s association. I don't trust them to protect my interests on the outside of the project. It is my understanding that the project has paid big bucks for the easement for the power lines, now they can use that land as open space and parks, build up right next to it, then give it to the County for public parks and the general fund pays for it. Is that right? It still looks like the major portion of the public park is under the line and this issue was sort of skimmed over in what I have read. When incoming residents get a copy of the CC&Rs stating that they are aware of the health issues relating to living near the transmission lines, will that release the developer of liability? The project still wants trails on top of the levees 1 I:\voI2\clicnt\190 18\1:C ItI'C.021 4-306 encouraging bikes, pedestrians and golf carts which is still inconsistent with existing levee uses. If you can use one levee, the residents will assume that they can use others and that is not the case. How do they plan to keep these people out of my yard? On the water on page 3-190, they still don't recognize that the Oakley Mutual Water District has two wells on the street and I know that there is other wells that are not in the map. Does that mean that they don't have to worry about us? I know the project has spent a lot of money on the original report and this second report GG-land it certainly looks like they have addressed all of our concerns, but the outcome is still the same. They paid big bucks to get the issues addressed so it would pass through you and on to the Supervisors, but nothing is resolved about the levees and the dewatering. I 'm still concerned and I don't feel they have put in any protection for the neighbors already here. The phrase I find consistently is "unavoidable short-term impact" which I translate to mean stuff happens--and you know what I mean. I recommend a cash bond be posted so when stuff happens we will not have to spend years in court with high dollar lawyers trying to get compensated for problems we are telling you about now. And again, I would like to request another hearing on this matter so the people who didn't get notified have a chance to respond. Thank you. (Applause) . Chairperson S. Planchon: Diane has to be first because she said she couldn't speak very well . (Ha) Darrell Edwards? Darrell Edwards: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am Darrell Edwards, resident of Sandmound Blvd. soon to be Sandmound Gulch. I really feel very limited after that eloquent presentation by Shipway, I mean she is something else . Uh, I want to address something that probably isn't something that is supposed to be addressed tonight, but it is the economics of this project. To make it viable people have to buy these homes on these 5 , 000 square foot lots. Now, if they don't buy the houses, then the project fails but in the meantime we have levees that have been built after we have had this wonderful thing called "deep dynamic compaction. " We've also experienced the joys of dewatering. So we have gone through the hell and now we have a levee that we have to live with GG-2 and a project that may or may not be viable. In the EIR they mention that parks are going to be dedicated. Well this is 1993 , Bill Clinton is going to raise taxes on all middle class people because we have a terrible deficit. The State of California has a terrible deficit. We are firing anybody in the County that can't do three jobs. We cannot expect that the County is going to take over the maintenance of parks, beach clubs, golf courses or any other thing in this project. This project has to be self- sustaining. The project residents must pay for everything that happens in this development, unless we have a miracle and everybody becomes fat and sassy. So my concern is, what are all these costs going to be? They are not addressed in the EIR. I did some preliminary numbers and because I don't have anything to go by I 1:\%-ol2\crc„i\1901S\1:(:I Z I V.02 I 4-3n7 i just kind of guessed at what some of these costs might be based on a little bit of experience with 799 and what their costs are for pumping water around, etc. Now I took a typical sales price for the cheap seat house at $175, 000, took a 10% down payment, which left a balance to finance of about $162 , 000, 30 years at 8%, puts it around $1, 200 a month just for the payments. Now the taxes are around $2 , 200 per year, about $182 a month. Insurance I just factored in about $100 per month. Then we get down to lake maintenance. Now we have to have according to the EIR this water running around 24 hours -a day. They don't tell us how big a pump. Now in rec 79 we have 50 horsepower pumps, 40 horsepower pumps, but they don't run 24 hours a day. When we are pumping a lot of water we are running $2 , 000 to $3 , 000 a month. What is it going to cost to circulate all of this water 24 hours a day. I say it is going to cost every homeowner in there $100 a month. They are going to have to pay because they can't get out of rec 79 , they are going to have to pay at least $25 a month probably towards the rec 79 fees. The golf course is going to cost them $50 a month, the park maintenance is going to cost them $50 a month, the street sweeper that Diane Shipway has to run around is going to cost them $10 a month, and the beach club is probably going to cost them $20 a month. That is roughly $300 a month on top of all of these other costs that these people are going to have to afford. That equates to almost $2 , 000 a month and you have to make about $6 , 000 a month to be able to afford that kind of payment. People that are making $6 , 000 a month in gross income are not flocking to East County to move into Cypress Lakes. The retiree is certainly not going to GG-2 come into a 5, 000 square foot lot to spend his weaning years when he has an ozone thing thatis going to make his respirator work overtime. My concern is that if we are subject to the deep dynamic compaction, the dewatering and this unsightly levee that is going to put us at jeopardy and this project fails, what are we stuck with? So, maybe we need a completion bond put up by the developer. Diane Shipway mentioned the bonds for all of us on Sandmound who maybe affected by deep dynamic compaction. I think it is only fair because we can't afford to go out and hire an attorney if we have a problem. Now, if it seems equitable that prior to this deep 1 dynamic compaction the developer wants to bring people into our house with video cameras and do the outside and the inside and let's see this is how the house looks before . deep dynamic compaction and here is what is left of it afterwards, Voice from the audience: I ' ll volunteer. D. Edwards: That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But I don't want to be placed nor do I want to put my neighbor's place in a position where they have to go out and hire a $195/hour attorney to protect their rights. We are here, we don't need problems. There are so many things that have to be paid for in this thing, I don't see how anybody is going to have the money to make this thing a viable attraction. We have houses right now, single- 1:\vo12\client\19018\FCR1'C.0?I 4-308 family detached, 3 to 4 bedroom houses that are sitting vacant, and they are for sale at $129 , 000. Now, I can't see a stampede to Cypress Lakes. I 'm sorry. Lakes that you can't go swimming in. "No skin contact. " If you did you'd probably die of some sort of overdose of chemicals anyway from the golf course. So, you know, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Again, the definition for extreme wind. Mr. Chairman, you are a handsome man--that is a pretty broad statement, but I need to know what extreme wind is. Is that 10 mph, I want to know. Because you know we all have these little things that tell us how the wind, we are all down wind from this project. We want to know what extreme wind is so if it says it is 22 mph, at 23 mph I am going to be on the phone to that number that I had been provided and I 'm going to be calling that guy and say shut that sucker down because we have extreme winds. And by the way send the street sweeper over to sweep up Sandmound. It's terrible. I mentioned the last time I was up here (or one of the times I was up here) that we have what is called poor men's air conditioning out where we are. In the afternoon the wind comes out of the west so you open up the windows and that lets the heat go down. Can't afford PG&E. Chairperson S. Planchon: Is it a strong wind? D. Edwards: It is an extreme wind. (Ha) The last thing that, you know, I don't have any experience with this document and quite frankly this is a real snoozer. I question, like on the last page of the green sheet or blue sheet (excuse me) it says, energy an GG-2 average dwelling unit could be expected to consume approximately 4 , 869 kilowatt hours a year. These are all electric houses there is no natural gas. They do have an option for propane. Do you know what PG&E says? I called the rate department in San Francisco. They said, son you are reading a sales brochure. Talk maybe 10, 000 hours, we are talking 6, 000 more hours per year than what they say here. That equates to $150 a month in PG&E bills before the County adds its little utility tax on it because we need more money in the general fund. This is going to be an awfully expensive project. I 'm going to sit down because other people have very interesting things to say but we are going to talk about water , quality going into Sandmound and all of these great things and they have to be addressed. I am not personally convinced that a 50- foot reach in the levee is going to stay 50 feet wide and only going to put in, there are nice little charts in here; but I 'm not an engineer. I don't believe it is going to stay 50 feet .wide and I don't think that there is going to be just X number of gallons per minute going through that ditch. I think from what I 've heard that these levees when they do break all of a sudden they get 400 feet wide. Now if it is 2 o'clock in the morning and we have a 7 foot tide and Earl is sitting across the street and his house is on the ground, how much water is going to come through that broken levee real fast and make it awful difficult for these folks. You people have a huge decision to make and I don't envy you, and they 1:\'ol?\client\!'HIIR\I•:CI:1'C.O'I ' 4-309 r • i couldn't pay me enough to do what you have to do and listen to nuts like me. Give some real serious thought and thank you so much for your time. (Applause) Chairperson S. Planchon: Elaine Dannelley? Elaine Dannelley: (Read from letter dated January 26, ' 1993 , attached) I want to know if three times is out? How many times do the residents of the Hotchkiss Tract area have to review and respond to an EIR that does not address the hazards and extra costs the developer and the County are trying to force upon us? On rezoning, residents moved to this area because they wanted to enjoy the country climate, not to have a city brought to us. We do not want our A-2 zoning changed to P-1, limiting us to the number and kinds of animals we can enjoy on our property. Okay, with uses, we feel that this area could be used for other purposes, such as a wildlife preserve. Since there are at least three special status animals on the property. These are burrowing owls, pond turtles, Northern harriers and possibly others because it is in the range of the kit fox and the golden eagle. Ms. Hanson brought up the fact about my easement and to me it is traffic and it is very important. I have horse trailers, I have to be able to get in and out of my property. With the change of the easement is proposed on this development I would have four and five 900 turns and if there is a sound wall up, I cannot possibly make it. I don't have a big rig, I have a smaller rig, but I can't make it. My easement has been in existence for over 50 years and I do not feel that I should be jeopardized because someone else wants to take my recorded right. I will fight for these rights, I will not give up easily on it. Personal reasons, here again I moved to Bethel GG-3 Island area for the country atmosphere and to have and enjoy my animals. I do not feel my property should be impacted for the developer's desire and personal gain. I fully expect the county to have the applicant completely disclose to the possible future homeowners the existence of smells, insects, and other hazards of agricultural operations. My setup also has an attractive nuisance of horses and other animals. People in close proximity to my property will increase my liability insurance and emotional stress and strain. This does not mean that I am going to change my lifestyle so the developer can make a fast buck. Sound walls, I see that they are in the EIR again now. I do not want my view blocked and my air circulation cut off by such structures. Cultural resources, the EIR quoted the CEQA standards that an archaeological monitor should be present when grading, excavation and trenching are done. When in reality, trenching was done last Fall without anyone present and will possibly be done again if possible. I request that the archaeologist be dressed in Native Indian garb and have a sign so we can tell him from the others . In the EIR, it also states that Lots 10 and 11 should be removed from the project because they are sensitive to the archaeological conditions and yet they are still on the plot maps . visual 1:\vo12cficnt\I9018\1:('IZI'(:.021 4-310 aspects, the EIR tries to say putting up a 20-foot levee. around 682 acres, building a 60-acre lake and 160-acre golf course does not change the view or the topography of the land. Did they even build a clay model to see the difference from flat? Adverse environmental impacts for "not a part of" residents and I 'm the lowest little white spec up there. Since these homes are unique in that they are almost in the center of the development, we feel that if this project comes under construction, the developer be required to indemnify those residents for cleaning dust and dirt from residences (interior and exterior,) , medical costs for unforeseen hazards, and any costs due to injuries to animals, livestock and pets (such as cats, dogs, horses, livestock, and the wild critters) caused by the applicant's construction operations. Compaction for levees and I love this one. Since this compaction method is as they say a "relatively new" process and untested in the area, I feel that a bond should be posted to compensate present residents for any damage to wells, houses, and other structures as a result of the constant seismic effect caused by the compaction procedure. Interior levees, 20-foot walls across from Sandmound Blvd. homes expose these residents to life threatening dangers such, as poor air quality from dust and air pollution caused by construction equipment during the 10-year building process, pollution from the new traffic added to the already poor air quality, possible outside levee breaks by storms, winds, earthquakes or compaction process, or high tides, filling the corridor between the levees with no escape for the residents, fire GG-3 danger in which there will be no escape route leaving the residents exposed to toxic fumes and smoke with danger of suffocation, poor or little air circulation in the corridor exposing the residents to pollution and health hazards and exposing the elderly and sick in the area with all of these hazards and causing them undue stress, stress due to the noise from the vehicles, compaction and general construction. Alternatives for the project, presently the best choice for the project would be (1) no project or (6) off- site project, because these have no or none of the adverse impacts of the present project proposal . 500 kV transmission lines, these bisect the property exposing much of it to the electromagnetic force which is associated with increased incidents of childhood leukemia, adult leukemia, lymphoma, nervous system cancers, brain tumors, malignant melanoma of the skin, and breast cancer in men. There have been over 100 studies done since 1987 to 1992 that I am aware of showing the adverse effects to people. This one list I have came from Berkeley, the State Health Department. To compare the hazardous conditions of 24-hour exposure to a hair dryer which is used about 3 minutes is ludicrous. From all of the TV and newspaper coverage, people are becoming more concerned about -their health and .devaluation of their property. Yet, this developer is proposing homes butting up to the corridor possibly causing an immediate ghetto in the area. There is no cost-effective shielding for EMF other than distancing from the source. Lots with accelerated magnetic field levels over 1 mG should be land-banked. 1:\voI2\c1icnt\1'016\I:C ItIT.021 4-311 The "fear of" EMF has been determined to be compensable damage under California law and this factor materially affects the value and the utility of property. Parks, the now (and they have increased it to) 22 . 4 acre park at the entrance of the development is still partially under and all adjacent to the 500 kV power lines which expose the public to the hazardous EMF forces. The mitigation is that the intensive recreational uses should be outside the easement. It is still being dedicated to the County so that the taxpayers can support a park that is so hazardous to their health. Why should we be expected to pay for something that can kill our kids? Animal life, changes in the diversity of a species or numbers of species of animals (birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and shellfish or insects) by disrupting, polluting and destroying their natural habitats will ultimately kill these species. Unique species of animals such as opossums, foxes, coyotes, jack rabbits, quail, pheasants, cottontail rabbits, ducks, and many others, live in the area . The destruction and deterioration of wildlife habitat gives them no consideration or right to life. According to the EIR, some of the species observed during studies on the area are on the Contra Costa County Special Status List and also on the State and Federal lists for threatened and endangered species. These are the burrowing owls, pond turtles, Northern harriers, and possibly southwestern pond turtles. The EIR says there is 9 . 1 acres of wetlands. I 'd like to have you come out there right now because now there are more than 60 acres of wetlands. Right? And the gentlemen tonight said that if water stands on property more than two weeks it could be considered GG-3 wetlands. Come on out guys and take a look at it. Plant life, changes in the diversity of species of plants including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants by the destruction of the existing habitats and introduction of new species will completely change the appearance of the area. Relocation and reduction of unique, rare or endangered species such as those in wetlands can completely destroy them. Water, alteration to groundwater by filling lakes can allow an influx of salt water contaminating private and public wells. Aesthetics, the scenic view of open fields, wetlands and small hills will be destroyed and replaced with architecturally mediocre homes. Roads, roads to handle the increased traffic should be in place before the construction begins and not just by saying that there are future roads planned such as widening Highway 4 and constructing the Delta Expressway (which you just said was 10 to 20 years down the road) . If the project needs these roads to handle their new community traffic, the developer should be forced to build the project after the completion of the highways. This project has the potential to degrade the environment, reduce the wildlife habitat, cause the taxpayer a huge increase tax burden, impact the area with increased traffic, noise, pollution, lack of schools, crime and population. All this comes at a time when the County has cut back in all services and is already considering increased taxes to maintain the status quo. Litigation and investigations, I feel this County should postpone 1:\vo12\c1icnt\19019\1:('IZP(C.031 4-312 any consideration of this project until pending litigation is settled and any government investigation completed so the County GG-3 will not be responsible for possibly completing a failed project. Presently, this subdivision appears to be an environmental disaster to both the animals and residents of the Bethel Island area. I hope the Commission will take these points under serious consideration before approving this development. Thank you. (Applause) . Chairperson S. Planchon: Fred Davis? Fred Davis: Mr. Commissioner, members. Before I get started I would kind of like to nail - down what Commissioner Hanson was attempting to establish at the beginning of this particular part of the process. This map that comes with this wonderful document seems to be prepared by Huffman & Associates and it doesn't appear like there is any communication between the map and the people from Public Affairs Management. In particular, about what Ms . Hanson and my wife brought up about our deeded legal easement, cannot be changed, we have attorney's opinion on that. Yet it has been changed on the map. Their own archaeological resource says that about four of the lots to be redrawn or withdrawn from the project and yet they are still on the map. So, what I am asking you is where does the information come that produced the map that you have on the wall? Chairperson S. Planchon: I can't answer that question. We are hear to listen to you tonight. F. Davis: Well, I 'm asking a question. I want to know how come the map doesn't reflect the information? GG-4 Chairperson S. Planchon: I don't have that answer. Does Staff have that answer? M. Fleming: I 'm not aware of the map, the map reflects the application that was submitted by the applicant. F. Davis: Huffman? M. Fleming: Whoever the applicant is on the project. F. Davis: Have you ever looked at the map? M. Fleming: No I haven't looked at the map. F.Davis: How can you comment on it? M. Fleming: The EIR basically is written to discuss the impacts of that project on the environment. [New tape] . . . Get changed until after this whole process is completed. Once the EIR has been f:,vo12,dicn,11901111:1111V,112 1 4-313 completed and it is determined that certain changes need to be made in the map, then those changes will be made later on. F. Davis: Well, my concern about the map not accurately GG-4 reflecting the information in the EIR is just simply that it is misinformation and people have a tendency when they look at a document like this to automatically assume it is correct. So I still haven't heard an answer to Hanson's question when this started. M. Fleming: Well, the consultant indicated that he would look at that in the EIR and address that issue in the EIR. In the final EIR. F. Davis: Why can't we get an answer. Specifically when can I get an answer to that? M. Fleming: Not at this time, we are not prepared to answer questions right now. It will be addressed in the final EIR. That is why we are taking comments now? Chairperson S. Planchon: The final EIR will be brought to the Board of Supervisors and you will have another opportunity. You raise the question at this point and time and before it gets to the Board of Supervisors for the final EIR, that question should be .answered. Correct. 1 F. Davis: well , just one other question it's about the catch .22 that you have on the back of the agenda . I noticed the comment period has been extended to the 16th of this month and it says letters will be received and filed but cannot generally be considered confident evidence unless personally presented at a hearing by a witness subject to examination. Now are you waiving that? Because this is a rough draft and I have no intention of handing this over tonight and calling it complete. Because I haven't had enough time. Chairperson S. Planchon: I don't understand your question sir. F. 'Davis: Well, I 'm just quoting this catch 22 at the bottom. You got a disclaimer that says if I don't personally present this and then hand it in, you are not going to consider it as evidence. M. Fleming: Mr. Chair? Chairperson S. Planchon: Respond to that. M. Fleming: You have until the 16th to submit any comments you have on the EIR. Any comments you have. F. Davis: They won't be just filed as it says in here then? 1:\rpl3\clicni\190111\1`.(:IZI'(:.II?I 4-314 M. Fleming: No, that has to do with the hearings in general, it doesn't have to do with EIR hearings specifically. F. Davis: Thank you. I deleted about half of this for the rest of the people here this evening. Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: Small point of clarification from Staff. The final . . . what we are gathering now is all the objections, all the questions that they have about the EIR. Then those answers will come to us, is that correct? M. Fleming: Right, there will be another document prepared that will be an addendum to the draft EIR and that will create the final EIR which is what you will end up reviewing and making a decision on. Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: Hopefully all of those questions that there are being asked now will be then answered in that addendum. Is that correct? M. Fleming: Right, any questions or concerns that are raised now Mill be addressed in that final EIR. Commissioner E. Sobalverro: Right, so you see there is where we have more questions and then from here after depending on what we do here, then it goes to the Board of Supervisors . So you still have us to come back to as well as the Board of Supervisors. F. Davis: In an advisory capacity. Commissioner E. Sobalverro: So there is a lot of time. F. Davis: Alright, try that for a while, thank you. Reference page 1. 6 under discretionary I noticed a reference to LAFCO and I also know that one of the stated purposes of LAFCO for being in existence is for discouraging and limiting urban sprawl . It seems to me that this project certainly would qualify as urban sprawl . Reference page 1 . 12 , financing and maintenance districts. The language is so ambiguous and vague as to defy a rational . understanding of the entire paragraph. #3 national pollutant discharge elimination system. It is my understanding from rec 799 that permits shall be required and/or water treatment prior to GG-5 discharge in Sandmound Slough. Section 4 on the Section 40 permit, according to the EPA Chief Enforcement Jacqueline Wiley, section 401 (b) guideline generally precludes issuance of a permit to backfill wetlands for a subdivision. #5 development agreement, since it has been dissolved in the absence of a present agreement, how can ' the terms and conditions be reviewed by the public under which the project will be developed. Page 1 . 6, stream bed alteration permit, the local residents will request a public . I:\vo13\clic[It\19015\I iCla'('0?I 4-315 hearing upon application for a stream bed alteration permit from California Dept. of Fish & Game. Also for the Section 404 permit residents will request a public hearing on permit application. Page 2 . 4 , 3-1 , land use planning and public policy, general plan policy. That development plan density should be at density maximum causes nearly all of the problems associated with the attempts to mitigate the adverse impacts of density. Jobs/housing imbalance is not mitigated by calling a 10-year build-out a short-term unavoidable impact. EIR should provide a description of the number of jobs, types of jobs, pay scale and whether or not those job holders could afford a house in the project. Page 3 . 56, section 3 . 2 , transportation circulation. The EIR variously lists 10, 287 vehicle trips a day on page 2 . 6 to 12 , 017 trips a day on page 3- 29. Small discrepancy there of about 2 , 000 trips and in addition, page 3-56, second paragraph states that without the Delta Expressway project and Route 4 improvements the Bethel Island Area cannot be accommodated without severe traffic and congestion problems. The firm on the road improvements to the future is not a mitigation. We are in agreement with well planned communities such as Brentwood who require street road improvements to be in place before the first house is built. Anything less than this stands to make East County residents second class citizens. Construction traffic impact, does not begin to address the discomforts and inconvenience and associated health hazards from living down wind from 700 acre dirt storms for 10 years . Should be mitigation measures for cleaning peoples houses, boats, vehicles on a weekly basis and indemnification for damage to residents ' GG-5 property, personal and real . Simply stating that the traffic exceeds Bay Area Quality Management District guidelines for Rog and Nox pollutants does not relieve the developer and the County from responsibility for compliance with the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan. In light of the Clean Air Act of 1991, why would applicant use 1970 Federal Standards and 1967 State Standards for the pollutants mentioned on air quality data table for Bethel Island 1988-1991? Page 3 . 4 , vegetation and wildlife, animal population tabulation, was done inefficiently and incorrectly. Mainly by omitting many species and incorrectly stating others may be present when in fact they are present. We feel that removal of 700 acres of habitat adversely impacts the wildlife simply to infer that this ' Is not detrimental to wildlife because there is still some habitat left is willfully ignorant, inherently dangerous to the survival of all wildlife. 3 . 106 performance for visual resource policies, the statement that the project site topography would not be changed visually is outrageously wrong. We feel that it is impossible to dig a 60 acre lake plus channels 20 feet deep and pile the recovered spoils into a containment dike 20 feet high and at the same time contour grade 160 acre golf course and erect 1, 330 homes with associated streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks and then say that the visual characteristics have not been changed significantly. This is an amusing grave example of fork tongue english. Additional mitigation measures, the entire paragraph 1:\vo12\c1icnt\19018\1:CRI'C.021 4-316 about a landscape maintenance district and/or other funding source is vague, imprecise, and ambiguous in that no one place in the EIR ever states how much of a monthly burden homeowners are assuming in terms of assessment district and/or homeowners, association dues and other so far not revealed costs. Section 3 . 6, noise, it is idle speculation to attempt to qualify the noise that will be generated by doubling the area population. Under the construction noise aspect of that section, on B, "operations of any machine or device which generates a noise level greater than 95 decibels at 50 feet should be prohibited wherever is feasible" You know I got _ a picture of a guy running around with a tape and a sound meter in one hand. Who decides what is feasible and why would the prohibition be conditioned? This is an example of inadequate attempt at noise mitigation. This temporary short-term impact would be unavoidable. This bears keeping in mind that their definition of. a short-term impact appears to be. as long as 10 years based on their own build-out schedule. Hydrology and drainage, (a) in general detention basins are a poor design feature and cause more problems than they solve, (b) parks and playing fields should not be required to act as detention basins simply when the park is the hottest point on the project site. Ground subsidence on page 3-125, the EIR attempts to down play the seriousness of the ground subsidence potential when the following factors are considered (while ground liquefaction during but not necessarily limited to seismic advance dewatering of the ground during construction then followed by excess pumping of 805 , 200 gallons a day of groundwater) . The above combined with a new and relatively untested method of compaction by the soils engineer reports own GG-5 admission could very well damage existing levee and residences. Therefore, we insist a bond should be put up by applicant to indemnify a present homeowners and RD 799 against any damage caused by applicants construction activities . Page 3-129 , drainage on- site impacts, section 1, second paragraph statement that they would pump excess storage water from lake in the Sandmound Slough violates MPDES requirements that water be drinkable before discharge and that is coming according to 799 . Page 3-133 , the groundwater, first sentence, the proposed project is short-term "three to six months localized impact on groundwater during excavation activities for the levee channels and lakes. " The above sentence either represents an all time record and heaping, piling and throwing the soil or is a minor one lying as a pastime. The section on seismic resistance in regards to seismic resistance engineers in general have a very poor' track record in designing earthquake resistance structure as evidenced by the numbers of buildings, bridges, overpasses and dams that have failed during earthquakes in the last 30 years. Water quality, the quality of Contra Costa County District water depends on what you are comparing it to. Few people drink it, those that do generally regret it. The Delta is not subject to a sonami anyway. Any school boy in California knows that a sonami is generated by seismic activity and not the wind. The statement that the storm I:,,v121cIicnt\17011;\1:(:111v*12I 4-317 I drain system would be a wet system with water standing in a storm drain .pipes at all times converts the storm drain system to a sewer system. Truck disposal stored drainage is the most inefficient expensive method I have ever heard proposed. The last paragraph on page 3-139 states, "no additional pumping of ground water is proposed to maintain the water level of the lake and channels. " ' This cannot be true in view of the statement elsewhere in the EIR that irrigation of golf course and landscaping requires 8502 gallons a day taken from the lake. The lake obviously would go dry without being replenished by the ground water. This is an extravagant and wasteful use of water resource considering the restraints and restrictions placed on everybody else due to the last 6 years of drought. Page 3-140, the last half of page 3-140 and the top third of page 3-141 in an attempt to describe the damage control efforts to keep the lake clean wind up making what is an accurate description of a settlement pond of toxic waste. Nobody seriously believes that plants would filter out contaminants any more efficiently than the fish decimate the mosquito population from plan in lieu of a modern water plant facility and mosquito abatement district. Page 3-146, Section 3 . 7-15 . The weak proposal regarding street sweeping again appears to be an attempt to push on to the already overburdened shoulders of the Homeowners Association responsibility for a traditionally governmental function. Kleinfelder's analysis of a 6 . 75 earthquake doesn't include the information from the U. S. Geodetic (?) survey in Menlo Park that a quake of that size or greater has a high probability of occurring in the next 30 years in this area . Traditionally he GG-5 goes on to say "seismic activity has never caused a levee failure in this area . " I would like to point out that neither has a volcanic eruption, direct hit by a meteor or nuclear accident for the same reason. From analysis by other independent soils engineers this entire soils report seems to be flawed and seriously tilted towards describing major hazards as seemingly minor inconveniences. It says the Cypress Lakes Project would be expected to have 918 students from kindergarten through high school requiring 1 new elementary school, 30% of a new middle school and a 200 of a new high school. At the end of Section 3 . 1-2 states, "the project more convenient would be oriented towards seniors and retired people to reduce commute traffic from the project. " What a novel idea to build new schools for seniors and the elderly simply to reduce traffic flow from the project. That's a nice touch. Addressing the lack of a natural gas distribution system by substituting an electric system in its place is not mitigation of a substantial defect rather it is one of the most expensive ways to heat water in space known with the possible exception of the burning of paper money in a fireplace. Ask anybody who has an electric water heater and/or furnace to describe their PG&E bill to you. A small section of EMF, electrical magnetic force, demonstrates once again that the preparers of this documents are dangerously ignorant, witness the following statement. "Only seven states have adopted regulations to regulate intensity of electric 1:\vo12\client\19018\I URIT.021 4-318 I fields and transmission line right-of-way. The State of California . does not have standards. " It sounds like we're gonna rate last (??) nationally once again. This is a very important aspect of health related issues. If they had read our privately commissioned study by the State's leading expert in this field they couldn't possibly have come to the same conclusions. Finally, we wish the Planning Commission to take note of the following assertions. 1. The vast majority of the area residents don't want the project. GG.5 They don't need the recreational opportunities because they're too . �I busy trying to survive and they certainly wouldn't trade what they have for a "housing opportunity in the PUD, " which by the way is a government euphemism for uniform mediocrity. And 2 . because of the County's potential liability for a failed project, we feel it only prudent for the Planning Commission to reserve their decision until all present litigation and government investigations have run their course. The applicant so far has struck out in every court decision. One can only expect similar results in the future. -Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you Mr. Davis. (Clapping) We're going to take a real short break and then we' ll be right back. Chairperson S. Planchon: Get back in session, please. What we're going to do, we're going to hear one more speaker tonight. We will be holding the EIR hearing open. In all probability we will meet again on March 1 and we will continue. Those who have not had a chance to speak, I will be hanging on to these and we pick up and go from there on March 1 . So now I need Barbara La .Fargo, is it? Barbara La Fargo: Close. Lynn Jochim: Can we come back on February 8 at the special meeting? Chairperson S. Planchon: Yes, the date is indefinite at this point. We're not sure. L. Jochim: Okay. Chairperson S. Planchon: We can talk about that later. L. Jochim: That will be great. Chairperson S. Planchon: Sure. Female from audience: How will we know? Chairperson S. . Planchon: We' ll find out. 1:\%,o12\c1 ient\19018\FCRI1C.021 4-319 i Female from audience: Yeah, like we did this time? Female from audience: Somebody, somebody will you call me please? Female from audience: Yeah. We' ll call each other. Chairperson S. Planchon: We' ll make that decision before you go home. Female from audience: Okay. Chairperson S. Planchon: Barbara, go ahead. B. .La Fargo: I 'm here again. And I 'm here to tell you that there's tanks on this property. I have proof. Please, one of you take a look at this. Uh, it's your responsibility to prove to me that they are not there and the EIR says they're not there. And I want to know. Cause I have proof that they were put in in 1970. Commissioner E. Wetzel: Excuse me. What are you talking about? I, clarify it for me please. B. La Fargo: Well, I was here last time and I told you there were IP 3 , 500 gallon fuel tanks on Del Porto's property and no one did anything. GG-6 Commissioner J. Hanson: No, you said they were underground. B. La Fargo: That's right. Commissioner J. Hanson: Oh, alright. B. La Fargo: And here's the piece of paper that tells you that they're there and I 'd like for somebody to do something about it this time and I 'd like to have a bond posted to cover our potential loss due to the construction activities and uh, I 'm not getting paid to be an editor. So please, get it right this time Scott. And our EIR animals seem to hide at the time the EIR is written. ' We do have seasonal known species that come and go. Please take a look at it.. If you need a copy of this, I have it. (Hands to secretary attached document from water Resources Control Board) . Commissioner D. Maybee: I 'd like a copy of it. Female (Unidentifiable) : We should add it to the ?? Chairperson Planchon: We have time for one more speaker. A. Buller. Laughter and comments from Chair and audience. L\vol?\clicnt\1901 R\ECRIV.031 4-320 Alex Buller: Before I start, I'd like to point out that uh, at our BIA meeting there was major complaints about notification and the BIAA is writing Community Development about this improper notification and I'm asking for a second meeting. I understand that we will now have a second meeting, uh, or continuance of this EIR evaluation. Uh, basically, uh, I'm recommending total rejection of this EIR. It does not comply with Section 15130 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It doesn't conform in the following: The planned use does not include subdivision 6610, page 3-3 . Impacts on other planned uses and surrounding areas does not include subdivision 6610. Pages 320 and 3.21. Housing discussion and Table 3 . 1-1 does not include subdivision 6610, Pages 320, 321. Traffic impact study does not include cumulative impacts because of subdivision 6610, pages 328 through 363 . We got- 35 pages of erroneous traffic studies. All calculations, studies and =� conclusions are incorrect without subdivision 6610 input. Air quality .evaluations do not consider the cumulative effects from subdivision 6610 including. possible concurrent grading operations. Pages 364 through 375. Subdivision 6610 together with roadway improvements are not considered in visual quality. Pages 3-99 r. through 3-10A. The, cumulative effects of subdivision 6610 on noises are not addressed. Pages 3-109 through 3-117 . Fire protection evaluations do not include effects of subdivision 6610 both on funding and services. Page 3-163 through 3-170. Police { protection impacts excluding cumulative effects of 6610. Pages 3- !� 172 through 3-174 . Cumulative school impacts because of subdivision 6610 are not discussed. Pages 3-177 through 3-179 . GG-7 Adverse impacts do not consider cumulative effects from subdivision 6610 on air quality, visual quality, job-housing balance, noise and construction dust. Page 5-1. Cumulative impacts are incorrect for subdivision 6610 in land use. Subdivision 6610 is already approved. Traffic circulation, air quality data base is in error; subdivision 6610 not subject to County TPM current requirements. The subdivision does not have to meet current noise standards or comply with current County growth management requirements, utility demands or human health as it is already approved. None -of this is considered in this EIR. No discussion regarding the effects of the winter tulle fog on services, traffic except where noted and on these basis I recommend rejection of this EIR. The following are other questions and errors I've noted in the EIR and concerns which I feel have not been answered or discussed. Traffic exit from the entire- area is limited on Cypress Road between Knightson Avenue and Jersey Island Road to two lanes. How is this going to effect the population should a flood or disaster occur? One accident can block access and/or escape from this area. Can this R' road handle 11, 000 people at once, or in the fog? Even if additional two lanes are added? Another concern I have is in regard to hydrology and drainage. The consultant Kleinfelder, Inc. , the geotechnical engineer on the project, is currently in litigation in Discovery Bay, a major subdivision in Patterson, California, and a local residence in this immediate area of the L\vo12\c1icn1\19018\1:(TPC.021 4-321 I project with re. . . , over soil movements and settlements. Based on this track record, I as a geotechnical engineer question their capability and conclusions for Cypress Lake and recommend an overview of their work by another geotechnical engineer for some kind of assurance. Lives are at stake here and to rely just on Kleinfelder's recommendations, uh, without having and on-staff County geologist to review the data I think is dangerous. A call for short term storm water retention in the golf courses, how much is my question. Page 3-127 . What storm intensities run-off factors and calculations were used to calculate the storm drainage network which would accommodate the increase in run-off and reduce the amount of run-off offsite? Page 129 . The proposed levee crest elevation of 10 + 10. 2 is not . 2 higher than what FEMA requires. FEMA requires 3 . 5 feet free board upstream which would make it 10. 5 tapering to +10 at the downstream side and +11 for roadways and 100 feet of either side of roadways. Their evaluation of the levee crest requirements for FEMA, pages 3-130 through pages 3-132 are incorrect. What calculations are there to verify the statement that initial levee construction would not have any adverse. . .would not any effect on adjacent structures given the distance that the existing structures are from the proposed location of the new levees. Page 3-133 . What calculations are there to verify the statement that "the location dewatering. . . . the localized dewatering activities would also not effect adjacent structures because the dewatering would occur far enough from existing residences and any drawdown would only occur on the project site immediately under or GG-7 adjacent to the dewatering area. " Page 3-133 . What distance to they mean by adjacent? Page 3-135 . Public services. A construction of a fire house requires equipment and men power. Who pays for this additional cost? What mitigating measures are being considered if the fire protection vote that will probably come up fails? It is my understanding that the sheriff substation is under consideration for closure. How is adding floor space to this station going to provide adequate protection? Subdivision 6610 together with this project will overwhelm an already understaffed sheriff's substation and marine patrol . What steps are being mitigated to mitigate this problem? What mitigation measures are planned if the sheriff substation is closed? The environment assessment states that there are no underground storage tanks on the property. You were just submitted and I got copies and believe me the Community Planning will have the copies of the State 'Permits indicating that 3 , 500 gallon underground fuel storage tanks were installed in 1970 on this project. There were no permits issued for their removal. What is going to be done with them and how is our ground water going to be cleared up from their leaking because believe me, they have been leaking for years. What portion of the project is to be marketed to retired persons? . Page 3-20. What provisions are being provided if damage should occur to utilities in San Mound Boulevard and/or improvements on private property during de-water and construction? Will bonds be posted? Some sections show the new levee exterior slope at 3 horizontal to 1 4-322 vertical .. Others at 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. Which is it? 'Uh, my reference is in the uh, Bonley; Manly Associate Report (?)-. They show both slope inclinations. Hydrology drainage. Page 3- 118 states that the Kleinfelder, Inc. Report entitled Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lake Project is located in the Appendix E. The $30 EIR book I bought from the County does not contain this report. I obtained the only thing the County had to this morning which was an unsigned copy of this report with blanks in it and test data and tables missing. The County indicated that's all they had. Is Kleinfelder trying to hide something? Are they scared to sign this report? Page 6 of this unsigned report states that the internal levees will never be exposed to wave action unless failure of San Mound or Dutch Slough Levees occur. And then that the new levee will only retain 3 to 7 feet of water with velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second. Additionally, they go on to state, (unintelligible) vegetation will cover these dry land levees and publish research states that vegetated . slopes ican accommodate these velocities? What reports are they referring to? How thick is the vegetation going to be established and who's going to maintain it? Bonley, Manly Associates (?) reports when a break occurs there will be substantial velocities. How is this sand slope going to stand substantial velocities? How is the steeper internal slope to be protected from erosion? It doesn't take a doctorate in soils engineering dune sand will not stand at a .2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope some 17 feet high. What calculations are there that there is no rock required? According to the Corps of Engineers, riprap is required,, uh, let me see. GG-7 According to the Corps of Engineers, riprap is required. They make a comment and it says, "Where does FEMA say that it is not required?" Page 3-130. There's no reference on this statement in the EIR. How will the construction proceed if water levels drop 3 to 4 feet and a trench is required to be filled in? What alternate to levee construction is there if this happens? Will it be safe? The August, 1992 unsigned report with missing test date, charts covering levees for Cypress Lakes, has a discussion of water levels and title information from the California Department of Water Resources regarding Reclamation District 2042 . What relevance does a Reclamation District in Stockton have to Cypress Lakes? What calculations are there to support a levee settlement statement that will be 4 inches? What calculations are there to support that levee settlements will not effect adjacent structures? What distance is meant by adjacent?. Page 3-133 . What studies have been done regarding settlement that may effect San Mound sewer line? If it occurs, what if any mitigation measures are being considered to' correct sever slope and flow as a result of adverse settlement on the sewer line? If the project levee would divert waters in the event of a flood, page 3-136, should not. the prot. .pro. . . project levee be protected with riprap? If riprap is required, what is the visual impact? Where �s the 300 feet for immediate escape on San Mound Boulevard? What escape mitigation measures have been considered if San Mound Boulevard is flooded? I:\%-oI_'\cIicnt\19018\1:<:ItVC.021 1 4-323 What studies have been made that show the. lake's slopes to be stable to 17 foot depth and inclinations of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. Kleinfelder indicates the lake will have slope inclinations of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical for 20 feet. Page 3- 154 states Kleinfelder's report evaluation of the proposed levees is available for review at the County office. Such is not the case. When can we get the so-called detailed information regarding the soil profile the report claims to have? No test data, plot plan, boring logs as well the levee slopes stabilities are not available at the County offices. This report, as I stated is not even signed. Why does the EIR Bonley, Manly and Associates and Kleinfelder incorrectly quote FEMA height requirements? Chairperson S. Planchon: Mr. Buller, I 'm going to interrupt you for just a moment. How many more pages do you have? A. Buller: Uh, two. Chairperson S. Planchon: Alright. A. Buller: If they can't even determine height requirements from reading the literature, are they qualified to design the FEMA approved levee? During de-watering, what mitigation measures are GG-7 being considered to prevent piping with a hydraulic gradient in 1 excess of 25 feet to existing improvements including sewer lines. What calculations are there that indicate the existing levees are safe under this hydraulic gradient? How can the EIR be prepared covering levees based on data *not yet available. Did they dream this up out of the clear blue sky or what? Levee standards require riprap, this is Corp of Engineer requirement, on 3 horizontal to I vertical slopes where velocities are greater than 3 feet. According to the EIR consultants, velocities would be greater than 3 feet per second. My next question is why do we have to keep paying $30 for an incomplete, inaccurate EIR that doesn't address our questions? When will they get it right? It appears that Kleinfelder's report on the levee is not in conformance with the Corps of Engineer's guidelines, but I really can't tell that yet because the report's incomplete. I really would like to review, uh, the report when it is completed and my question is, is the report going to be modified to conform to the conclusions that the EIR says, uh, states it says? Or is it going to be independent of the EIR? I request, lastly, I request that we have another meeting to address all these problems and so that everybody concerned can be properly addressed. Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you Mr. Buller. Uh, can I have a motion to return this to the Commission? Male: So move. 1:\voi2\c1icnt\I'K)18\1:CR N'.U?I 4-324 Chairperson S. Planchon: Now we need a motion to continue and we need to set a date. Uh, there has been a request for March 8 . Commissioner J. Hanson: March 8 is separate? Chairperson S. Planchon: March 8 . There's been a request. . ..we will meet normally on March 1. Multitude of unintelligible voices in background. Commissioner D. Maybee: No, February 8 meeting. Chairperson S. Planchon: I 'm sorry? Multitude of unintelligible voices in background. L. .Jochim: I need to request that we come back on February 8 because its been a long process for everybody and. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: So the request is for February 8 . Multitude of unintelligible voices in background. Commissioner E. Andrieu: That's the meeting that's. . . . . the Albers meeting. . . Commissioner D. Maybeei . The Albers and Byron 78 . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: That's correct . Commissioner E. Andrieu: We can't conflict with that I thought. L. Jochim: Tonight we were supposed to be first on the agenda.. Chairperson S. Planchon: I need some guidance from staff on that. We uh, scheduled a meeting for February 8 to be paid 'for by Alber. How does that effect if we have this other meeting. M. Fleming: Well, the Albers Project needs to be heard on that evening. You need to complete the hearing on that, if you can. I mean if you end up having to continue it, then that, you know, you'd have to continue it to the next regular meeting. . . . If there were time after that meeting were completed. . .The thing is, they're paying for the time for everyone to be here for the room to be available and all that and I 'm not sure it's reasonable to expect them to pay for something that would be a hearing for somebody else. That was the reason that we were suggesting that the meeting be just for that purpose. L. Jochim: We' ll pitch in. 1:\%-o I 2clicnt 19018 1;(A Z N1 .0'I 4-325 A. J. Salomon: We were supposed to be first tonight too. Chairperson S. Planchon: That's correct. Uh, * what's. . . . . . . . . . . . . Female from audience: Well, I didn't get a chance to talk and I wasn't noticed and I think that. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: You're out of line young, young, lady. Let's set a date right now. Uh, staff indicated that if the applicant wishes to pay their portion to have that meeting, the cost of it, we could in fact have it. Male: Unintelligible. iChairperson S. Planchon: Uh, it would just be continuance of this meeting right now. And the request is for February 8 . So what is your pleasure. Unintelligible conversation in background. Female from audience: How come, how come you can talk from here and I can't talk from here? Another female voice enters conversation - unintelligible. Chairperson S. Planchon: I 'm trying to, we're trying to make a decision. Just a moment please. Commissioner D. Maybee: If we agreed to hear Albers and Byron 78 , they would have to be f irst on the agenda. They would have to third if Albers and Byron 78 agreement afterwards that we can have them then they would have to pay their fair share. But as County staff there is nothing going to be different other than public testimony next week. M. Fleming: Uh, Mr. Chair. . . . Byron is not going to be on for the 8th. Commissioner E. Wetzel: Byron 78 is not on for the 8th. Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Gold requested it right here.' M. Fleming: He requested it but it hasn't been noticed. There's no way we can put it on for the 8th. 1 Commissioner D. Maybee: Okay. M. Fleming: It's not a continued item. Commissioner D. Maybee: Okay. [: vol2 clicnl 1'X118 IiCltl'C.021 4-326 M. Fleming: So the only thing you will have before you on the 8th is the Albers Project because that has been noticed. Chairperson S. Planchon: That's correct. That's what I understand. It's the Albers' 74 acres. Staff: Right. Commissioner E. Andrieu: They went out of here thinking they were going. . . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Going to be on the 8th. Staff: Yeah. Chairperson S. Planchon: That's right. Male: We' ll call them. Female: Unintelligible. Chairperson S. . Planchon: So now what is being asked is. . . Unintelligible background remarks. Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, these gentlemen will be here. . .,. A. Buller from audience: Mr. Chairman. . . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Just a moment please. Female: I . . . . I . . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: We're trying to make a decision up here. A. Buller from audience: Well, I have some information.. . . F. Chairperson S. Planchon: I ' ll give you an opportunity to speak, just wait a minute. Commissioner J. Hanson: I feel we should ask the Albers how they feel, since they're the ones that initially were going to pay the full amount to have the special . meeting. We should ask them how they feel about. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, we're trying to do here tonight, . Mrs. Hansen, we're trying to give all these folks a date that they can count on. . . . , Commissioner J. Hanson: I understand that. . . . 1sovol2\cIicnt\19019\1:(:It PC-02 I 4-327 I B I Chairperson S. Planchon: If we have to postpone it and get in touch with the Albers and then there's no way these people. . . . _ 1 Commissioner J. Hanson: Yeah. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: . . . .are going to know what kind of a date we're going to set. Commissioner J. Hanson: Yeah. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: So we need to come to some kind of agreement on a date tonight. M. Fleming: Mr. Chair. I think the main concern you need to have is whether you can complete the Albers Project on the 8th. If you start that hearing and you aren't able to complete it before your ending time then you' ll have people down here ready to. . . .to go on to the other project and it won't be available. Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, I 'm going to make a suggestion and it may not make everyone happy. I say we just move it up to the first of March which is a regular ordinary meeting. Positive response from audience. Chairperson S. Planchon: Is that in agreement with you folks? Female voice from audience: Will other people be able to talk then? Chairperson S. Planchon: We' ll set the date for March 1 back on the calendar to finish this meeting. M. Fleming: Okay. You're in agreement then that March 1 will be the date for the continued EIR. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Which is the regular meeting. . . . M. Fleming: Okay. Commissioner D. Maybee: And the people that are already signed will be the first ones to speak and then anybody else that comes to the meeting will speak at the public hearing. We will not close this hearing. Audience: Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon: The hearing is not closed. The hearing is open and will be continued March 1 . 1: •al3 clicnl i'xIIR li(:IZI'C.031 4-328 L. Jochim: Can I just make a comment please? I don't mean to interrupt and . I don't mean to question your authority but our public comment is 45 days and it ends February 16. Uh, this is our second EIR. This is our second round on this thing. Actually it is longer because of the Specific Plan and its EIR and for everyone involved. If you could just give, I mean we were supposed to be first tonight and I understood that A. Albers and -uh, Byron 78 needed to go first to heard so we could have a lot of opportunity tonight to have our chance. And I just. . . I 've been so fair with the community. . . I 've tried with everyone to make this thing work and I just think it's really unfair to postpone this to March 1 after our hearing period has ended on February 16 and the continue this comment period another 2 weeks. I . . .there's gotta sometimes be a closure to things and if you want to deny the project then you guys can deny it. But there need to be a closure. It.'s very difficult on the part of. . .on-: our side. So, could I just ask you to reconsider to have us come back on February 8 and I' ll work it out with the Albers? Chairperson S. Planchon: What's the. . .what are the academics of a. . . on the closure date? What is going to be the effect on the uh, project if it's not closed until , I mean, unless we meet again on March 1? M. Fleming: Well, on the overall project I 'm not sure but right now we've agreed to take comments until the 16th: What this will do is continue the comment period through the lst. You won't want to extend it beyond that because by then everyone will have had plenty of opportunity to get their written comments in. So the 1st would be the final date for taking comments and then the consultant would get back to work on finishing uh, response to those comments. So it would delay it by a couple of weeks. Chairperson S. Planchon: Elsworth? commissioner E. Andrieu: Yeah. It seems like we're in a situation here where there is enough concern about this project on both the applicants side and uh, the general public that possibly setting 8 a deadline at this point in time is uh, not in the best interest of the situation. Female from audience: Yes sir. Commissioner E. Andrieu: I just want to be assuredmyself now that we talking about a deadline. She says she has to have a deadline by the 16th. What is the uh, uh, handicap to that. . .to the applicant if we go over that time? M. Fleming: Well, as I understand it, she, her concern is just the delay to the project. There is a 45 day review period for the draft EIR and that review period is up by the 16th. c vc)12 crcnt19018\1:currc:.n2i 4-329 1 i Commissioner E. Andrieu: Yeah. So. . . . M. Fleming: So what this does is just extend that, that time period which puts the whole project, you know, two weeks further down the road. . . . L. Jochim: And the fact that you guys meet only once a month is difficult also. So it would bring us, we would be coming back again in April or May further out. Commissioner E. Andrieu: We've okayed another meeting. We're meeting on the 8th for a special meeting, uh, and this obviously, this project has more concern, I think, from the public than that one has expressed so far. Uh, I would be willing myself to come to another meeting. I don't know how the rest. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Another meeting when? Commissioner E. Andrieu: As soon as we can put it together. various voices: March 1, March 1 . . . . 1 A. J. Salomon: Why don't you make it on February 16 . We' ll pay for the next meeting. Female from audience: Where's all this money coming from? A. J. Salomon: I don't know. We're broke. . . . A. Buller: BIAA's . . . . A. Buller: . . . .protest over this thing for inadequate notification and we still haven't got the data from Kleinfelder. So how in the hell can we comment on something we haven't even gotten yet? Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, compromise on the 16th? M. Fleming: The 16th is a holiday. Chairperson S. Planchon: 16th is a holiday. various voices discussing different dates. Chairperson S. Planchon: Earl . . . Commissioner E. Wetzel: Go back to the 8th. Let's hear it next week. various voices: No, No. 1:\volt\cIicnt\1IX)1R\i:(:ItlT-021 ' 4-330 A. Buller: You get us all copies of the Kleinfelder Report, complete. L. Jochim: I'll do it. A. J. Salomon: Yeah, you' ll. . . .- L. Jochim: I promise you. I ' ll do it. A. Buller: Why don't we have it now? L. Jochim: I promise you I will do it. Commissioner D. Maybee: Hey, mine isn't signed either. Don't feel ' so bad. A. Buller: All the test data is missing. ' Female from audience: Yeah, but why do they get what they want and we've got. . . e Commissioner D. Maybee: Nobody' s getting what they want cause we're sitting up here as volunteers trying to do the very best we can for you people. Female from audience: I realize that. But they want it immediately which isn't giving us enough time. . . . . Commissioner E. Wetzel: I do not. . . . M. Fleming: Mr. .Chair. . . . Commissioner E. Wetzel: I do not want to waste anymore of my time either. And I feel like I've wasted a lot of time here. We've heard this thing about 4 times already . . . . Male from audience: And they never correct the, information. . . .. Chairperson S. Planchon: Because of the 45 day deadline, I will agree with the young lady out here that we should go with .the 8th. A. J. Salomon: Okay. a Chairperson S. Planchon: The continuance of what we've done tonight. . . .continued on the 8th. L. Jochim: I appreciate that. Female from audience: Excuse me. Can we hear what the decision was? 4-331 Female from audience:F om di ce: It's back to the 8th. So I mean whatever we say it doesn't make any difference. Chairperson S. Planchon: Is that in agreement with the Commission? Commissioner D. Maybee: With the understanding that Albers is first. Chairperson S. Planchon: Albers is first. That is correct. Male. We intend to spend a lot of time here that night. . . .correct. . . . 2 o'clock in the morning. . . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: We will come back and we will meet here on the 8th of February. 1 A. Buller: When are we getting the Kleinfelder report so that we can. . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: I don't have that answer. You' ll have to ask the staff over here. 1 Female from audience: Will you guarantee the. . . . A. Buller: Are we going to have adequate time to review the Kleinfelder report before the 8th. M. Fleming: The FIR, the hearing . . . . A. J. Salomon: You' ll have it in your hands tomorrow Mr. Buller. Will that satisfy you? A. Buller: Yeah, it would. Unintelligible remarks from audience. A. J. Salomon: You all want what. . . . .Put your name up here and your address and it will be delivered to you . Okay? Female from audience: Tomorrow. . . . various comments from audience (unintelligible) . Chairperson S. Planchon: We will continue this meeting on the 8th. Female from audience: Can I just ask. . . . . Commissioner E. Wetzel: I make a motion we adjourn the meeting. M. Fleming: Wait. We have more items. . . . 1:\�•i�l?\client\l901R\IiCRI'C.U?1 4-332 Chairperson S. Planchon: We have a couple of things we've got to take care of. M. Fleming: We still have some .items. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: A couple of other items. . . Voice from audience: This is a railroad. . . . Other unintelligible remarks from audience. Chairperson S. Planchon:' Uh. . . Male: Okay. . . . M. Fleming: Uh, the hearing that you've dust been having was on the EIR. You still have 2 items, number 5 and 6 and 7 which are the rezoning. . . . . Voices from the audience (unintelligible) . Chairperson S. Planchon: We 'still have some business we have to take care of so we would appreciate a little quiet if you possibly can do it. M. Fleming: Okay. Other items were the rezoning, the final development plan and the subdivision. You need to take an action to continue those to March 1 . Chairperson S. Planchon: Yes . I would say that should be to March 1 . What were we talking about here on the EIR. M. Fleming: Okay. So you just need to take that action. Various voices in background arguing. Chairperson S. Planchon: Anything else before we move to adopt the findings. . . . Female: Can't hear a damn thing. . . . M. Fleming: No. That's it. a Commissioner D. Maybee: What about the Holland Tract Abandonment. M. Fleming: You, you already did that as a consent item. Chairperson S. Planchon: That was a consent item. Okay uh. . . . .public comments? Male: We've had enough. L\%-o12\cIicn1\19018\1:(.RI'( .021 4-333 I Chairperson S. Planchon: We've had enough. Staff report. M. Fleming: Oh, I just wanted to hand out these. . .they're the market studies that you asked for on the computer project. Als o on March 1 we have been trying to set up a study session with FEMA. So far we haven't been able to get a response from anyone from FEMA. We're still trying to make contact with them and arrange to have somebody here for that date. . .but I would just ask that you, you know, what the agenda carefully because there may be an early starting time. . . 6: 30. . . if we are able to get that set up for you. And that's all I have for staff reports. Chairperson S. Planchon: Commissioner comments. Commissioner J. Hanson: I wanted to ask. . .did everyone get a copy of this uh, CEQA Commissioner E. Wetzel: Yes. . . Commissioner J. Hanson: Is anyone going? I 'm not able to go. Male: I 'm going. Male: It's during the week. . . . Various comments. Chairperson S. Planchon: Communications. Various comments and background voices. Commissioner E. Andrieu: We're trying to schedule a FEMA meeting, study session with FEMA to relate to this project? Male: Yeah, well . . .yeah. . . Commissioner E. Andrieu: And you're not going to have that meeting until possibly after the decision has been made on the project? M. Fleming: It would be on the same day as you've got the project scheduled right now. You would hear them just before you heard the project. Commissioner E. Andrieu: So they give us some information. How are we going to have time to digest that and make a decision the same night? Again, I think we're moving faster here. . . . Female: I think you're right. . . Commissioner E. Andrieu: . . . than we can handle the situation. I:\�•ol3\client\I'R)I8\1`.Cltl'('.(1_'I 4-334 Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, I don't know. . . I don't know what to say about that. Commissioner E. Andrieu: We've been requesting information from FEMA for 3 months. M. Fleming: Well, the date that we've trying to get them for has been March 1 all along. That's the date we've been trying for. Commissioner . E. Andrieu: Yeah. Well, then. . .now, now we're being pressured to wind this thing up? M. Fleming: Well you're only going to being hearing the project on that date. So far it's just the EIR and you won't be making any . decisions on the project then because you won't have the EIR back yet. So all you're doing right now is taking information and sort of getting a chance of putting it together so that you can later make a decision. Commissioner D. Maybee: FEMA will have to tell you what they can and cannot do. They are going to have to get approval from FEMA for this new. levee. Commissioner E. Andrieu: This is opened to the public and the public is going to get the same information we are. . . . I just. . . . M. Fleming: Well, it's a study session so it will be. . .people can sit in on it. No testimony. They can't get involved in it. Commissioner D. Maybee: study session is us. It' s not open to the public unless we make it. Male: Unintelligible comment. Commissioner D. Maybee: Well, that's fine. But you wouldn't want them to ask questions. . .not the public. Commissioner E. Andrieu: okay. Chairperson S. Planchon: Alright then we are scheduled to o then P g g on the 8th and the Albers project will be heard first and the completion, hopefully, of the EIR will be second. And that's the 1 two items only we will be hearing. M. Fleming: That's. right. Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Chairman. . . . Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: That actually the Albers and the other project. . . 1: o13\clicnl\19018\F(T'.11(".021 \ 4-335 Chairperson S. Planchon: That's what I just said. I believe I. Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Chairman. . . . 1 Chairperson S. Planchon: I 'm getting a little groggy myself. . . Male: Yeah. Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Chairman as a matter of clarification. . .When Mr. Gold sat out there, I was under the impression that he said that he could go and he wanted them heard together. And when he left here I thought he was under the impression that we would work with both of them together on the 8th. I could be wrong, but that's the interpretation that I got. Chairperson S. Planchon: There was a request by him on that. M. Fleming: And we informed him that we didn't have everything together for the 8th. Commissioner D. Maybee: And there has to be a proper notification so it will not make that meeting. . . . M. Fleming: There's absolutely no way we could get them on for that date. Commissioner D. Maybee: So in case we get phone calls, he. . .they have to be properly notified. . . M. Fleming: That's right. Commissioner D. Maybee: . . . and they cannot do that. M. Fleming: And it's only seven days between now and the 8th and ' it's. . .you know. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: No way. Chairperson S. Planchon: Move to adjourn. Male: So moved. Female: Second. ' Male: Second, third, fourth, fifth. . .whatever. Staff: Okay. Various background discussions. Unintelligible. END OF TAPE ' 1:\volt\clicnt\I'�IR\I•:Clil'C.O21 4-336 Response to Letter GG: East County Regional PlanninjI Commission Hearin, February 1, 1993 Response GG-1: All of these comments are contained in Letter D from Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter D for responses to these comments. Response GG-2: e All of these comments are contained in Letter Y from Darrell B. Edwards, February .12, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter Y for responses to these comments. Response GG-3: All of these comments are contained in Letter H from C. Elaine Dannelley, February 10, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter H for responses to these comments. Response GG-4: Refer to the Response to Letter P from Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993 .regarding the deeded legal easement. Mitigation measures which include removing or redrawing four lots will not be enforced ' until after the project is approved by the County. Upon project approval the applicant would be required to revise the development plans according to the mitigation requirements. Response GG-5: All of these comments are contained in Letter O from Fred Davis, February 9, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter O for responses to these comments. Response GG-6: Refer to Response X-10. Response GG-7: All of these comments are contained in Letter X from Alexander Buller,February 1, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter X for responses to these comments. 4-337 Letter HH (Public testimony) EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 1993 Hearing on Item No. 4 Present: S. Planchon, E. Andrieu, J. Hanson, D. Maybee, E. Sobalvarro and E. Wetzel Absent: H. Hern Staff: M. Fleming, A. Beresford and M. Avalon, D. Foley Chairperson S. Planchon: Staff, would you like to speak on the next item. M. Fleming: Okay, agenda item #4 is a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Application # 2918-RZ, final development plan 3032-90 and SUB 7562 . A. J. Salomon Chartered Land & Cattle Company is the applicant, Three Sisters Trust are the owners. This is a revised EIR to develop 685 . 9 acres of land from General Agricultural A-2 and heavy Ag A-3 to Planned District P-1 . They're proposing development of 1, 330 single family lots. This is located in the Sandmound area near Bethel Island. At your last meeting on March 1 (Note: last meeting was February 1) you began taking testimony on this EIR and we did stop at that time and continue it to this date and what we would recommend you do today is continue to take testimony from people that have asked to speak on this item. We are here just to hear the EIR and comments should be directed towards the EIR and the adequacy of the EIR. The project itself and the pros and cons of the project will be heard at a later hearing. Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you. We are reopened again for the Public Hearing's continuance on the EIR for the Cypress project. We had a lot of intense testimony a week ago and some of the items that we covered I 'm just going to mention briefly because- we wish to limit speaking about the same items over and over. Some of the things that we have talked about are power lines, compaction, roads, water, sanitation, plant and animal life, determination of wells, parks, lakes, cultural resources, visual impacts, levee systems, interior or exterior, sound walls, economic viability, we talked about schools, erosion, subsidence, dewatering, fire and evacuation. There were seven or eight speakers that did not get a chance to speak last Monday night. We're going to give them an opportunity tonight and I also understand that the people, Mr. Buller it might be, wishes to speak and give a report on the geology status at this point in time. Where you the gentleman that wished to speak on that? 1:\vc�l3\clicn�\1901 R\I iCKI'C?Uti.nu� 4-338 A. Buller: Yes, on the new information. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Yes, on the new. . . A. Buller: . . .that was not. available until this last Friday. I� Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay, very good. If you'd like to come down forward to the microphone we' ll let you start it off and from there we' ll move right into the other speakers. M. Fleming: Mr. Chair, the applicant wanted to have an opportunity just to sort of bring you up to date as to what had .happened in the last week. Chairpersons. Planchon: I 'm sorry, one of the applicants wishes to bring us up to date. Lynn Jochim: . What I 've passed out to the Commissioners is a copy of my comments along with the soils report that was Federal HH-1 Expressed to the community of the addresses that I received at last Monday's hearing. (attached) Good evening, Chairman, fellow Commissioners. I am Lynn Jochim, the owner/developer of Cypress Lakes Golf and Country Club. Tonight I am here to .support the adequacy of the recirculated Draft EIR prepared for Cypress Lakes. I began working on this project in April of 187 with the community. It was shortly thereafter the Bethel Island Area Specific Planning Committee was formed. However, Bob Del Porto, the original land owner had been working on the lake development concept for years 1 prior. You have before you a Draft Environmental Impact Report which is the result of many years of public input and the information from three prior Draft Environmental Impact Reports prepared for this project and the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan. I 've included a hand out for you to assist you. This Draft Environmental - Impact Report was prepared by an independent. consultant firm hired by Contra Costa County to study the environmental impacts of this project and to identify measures which reduce impacts to lessen a significant level. The consultant received reports and information from other specialized consultants on the project. The County and the Environmental Impact Report consultant made their own independent review of these reports prior to the preparation of this .Draft Environmental Impact Report. The technical consultants involved in this preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Report have extensive expertise in their fields with experience on projects similar to Cypress Lakes. The soils engineer has over 40 years of expertise and work in the Delta. They have done 80% of all the levee works submitted for approval to FEMA in Washington, D.C. The FEMA work has included interior dry levees inside existing Delta levees. The civil engineering firm has been involved in Bay Delta projects for over .20 years. They've had extensive work in areas with high water table locations in flood plains and with similar soil conditions. , 1:��'cil'_\client\I'NIIR\li( lil'('?II}�.�tilg 4-339 The wetlands consultant prepared the delineation report which was verified by the Corps of Engineers: Moreover, he worked for the Corps for 16 years delineating wetlands in agricultural areas and assisted the Corps of Engineers in writing their technical manuals. The plant and endangered species consultant is world renown and has done several studies for state and federal agencies. She's spent numerous days evaluating and inspecting the site and came up with mitigation measures to avoid the impacts. The water quality consultant proposes proven techniques which have been approved by the EPA under the Clean Water Act and conforms with the NPDES, the newest storm water discharging permit. The list of professionals who have prepared detailed reports on the site goes on to include noise, air quality, archeology and traffic. The Draft Environmental Impact Report addresses impact and it proposes mitigation measures to be implemented. The EIR consultant has prepared a mitigation monitoring program to. assure the implementation of these mitigations which will be ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors along with the conditions of the project. In August of 1992 the first Draft EIR on the project was released for a 45 day review period. In the Fall you heard many hours of public testimony on this Draft Environmental Impact �j■ Report. The 45 days ended September 28 , 1992 . The comments from the community and the environmentalists spoke to us on 6 main issues. Reports and further documentations were prepared and have been included in this recirculated Draft EIR to make a more conclusive and complete environmental review. These areas of concern include wetlands; a monitoring program was drafted to assure implementation under levees; an evaluation of interior levees vs. other alternatives were evaluated on cost and feasibility; landscape, a detailed landscape plan was developed to lessen visual impacts; flood plain, a. flood plain evaluation was prepared with statistical data to address the effects of a double levee in case of a levee break on the existing levee; soils, numerous borings up to 50, 60 borings on the site have been drilled and evaluated to address methods for construction; water quality, a detailed program was prepared to be consistent with the EPA standards and this new NPDES. This Environmental Impact Report is the result of input from the local constituency, concerned environmentalists, the County Supervisors and planning staff . A re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared to further incorporate the comments and concerns by these groups along with new studies and more detailed information. Moreover, the County staff has made their independent review during the administrative draft stage and thereby approved the release of this draft to the public. . The environmental groups that are the most active in this County and their attorneys have reviewed this re- circulated draft EIR and find it adequately addresses their concerns for this area. They feel it gives them honest analysis of the impacts of this project and recommends realistic mitigation measures. In summary, the process behind the preparation of this environmental document has been long but an elaborate one. The 1:\vc�l2\client\17(115\I mig 4-340 1 document incorporates extensive technical and legal review along with input of staff and environmentalists. Cumulatively this represents a well-educated group of professionals with experience and concerns for development of urban communities. That is why I am able to stand here and support the adequacy of this re- circulated Draft EIR with a conviction. Thank you. Are there any questions? Chairperson S. Planchon: Any questions from the Commission? Lynn Jochim: Thank you very much. Chairperson . S. Planchon: We're going to call on Mr. Buller at this point in time to give his added report, he's had a good opportunity to speak a week ago but you have some more material you wish to talk on so step forward. A. Buller: Before I start I have a major complaint: Uh, the EIR is indicated that we can call Community Development and talk to talk to Art. Beresford with questions and so forth. Five -different individuals called last Thursday, including myself. - I 'was told he was on the phone and would return my call . Today it's Monday night and I 'm still waiting for him to return a call. Darryl has he returned your call? D. Shipway (from the audience) : He - called me. A. Buller: He returned yours . Fred, he didn't return yours. Voice in background: I need to talk to. . . A. Buller: Yeah, he's ducking us, he. won't return our calls and who's he working for? The people out here or the developer? I went down there and I still couldn't get him to respond to a simple a phone call .- Commissioner all :Commissioner E. Wetzel: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were, he was going to address. .. . Chairperson S. Planchon:. Yeah, we . . . . A. Buller: Yeah, I am. And part of the EIR it says to call the gentleman and the gentleman will not return phone calls. Commissioner E. Wetzel: This isn't, this isn't the time and place for that. A. Buller: Well, it's got to be documented somewhere 'cause a lotta more people are going to hear about this, including some other stuff. I heard Lynn Jochim come. up here and discuss what a brilliant group has worked on this stuff. They can't even read -the I:\voI2\cIiew\19018\I;.('RVC2IS. nttg 4-341 English language. They haven't complied as I reported last time with Section 15130 of the California Environmental Quality Act but I don't want to re-hash old stuff . I didn't receive the geotechnical report on the levees until Friday night. That was promised to me by Mr. Salomon and Lynn Jochim on Tuesday. She called me on Tuesday, got my address and said it would be Federal Expressed to my place on Wednesday. I didn't get it 'til Friday night after I came home from work so I really haven't had an opportunity to go through it entirely except to find out there's no back-up test data in the thing, the slopes stability results are missing, it's an incomplete report but this one is signed. The odd thing about this report is it's dated February 2 , 1993 . I got a real serious question. How in the hell can a report and EIR that was prepared in December of 192 be based on a report that's incomplete and dated for February 2 , in 193 . Isn't that putting the cart in front of the horse? This February 2nd report states that it's in compliance with the Corps of Engineer Manual, EM1110-2-1913 . Let me show it definitely is not in compliance. It doesn't comply with Table 2-1 , it doesn't comply with Table 2-2-3B (4 ) . It doesn't comply with Section II-8 . It doesn't comply with Section II-9-B to the point that it wasn't even done. It wasn't even done, the requirements of Section 2-14 . Entire Chapter 3 was omitted. If it was it wasn't included in the report that I received on Friday dated the 2nd of February and when we get that data I would like to be able to address the Committee on that material, if it ever does become available. It doesn't meet the HH-2 intent of Chapter 6 , it has no impervious blanket on the water side or under drain when slopes exceed one vertical to five horizontal. It does not have riprap on slopes of one vertical to three horizontal where velocities are at 3 feet per second. Both the Kleinfelder report and the civil engineer's report indicate velocities of 3-4 ' per second, so where' s the riprap. You're telling me that they know what they're doing? Section II has no results of the stability analysis. There is no test data to back it up and they just fly by with a comment that says it meets the Corps of Engineers requirements. Well , what are those results. I'd like to see them. They indicated their computer analysis was on the Bishop method so I ran my simplified Bishop method on my computer and I 've got a failed levee. Is their computer better than my computer? Somebody needs to overview their work. They've got failures in the Delta here, I can point several of them out to you and we're talking about lives out here that are at stake and we need somebody to look over their work. Right now we haven't got a County geologist on board and I 'm requesting an independent review by another geotechnical engineer of all their work. Chapter 7 wasn't even included. Chairperson S. Planchon: Mr. Buller, can you condense this down just a little bit further. I:\vo13\client\17018\I`.CI:N�208.nug 4-342 1 A. Buller: Well, I 'm giving you the sections and I 'm not even talking about where they fail to. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, you .see the sections don't mean an ' awful lot. A. Buller: Well, then let me take the time to go over the t particular sections. Chairperson S. Planchon: I encourage you to get this stuff in writing with all the sections, that's where it really counts. A. Buller: Well, it's going to be in writing, too. Chairperson S. Planchon: Get it in writing, that's correct. Just telling us all those numbers doesn't mean a darn thing to us. We need to see it in writing. . . A. Buller: Well , you will , believe me. Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay. A. Buller: Well , for example Table 2-2-3B (4) requires filled pumping tests. They haven't done that. They haven't, the Corps Manual says you have to investigate the borrow area. They haven't done that. There are samples, uh, or are not the correct, or sufficient size as required by the Corps of Engineers. They haven't done, like I said, the lab testing is not presented. The slope designs aren't there and all the way through and to speed things up I 'm just giving you the section numbers. Now you made me lose my place, excuse me. What I said, I don't know whose ' computer is better, I know mine's pretty old but it showed that slope to fail and draw down. Chapter 7 , 'Section 2 was not even covered and that's an exploratory trench, uh, that the Corps of HH-2 Engineers requires. Table 7-2 was totally disregarded. Section 7-6 not covered and that concerns riverside protection. Section 7-6-C-2 (d) was totally ignored and that I 'm going to read to you. It says, "where slopes consists of erodible brand new soils, abetting layer of sand and gravel or spoils or plastic filter cloth to .be used under riprap. " We have a sand dune levee out there and they didn't even bother looking at this requirement with the Corps of Engineers. These are supposedly brilliant people as Lynn just mentioned. Uh, I spent two nights looking through this Manual and just picked this stuff out. If I 'd some more time I could really go through or if they had a complete report I could probably go through it. At this time I would like to hand out to everybody the HH-3 permit from the State. It's available on record of 3 500 gallon underground diesel tanks that were put in the property in 1970. Chairperson S. Planchon: We have a copy of this from last. . . . I: col? clirnl I`J(11R li('I21'C?U�.nu 4-343 r A. Buller: Oh, yeah, well . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: . . . and this has already been covered. A. Buller: Well, every State agency and federal agency we can think is going to get it. We have sent it out to various people in the County and they claim they don't have it. I 've got witnesses here showing you all have it and I don't' know how to put it other than bluntly but you got a chance to show everybody what a rubber stamp committee you really are. Thank you. Commissioner J. Hanson: Excuse me. Can I ask you a question? A. Buller: Yes. Commissioner J. Hanson: Where on this report does it say that they are underground? A. Buller: That' s a State agency that registers underground tanks. That record is available at the State and these brilliant HH-3 EIR people couldn't find it. Even when I mentioned it, uh, back last year. Commissioner. E. Andrieu: Do you know where they are? Dave Dal Porto (from the audience) : Can I address that? Chairperson S. Planchon: One moment please. We got one man at the mike right now. 1 A. Buller: What's the question? Commissioner E. Andrieu: Do you know where they are in the property? A. Buller: No. I 've hadeo le tell me about 'em about how P P bad they've been leaking, that they had to abandon them but I have no idea where they are other than somewhere in the center of the property. I have only been on the property once and that was a long time ago. 1 Chairperson S. Planchon: Any further questions? Thank you, sir. A. Buller: Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon: Rhonda Hanson. Rhonda Hanson: -.My name is Rhonda Hanson. My address is 4800 Sandmound Boulevard. I live directly across the street from a portion of the subject project that we're discussing. I ' ll try very hard not to go over the same things that we've gone over 1:\���I_'\rlicnt\I'1111 ti\I[('I:I'<7t6ti.nu� 4-344 before but it's very hard to remember from meeting to meeting what's been discussed and I ' ll just kinda go down my notes as fast as I can. The first thing has to do with page 1-6, and that is that it was my understanding that we were not supposed to have an access through this project from Sandmound Boulevard until the very HH-4 last EIR report, that's the first notice that I had that there would be access from Sandmound and I strongly object to that and it's my understanding that the County had no intention of having an access from Sandmound. Next is page 2-5 and that has to do with traffic and also 2-9 , the road improvements regarding the Delta Expressway. The EIR report specifically says that this is going to be an unavoidable problem with traffic if the Delta . Expressway HH-5 is not put in and from what I can see of the County finances and the State finances and the finances in general, it's my opinion ' that the project should not be built unless and until the Delta Expressway and other road improvements are built first. Regarding air quality, page 2-11 , the project would result again an unavoidable impact on regional emissions and that again is an air HH-6 quality problem and I think that that' s an unacceptable thing that the Commissioners should find unacceptable in this report. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: It has been addressed. . . Rhonda Hanson: . . . okay. Um, on page 2-13 there's an unavoidable HH-7lchange in the visual quality of the area that I think should be louked at. Under noise, on page 2-15, it was my understanding all along from the County that in .this area we did not have to have sound walls and all of a sudden, bingo in this EIR there are sound ' walls and I 'd like to know why that was put in all of a sudden and HH-8 as a person who served on the Specific Plan Advisory Committee for three years I know that was not intended for our area . We did not want sound walls in our area . I would like that removed from the EIR. Chairperson S. Planchon: You don't remove things from the EIR. The EIR you put as much into it as you possibly can. Rhonda Hanson: Well , not sound walls. I 'd like to take the sound walls out. Chairperson S. Planchon: You put it in and you have to address them. Rhonda Hanson: Okay, well then let's. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: At a later date. . . Rhonda Hanson: . . . let' s address the sound walls and try to get them out. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Alright. 1:\ i13\clicnI\1901K\VCItN"201.nu� 4-345 Rhonda Hanson: . . .please. They were also talking about in the same page in the noise level about the existing residents being exposed to "short term impact from construction noise" and as a resident HH-9 that's directly down wind and from this project, I'd like to know who considers 10 years of noise levels short term. I think that's unacceptable. Um, dewatering is on page 218 and dewatering has been covered. I would just like to reiterate that I think it's HH-10 very important that a bond be placed to protect the residents from the dewatering consequences. On page 220 the dynamic compaction, I don't believe that won't affect our residences. It says in there that it will not affect people that are over 150 feet away. I'd like to know where the 150 feet figure came from. I don't believe HH-11 that I am 150 feet away from the project . site anyway so what happens to me, the people that are under 150 feet away from the project. This I would also like to be bonded and guaranteed, some guarantee to me that what they say is true in this report. On page HH-12 I2-22 , dust conditions, um, again I find dust in my face and in my house unacceptable for 10 years . They define extreme winds, they HH-131don't define extreme winds but they say that. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: You' re covering almost everything that you said we've been through two and three times . If you can condense it a little more it would sure be appreciated. Rhonda Hanson: Well, you know, I spent a lot of time going through the EIR to find points that I think are important and I understand that you don't want to hear the same things over and over but it seems to me as Commissioners representing the community that if you hear the same problems from 20 people or 50 people or 1, 000 people who live on Sandmound that maybe you would listen and take it into consideration just a little more than if you hear it from only one. It's very hard for me to go down my list and say, well , this one's been covered and this one hasn't. I took the time to go through this report as voluminous as it is bit by bit and I 'm sorry that you have to sit here and listen to this. It's not been pleasurable for me either. May I continue. Chairperson S. Planchon: Go ahead. Rhonda Hanson: Alright, the next one is beyond the dust conditions. The Fire Department problem most of you know that we're having problems with our fire control , with our paying for our fire HH-14 district as it is. I 'd like to know whether this is going to be a manned fire house and who's going to pay for that and if that needs, doesn't that need to be addressed in the EIR since it's part of the EIR. There's also a problem with sheriffs, I think that HH-151there, we don't have enough sheriffs as it is. A big major thing for me is schools. I don't think that this site is an appropriate HH-113 spot for schools since it's in such close proximity to lakes an the river. I think it's wonderful. that they're going to give us these I:\vol?\client\I')(11 ti\1•:('RI'('?Iri.nu� 4-346 long-awaited parks but I don't quite understand why they have to HH-17 right under the power lines and I 'd suggest or ask that the EIR would consider moving the parks in another area away from the power lines. Um, on page 2-29 they said that the facilities will provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes if not properly maintained. Again, HH-18 I'd like to see guarantees that the, who is going to monitor what's properly maintained and whether we have a mosquito problem. On page 3-135 there's an impact on existing levee residents and I 'm concerned again about the pounding or the deep dynamic compaction . . that they're going to use. I 'd like to find out through an EIR HH-19 Process whether this pounding is equivalent to an earthquake and as everyone knows everyone's very concerned about levees breaking due to earthquakes. On page 3-137 it says a break is likely to, is unlikely to become bigger than 50 feet. Now I think that's a down and out lie and I watched tall and track break and I know for sure that it was at least 400 feet wide when it was done and I 'd HH-20 like to know what's going to stop our levee at 50 feet. Um, on page 2-29 , the cultural resources I will skip because I think that's been covered. Chairperson S. Planchon: I think everything's been covered that you 've discussed tonight by about at least a dozen times . Rhonda Hanson: Is it helping? Chairperson S. Planchon: Everything. (Claps and laughter) . Ilike Rhonda Hanson: On page 3-17 it says that the project residents HH-21should be notified of the health hazards from the power lines. I 'd to see the EIR changed to read must be notified. On 3-20 they talk about jobless housing and I 'd like to see if you're going HH-22 to approve a project for this area that you approve a project that has a jobless housing balance and this one does not. On page 3-45 again they talk about traffic problems that are created by this project. I just ask you to please to look at the traffic, all the traffic pages, and I ' ll skip the traffic pages for the moment if HH-23 I can be assured that all of you will please look at them all with an eye towards what traffic will be really like out there when this is done. Um, on page 3-62 , they say they could restrict the hours of construction operation for heavy equipment on State route for adjoining commute hours and I 'd ask that that again be changed to HH-24 "must restrict the hours of operations so that we don't have to put up with the heavy trucks during commute hours. I am a commuter and I know what it's like. On page 3-63 the project will contribute to long-term cumulative traffic. The County at this point already HH-25 has a $500 million shortfall and it doesn't sound promising to me. Um, page 3-69 , again I want to remind you all of the unavoidable impact, significant unavoidable impact from dust. Please consider us. Come out and take a drive, come to my house, I ' ll have .you all HH-26 to my house on a windy day and you can get a picture of what this is going to be like. Dust control measures should be a condition L\vo13\cIicnI\19019\1?CRVC-10.9.nug 4-347 of approval by Contra Costa County. I 'd like the word "should be HH-26 a condition of approval" to "must be a condition of approval. " The project would result in a significant adverse impact on regional emissions. That's a quote from the EIR report. Um, I feel more studies need to be done on existing wildlife. I have seen a lot HH-27 more wildlife across the street from me than is listed in the report. On page 3-133 in the ground watering section I just like to note that I have a garden which once the plants are established in my garden it's not watered again for the rest of the summer and I get things out of my garden all summer. That tells me that there's a water level very high under my property. I have a HH-28 Problem visualizing how they can do dewatering across the street from my house and not affect the water level at my house enough to change the level of my ground and that bothers me and I would like to have somebody else do a report because I think the people who study this don't know what they're talking about. Um, on page 13-139 under water quality, I 'm concerned very much that the water's HH-29 going to be pumped out of that lake, out of those lakes into Sandmound Slough. I would like that looked into. Um, as far as the electrical transmission lines, I won't cover that and I will let the rest of the people speak who have a chance to speak. I 'm sorry for being redundant. I would like to say in closing that I know it's very hard for you Commissioners to sit up there and listen to Lis but this is our life, this is the safety of me and my family and all my neighbors. We've lived there for a long time and last week whenever Mr. Wetzel made a comment that I was wasting his time, that we were wasting his time, I felt very insulted and I feel that this Commission is here for us not for the developer. Please renew my faith in that concept . Thank you . Chairperson S. Planchon: Linda Wadsworth. Linda Wadsworth: I think it should be known that you guys are all volunteers, aren't you? chairpersons. Planchon: Well , we get paid big money for sitting up here. voice from audience - not understandable. Linda Wadsworth: But you guys are County employees, is this correct. Are you paid employees of the County, right, well, I 'm not hostile I must start off . This is not our intent, or my intent at any rate. In this last week I 've gotten a kind of an eye- opener as to what an ERI is or an ERA. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: EIR. Linda Wadsworth: Okay, and I think maybe, Stan you should explain to everybody here what you job about this ERI is like I 've been told this week. t1:\ nl'\rlicnl\1901£:\1 ('121'('20S.111i;; 4-348 Chairperson S. Planchon: Basically the EIR is an environmental impact report. When you have a project like we have at Cypress, State law now in projects of that size require that an environmental impact report be. made getting all the input you could possibly get into it showing both the good aspects of the project, the bad, how they should be mitigated. You gather all this information and after that's gathered then it's accepted. After it's accepted then the project itself gets started and that's where the nitty gritty is. Not in . the EIR. The EIR is to get all the information we possibly can and then we go from there. . r Linda Wadsworth: Okay, well this is where I think that I wasn't understanding. I was figuring that once this EIR was passed that nothing more could be done or changed or in that we would be rubber stamped. Obviously the employees that .are here from the County have given this group the impression that they really don't care about what's existing there on Sandmound. And like I said, I 'm not hostile but I might be just a little bit paranoid because what this project looks to us like is that .they're going to build 16 foot safe levees around a brand new project. This only came to my 1 attention about 6 months ago. Up until then I live in Oakley. I have property on Sandmound and I was saying what is the matter with everybody. Why don't they want beautiful homes built out there. This is nonsense and all of a sudden I discovered that they don't want to infiltrate into the area whatsoever. They want to put up 16 foot levees and separate themselves. Sixteen foot levees is a lot different than 6 foot fences, wrought iron fences, gate works such as that and I think that everybody could accept a beautiful new subdivision without the separation and I 've written a letter to the County on this and it states some of our concerns. I' ll, I ' ll read it to you, it's short and I 'm not going to go any further. (Reading letter) The environmental impact report for this project does not reveal the impact of this levee on the property owners on Sandmound and the area in general . What will the affect of noise be between these levees. What about our entrapment between these levees? What about air quality between these levees? I feel it is totally wrong for this subdivision to be considered for rezoning in its present form. Almost everyone in the area would like to see a new development such as this come into our area. The key word is into our area and not to be allowed to become a community. on to itself . Their levee within a levee would tear our neighborhood into separated spaces, safe and. :nsafe HH-34 zones. This would be extremely unfair to the people living on Sandmound, .Cypress and all of the areas nearby. This subdivision would not be an improvement to the area and instead would be a total injustice to our entire community. It is obvious to anyone that a levee surrounding the new subdivision would immediately speak a thousand words and the huge statement would imply that the rest of the immediate .area should be considered less than desirable and unsafe . If in fact a rezoning were to be considered the entire I:\%-ol'_\cIicnI\19018\I iCIZVC20S.nv, 4-349 r area rightfully should be included in this safe zone. This new subdivision should be part of this expensive recreational area and not be barricaded within a dry levee and become an interruptive community within our community. The only reason one would even consider such a disturbing venture would have to be the added tax revenue the County would gain. I certainly hope this rezoning issue is resolved to benefit the entire existing area instead of just this particular developer. I sincerely hope our Board of HH-30 Supervisors will consider the devastating effect this will have on our property and insists that this new development come into our community in a more friendly fashion. It is appalling to me that only recently has it become clear that they intend to surround this new subdivision with this huge dry levee. Please stop this project with its levees now and make sure we all become safe. Somewhere, sometime, somehow this County government has got to get in touch with the people that are living in this County. Somewhere government's got to get smart. I 'm done. Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you, Linda . (Clapping) Chairperson S. Planchon: Mark Carter. Is he gone? Voice from audience: Ah, he's at home taking care of his family, I 'm sure. Chairperson S. Planchon: Lorraine Henderson, Sherry Johnson. D. Shipway: I 'm sure she's not here either. . She wanted to know if she could come to the March 1 . . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Paul Allen. Paul Allen: Hello, (unintelligible) . I live at 4776 Sandmound Boulevard and I just have a very short one so I hope you' ll stay awake for it. On page 1, section 9 , this plan promises to pay $3 , 333 per unit to the County for the affordable housing fund. This would total over $4 million but the builder may, instead of paying, provide affordable housing on site. I believe plans for HH-31 any affordable housing units should be included in the EIR. If not, then the decision to build these units should not rest with the builder. I 'm not against low-cost housing but if I 'm to live beside it I 'd like to know (a) what it would look like, (b) who will live there and (c) who will maintain the property. I don't want a $4 million surprise. Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon: Craig Ogren. Voice from audience: Craig Ogren is out of town. 1:\%-c)12\clic nt\1901 R\1`.('RPC2118.nu� 4-350 it Chairperson S. Planchon: He's gone. D. Shipway: He'd like to come March 1 also. Chairperson S. Planchon: Seth Cockrill . Seth Cockrill: My name is Seth Cockrill. I live at 100 Fireplace in Knightsen. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I 'm here representing the Knightsen Community Council. We wrote a letter on the last EIR. We asked that Knightsen be included in the traffic study. At least this time they didn't recognize the HH-32 Knightsen and had a couple of roads but they don't know where they go. We would like to see this addressed not only on this project but all projects as we heard earlier tonight. Knightsen feels it's being left out. Knightsen has very narrow roads and every project that. . . . (new tape begins here) . . . and in Brentwood cannot travel on Highway 4 as well as all areas in the East County be considered before projects that are done to consider major traffic. Thank ' you. Clapping from audience. Chairperson S. Planchon: Katie All . Katie All: My name is Katie All and I live at 384 Sandmound Boulevard and the first thing I 'd like to address was the EIR report was not available as stated in the letter from Mr. Beresford. The local library does still .not have a copy of it and I was not able to attend last week so I 'm not sure of all the things that have been covered. I 've listened this evening and I ' ll try not to cover some of those things as well. One of the things ' that was specifically mentioned in the new EIR is that levels of six decibels or more are considered a significant change to the noise levels in the area . Uh, there's a reading that was taken at Cypress and Bethel Island Road that would change from 48 decibels to 65 decibels. That's an increase of 17 decibels and they're suggesting as part of the mitigation that again this sound wall be built. I hope the County notices that they're ' in for 40% of the cost of this new sound wall . Um, again the EIR addresses the visual quality of the area but it still states that often the homes in the area which I 'm assuming is Sandmound are three and four HH-33. stories tall. Um, I took a quick count, 96% of the homes in the area are one and two stories tall. That's not very accurate counting. Um, most of the one story homes would directly be up against this new proposed levee and part of the approval of this new project is with its recreational appeal . We already have two existing golf courses in the area, two more are proposed for the immediate East County area . Do we really need a fifth golf course? What percent of our population actually golfs? With the Delta area so close what recreational benefit does the lake offer, there's no swimming in the lake, there' s no boating in the lake and the 4-351 I revised EIR, um, just a brief comment on traffic, still shows that Melroy Road is a main thoroughfare and an alternative route to Highway 4 at the junction of 160. This is a dirt road across private property. And, a final comment on the levees and I know you've heard before, I find the safety both during and after the HH-33 construction, um, a real issue for the existing residents. If this particular levee is approved will it pave the way for future levee systems around future projects and ultimately the demise of our current 799 system. Why have all, why not have all future projects support the current 799 levee system and make all of the area FEMA approved. Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you. Larry P. Gardner. Larry Gardner: Good evening Council . My name is Larry Gardner. I live at 5383 Sandmound. I 've been here for most all these meetings . I don't have a prepared statement. I just like to say that I 'm in favor that will bring prosperity to our area . I encourage jobs. I 'm in favor of all forms of monetary gain. I don't have a qualm with it. Has the County considered maintaining current building practices? If they're going to allow these people HH-34 to build ring levees as this draft EIR presents why are they not requiring current residents to build their homes to that same requirement. If the requirement we' re building our homes to now is not adequate then they should not be allowed to be built to begin with. Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon:, Thank you. Clapping from audience. Chairperson S. Planchon: I finally got to the bottom of them. Carol Coleman. Carol Coleman: My name is Carol Coleman and I live at 3150 East Cypress Road which is the extension. I have a lot of questions to ask but most of it has been covered. My main concern right now is that each time I come here to this Commission there's a piece of property pointed out as if it means nothing to anybody and it's referred to as this little triangular portion of land maybe less than a half acre is what it said and that's all that's said. That happens to be my property and it's . 58 of an acre. I 've lived there 30 years. I have animals that are a part of agricultural land. Occasionally they say the road is going to go through that property and they're going to take part of it. I can't afford to have that property taken if I'm going to stay agricultural . We HH-35 have tried to work with Three Sisters Trust, Lynn Jochim and A.J. Salomon about relocating. They don't seem to be concerned. about relocating us at this point. My concerns are what is going to happen with my property if they put the road through. At one point they told us the road was going to go behind my property and I was 1:\vo12\clicn1111)11I8\Ii11I'('2118.ntrg 4-352 going to abut near a golf course, I would be no problem to anybody. . !� Now they want to put houses all around me and at one point .three home sites were going to take' a part of my property. I was going i HH-35 to be part of three home sites and the road was going to go through it. The last report I heard there's been no decision. Why hasn't there been a decision in the EIR as to what my property is intended for. Chairperson S. Planchon: The EIR does not make decisions. The EIR is. a document showing the concerns of. . . Carol Coleman:. This is a concern. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: . . . of the people, yes. . . . Carol Coleman: . . . it is a concern but there's nothing in the EIR. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: . . .we don't answer those concerns at this plate. You have to get them - down, get them out and get them in writing and those concerns will be addressed. . . Carol ' Coleman: I have done that. Chairperson S. Planchon: . . .w.hen the project starts to. . . 1 Carol Coleman: . . . but why is not in the EIR? Chairperson S. Planchon: Well , put. them in right now. Carol Coleman: I 've mentioned it twice and it's not in there now. Chairperson S. Planchon: Put it in writing. Put it in writing. Carol Coleman: I 've written .a letter. Why is it not in the EIR what the intent is. . . Chairperson S. Planchon: Well , it' s up to you to put it in writing .and make sure it's in there. Carol Coleman: I did. I have put it in writing and mailed it, it's still not in there. ' This is what I 'm saying. Why are these not put in the EIR. voice in audience: They don't- know how to read. Female from audience: Stan, isn't it clear that this will become a part of the EIR. If you put it in writing, get it in there, it will become a part.. ' Chairperson S. Planchon: That is correct. 1:\rnl2\t'licni\I)Olti\I'.CRI'(_Ilti.mt, 4-353 �I Same female: And it' ll be up to the Supervisors to decide that and address it. Commissioner J. Hanson: It will become a part of the responses to the EIR which is done later. Carol Coleman: Yeah, but don't those responsible, responses have to be in print with the EIR. Commissioner J. Hanson: No, the responses come after the EIR is final. Carol Coleman: Well , I 've just seen no changes as to what the intent is and I think that's a concern. Thank you. Chairperson S. Planchon: The closing date on this is, will probably be the 16th by 5 : 00 p.m. and I would encourage all of you to have everything that have been discussed all in writing and in by the 16th. After that point in time there's what we call a response period. The applicant will have a chance to respond to all of the questions that have been raised with the EIR then a new document is created and from there it eventually finds its way up to the Board of Supervisors. At that point you folks will have another opportunity to speak out for or against the EIR before it's finally certified. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak tonight that we didn't cover? One more gentleman here. Fred Davis: My name is Fred Davis. I live in #19 Cactus Lane. These aren't my comments but they are. comments that I requested along with a group of citizens that live out on Sandmound and there from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Our requests, they reviewed this Draft Environmental Impact Report and addressed this letter to the Community Development Department, their Mr. Beresford; and it goes on to say, "we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project proposed for northeastern Contra Costa County. The Draft Environmental Impact Report assesses the potential impact to the environment of rezoning 685 . 9 acres from general and heavy agricultural district to planned unit district and for the construction of approximately of 1, 330 single family residential units, golf course, school site, fire station and so on. As discussed in section 3 . 3 of the EIR the project would result in a significant adverse impact on regional omissions specifically reactive organic gases and oxides and nitrogen which are precursors of ozone. The implementation of mitigation measures discussed in 3 . 3 has a potential to reduce project impacts on regional air HH-36 quality by approximately 10% However, the omissions impact would remain significant and effect both the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Bay Area Air Basin. . We are also concerned that this project may not be consistent with the land use goals of the Contra HH-37 Costa County General Plan, goal 3-25 of the land use element of the I:%%-o13\C1ic11l\19019%1.(:It N208.mig 4-354 plan states that new residentialdevelopment shall be accommodated only in areas it will avoid creating severe adverse impacts on the environment and upon the existing community. It is unclear how this' project is consistent with' that land use goal. The project HH-37 . also seems to be inconsistent with land use goals 3-A and 3-2 , goal 3-A calls for the protection of agriculture and open space, goal 3-2 states that jobs in-fill shall be supported and stimulated where jobs housing ratio chose an over abundance of housing, to jobs. The Final Environmental Impact Report should address consistencies of the proposed project with the plan including the specific goals cited above and especially the air quality impacts of any inconsistencies that may result. And then it goes on to say it's talking about bicycle trails and pedestrian trails. It didn't say anything about rick-shas but it might not .be a bad idea. They have an additional example of mitigation measures for this project, might include substantial public transportation service between the HH-38 development area and significant destinations, employee shuttles to major work sites, the requirement for use of clean fuel transit buses, CNG methanol and electric where possible, and establishing car pool and van pool programs . We appreciate. the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any - questions or comment, 1 please contact Mr. John Walsher, Environmental Planner. This was written by Mr. Milton Felstein, Air Pollution Control Officer and he's also an expert. Clapping from audience. Chairperson S. Planchon: Anyone else . I want to• give everyone an opportunity. Patricia Curtin: I would like to make a rebuttal on behalf of the applicant. P. Curtin: Thank you, Mr. Chair and all fellow Commissioners. My name is Patricia- Curtin, legal representative for . Chartered Land & Cattle Company on the Cypress Lakes project. I 'd like to start off by thanking everyone for their comments on the Draft EIR. Please rest assured that all comments heard tonight on . the Draft EIR will be responded to in writing by the EIR consultant. Written comments will be permitted until the 16th of February and all those comments will also be responded to in writing. CEQA acknowledges the need for the community involvement that is why CEQA requires that a Draft Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Through public comments and responses to those comments we have another document as explained by the Chair called the Final Environmental Impact Report. Those two documents together make up the EIR. Only then can the decision-makers such as yourself make a decision on this project. Tonight we've heard a lot of conflicting testimony on the various points of this Draft Environmental Impact Report. Again, CEQA recognizes that experts' opinions may vary :on particular issues. This disagreement amongst experts does not make 1: %-o12 client\19018 F('RPC_'nS.mt,, 4-355 an EIR or Draft EIR invalid. It only shows that people have a difference of opinion. These opinions if made by way of comment like they were here tonight are considered and responded to and they may if legitimate be accepted or followed through. A valid EIR must follow through all the procedural requirements of CEQA and include technical data to allow the decision-makers again such as yourself to make an informed decision. This is an informational document. By making a decision on this document or recommendation for certification to the Board of Supervisors does not mean that you are approving the project. That is the next phase of the planning process. I 'd like to just make some quick comments about the new soils report that was distributed to you this evening. HH-39 That soils report is near identical to the one that the environmental consultant included as an appendix in the EIR. As a result this Draft EIR adequately analyzes all the conclusions and recommendations made in that report. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the newest soil report are near identical to the ones contained in the staff report and the County does have their own independent geotechnical consultant that does review all soils reports and that section of the EIR and that, that individual did in fact review that one for the Cypress Lakes EIR. I urge that the Commission close the public oral comment period on the EIR tonight and make a decision on whether or not they would like to certify it. Again, we have until the 16th of February to accept a written comment and then when we come back to you you can make your recommendation on the EIR. Are there any questions? Commission S. Planchon: For the point of clarification we do not certify. P. Curtin: No, you make a recommendation, I apologize if I caused any confusion. Thank you. Commissioner S. Planchon: Any questions? Mary, do you have an address that the good people out there could mail in all of their written comments, get them in writing. M. Fleming: Absolutely, any written comments can be addressed to the Community Development Department, it's 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553 and direct those to the attention of Art Beresford. You get them there as directly as possible. He' ll be collecting all of the conditions, all of the comments that come in there' ll be passed on to the environmental consultant after the 16th. Commissioner S. Planchon: After the 16th. M. Fleming: And then we' ll begin work on the response documents. Commissioner S. Planchon: And, what's the time frame before it' ll get back? Roughly. L\%.o12\C1ic111\190Is\I fCRN'_21N.ml� 4-356 M. Fleming: I would say probably a month. Commissioner S. Planchon: A month, okay. Female voice in audience: I don't mean to sound paranoid. Would you suggest that maybe we send these return. receipt? .(Laughter in room) Female voice again: I mean would that be a recommendation or do you think that they might acknowledge that they received all, each and every one of',these. M. Fleming: Anything that's received on this project clearly state on the written comments that this is a response for the EIR, identify the project so we know which project. ... Female voice in audience: I recognize that, Mary, but through Y g the few meetings that I 've been here, it appears pretty apparent that there's great many people here who have found that the County has lost, misplaced or never received- documentation. You think a return receipt might be in order here . M. Fleming: If it makes you more comfortable that' s fine. Female voice in audience: They will sign for them, I mean there's no. . . M. Fleming: Of course. Female voice in audience: . . . I mean, there's no County �. Ordinance that says they can't. M. Fleming: No. Female voice in audience: Okay. Chairperson S. Planchon:' Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Commissioner E. Sobalverro: I move that we close the public hearing. Commissioner E. Andrieu: I ' ll second it. Chairperson S. Planchon: All those in favor. :(Vote cast) All say aye. ) L\voJ2\c1icnl\1'JOIR\i:(mP(208.nii, 4-357 Chairperson S . Planahont Now, I need a motion with whatever you folks wantto do with the EIR. You wish to call it adequate and send it to response, not response, written comments which will be deadline at the 16th at 5: 00 p.m. , 16th of February . M. Flaming: Mr. Chair, you wouldn't want to call it adequate at a this point. All you want to do is close testimony. Chairperson B. Planchon: Close comments, close "-.he public hearing and ask for written comments. M. Fleming: Right. Chairperson S. Planchon: That's the motion that's needed . we have a motion? Commissioner E. Andrieu: I ' ll make that motion . Chairperson S. Planchon: We have a second? Commissioner F.. eobativarro: I made a motion on that:, Mr . Chairman. Chairperson S. Planchon: Pardon. Commissioner E. Sabal.verro: I had already made that mot;an. Chairperson A. Planchon: Okay. Roll call , D. Foley: Commissioner Sobalvarro. Commissioner Sobalvarro: Aye. D. Foleyt Commissioner Andrieu. Commissioner Andrieu: Aye. D. Foley: Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner J. Hanson: Aye. D. Foley: Commissioner Maybee. Commissioner Maybee: Aye. D. Foley: Commissioner Wetzel . 'commissioner Wetzel: Aye. D. Foley: Chair Planchon. I-\vu12\rIten I\1901F`,F.CRf('?(`R.mI 4-353 i Commissioner S. Planchon: Aye. D. Foley: Comments closed. Public hearing closed. Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay. Roll call . D. Foley: Commissioner Sobalvarro. Commissioner Sobalvarro: Aye. D. Foley:. Commissioner Andrieu. ' Commissioner Andrieu: Aye. D. Foley: Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner J. Hanson: Aye. D. Foley: Commissioner Maybee. Commissioner Maybee: Aye. D. Foley: Commissioner Wetzel . Commissioner Wetzel: Aye. D. Foley: Chair Planchon. Commissioner S. Planchon: Aye. , END OF HEARING ON ITEM NO. 4 L\vo12\c1ient\19019\I:CItl't-10S.m 4-359 ■ CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS FEBRUARY 8, 1993 - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING INTRODUCTION Good evening Chairman and Fellow Commissioners I am T,ynn Jnr.him the Owner / Developer of Cypress bakes Golf and Country Club. To night, I am hear to support the adRgnary of the Recirculated Draft E. I . R. prepared for Cypress Lakes . I began working on this project in April of 1987 with the community. Tt ways shortly thereafter the BIASP committao was formed. However, Bob. Dal Porto, the original land owner had been working on the lake development concept for years prior. You have before you a DEIR which is the rocult of many years of public input and the information from 3 prior Draft EIR prepared for this project and the BIASP. This DEIR was prepared by an independent consultant firm hired by Contra Costa -County to study the Environmental Impacts of this project and to identify mitigation measures which reduce LnpaUL6 to a less - than -- significant level . The consultant received reports and information from other specialized coileulLUILLB uri the project. The County and the EIR consultant made their own independent review of Lhesd repurts prior to the preparation of this draft EIR. I The technical consultants have extensive expertise in their fields with experience on projects similar to Cypress Lakes . Soils Engineer has 40 years of expertise in work in the Delta. They have done 80% of all levee work submitted for approval to EMA. This EMA work has included interior dry Levees inside existing Delta levees . 4-360 Civil Engineers have been involved in Bay/Delta projects for over 20 years . They've had extensive work in areas high water table, in flood plains and with similar soil conditions . Wetland Consultant prepared the delineation report which was verified by the Corp of Engineers. Moreover, he worked for the Corp for 16 years delineating wetlands in agriculture areas, and assisted the Corp in writing their technical manuals. Plant and Endangered Species consultant is world renowned and has done several studies for State and Federal Agencies . She spent numerous days evaluating and inspecting the site and came up mitigations measures to avoid any impact. Water_Gualitv consultant proposed proven techniques which have been approved by the EPA under their clean water act and confirm with NPDES the newest discharging permit. The list of professionals who have prPparpei ciP.t-.ai 1Pd rPpnrt.s nn the site goes on to include Noise, . Aix' Quality, Archeology and Traffic. The DFTP addresses impacts and proposes mitigation measures to be implemented. The EIR consultant has prepared a Mitigation MonitorxnQ Program to assure the implementation of these mitigations which will be ultimately adopted by the Board of Supbrvisors along with the conditions of Approval. . II In August of 1992 the 1st Draft EIR on the project was released for 45 day8 of public _eview. In Lhe Fall you Beard Litany tiouL-s of public testimony on the DEIR. The 45 days ended September 28 , 1992 . The comments from Lhe co.LiutiuniLy diad Lhe ertviruluuentaliste focused on 6 main issues . Reports and further- documentation were prepared and have been Iiicluded in the Recirculated Draft to make a more conclusive and complete environmental review. These areas of c:unut--rri include: 1 . wetlands - A monitoring program was drafted to assure implementation 2 . Levee - An evaluation of the interior levee ve other alternatives were evaluated on cost and feasibility 3 . Landscape - A detailed landscape plan was developed to lessen visual impacts 4 . Flood plain - A flood plain evaluation was prepared with statistical data to address the effects of a - double levee in case of a levee break on the existing levee. 4-361 5 . Soils - A total of 62 borings on site have been drilled and evaluated to address methods of construction, etc. 6 . water Quality - A detailed program was prepared to be consistent with EPA standards and address the new NFDEs, storm water discharge permit. This EIR is the result of input from the local constituency, concerned environmentalist, the County Supervisors and staff . A Recirculated DEIR was prepared to further incorporate the comments and concerns by these groups along with the new studies and more detailed information. Moreover, the County staff has made their independent review during the Administrative Draft stage and thereby approved the release of this draft t.n the public . The environmental groups that are most active in this County and their attorneys have reviawPH this recirculated draft EIR and find it adequately addresses their concerns for this area. They feel it gives a honest_ anRlyeis of the impacts of this project and recommend, realistic mitigation measures . Si1mm'q ry In summary, the procass behind the preparation of this Environmental document has been a long but an elaborate one. The document incorporator extensive technical and legal review alony with input of staff and envirom. entalist. Cumulatively, this represents a woll educated group of professionals wiLli experience and concerns for the development of urban communities . That is why I am able to support the adequacy of thits recirculated Draft of EIR with conviction . Thank you, Q and A 4-362 CYPRESS LAKES AND GOLF COURSE TIMELINE April 1987 (Bethel Island Area Specific Plan) 131ASP committee formed -- 10-I1 Bethel Island residents met 1-2 times a month for 1 1/2 years . Proposal 2, 000 units on-island/2,000 off-island. June 1988 1st DEIR released on BIASP for development on and off island. Lots of public and political concern. Plan rejected. October 1989 2nd DEIR released on BIASP .development mostly off island development . Lots of public comment and political comments . Adopted by Planning Commission June 1990 DEIR adopted by Board of Supervisors July 1990 Lawsuits filed -Sierra Club, Audobon, Greenbelt Alliance, State Landa. Commission January 1991 NPw County Wide General Plan adoptad. BIASP area designated for residential 1-3 units per acre. ,Yan>>ary 1992 New DEIR on Cyprees Lakes began boing drafted . August 1992 Distribution of DEIR to community 45 day review. September 1992 *2 Public Hearings on DEIR over 6 hours of testimony. October. 1992 *1 IIeaiing .on project with 4 huurs cf testimony. Nov . & Dec. 1992 SettlemeiiL u[t Idweuit . Part of settlement agreement to recirculate DEIR. January 1993 Recirculated DEIR released. February 1, 1993 *Public comment 2 hours on DEIR. February 8, 1993 Public comment on DEIR. February 16 , 1993 End of Written comment period on DEIR. * At all the hearings there has been 10-12 speakers . At every meeting 8-10 have been the same people with the same complaints . i 4-363 Response to Letter HH: East County Regional Planning Commission Continuation Hearing, February 8, 1993 Response HH-1: The soils report presented as part of this comment is included as an attachment to Letter S from Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993. Response HH-2: All of these comments are contained in Letter X from Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter X for responses to these comments. Response HH-3: Refer to Response X-10. Response HH-4: As described on page 3-39 of the DEIR, the project would have three access points, one at the intersection of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, one at Cypress Road and Sandmound Boulevard and another onto Sandmound Boulevard on the north side of the project. However, the Cypress Road intersection would be the principal point of access and would be used by about 85 percent of the total trips from the project. Response HH-5: Refer to Response 0-3. Response HH-6: Comment noted. This comment reflects the opinion of the commentor who agrees with the findings of the DEIR that the project would result in an unavoidable impact on regional air quality (NOx and ROG). No additional response is necessary. Response HH-7: Comment noted. Visual quality is discussed on pages 3-99 to 3-108 of the revised DEIR. Response HH-8: Comment noted. The comment reflects the opinion of the commentor. Soundwalls are proposed as one form of noise mitigation. If desirable the County may require other mitigation 4-364 techniques such as architectural treatment as referenced in mitigation measure 3.6-1, p. 3-16 of the DEIR. Response HH-9: The DEIR identified construction noise as an unavoidable short-term impact. "Short-term" is used to describe this impact because upon completion of project construction these impacts would cease. On the other hand, long-term impacts are defined as those which continue indefinitely. Response HH-10: Refer to Response V-20. Response HH-11: Refer to Response X-7, section (d). Response HH-12: 1� Mitigation measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 are proposed to reduce construction period dust emissions. However, as described in the DEIR on page 3-74, the potential for dust nuisance would still remain along Sandmound Boulevard. Therefore, dust emissions during construction would be considered a significant unavoidable adverse localized impact. Response HH-13: See Response Y-3. Response HH-14: See Response V-21. !� Response HH-15: See Response V-22. Response HH-16: See Response V-23. 4-365 Response HH-17: Mitigation Measure 3.9-10, page 3-187 specifically calls for active recreational use areas to be located outside the power line easement, including baseball diamonds, soccer fields, and playground areas. Response HH-18: As described on page 3-188 of the DEIR, the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD) would be required to approve any design plans for wetland and pond areas on the project site. Response HH-19: Refer to Response X-7, section (d). Response HH-20: Refer to Response Y-28. Response HH-21: Mitigation measures in the DEIR are only proposed at this time (hence the language "should"). Upon the County's approval of the project, all mitigation measures would become requirements of the project and would be implemented through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Changing the language of mitigation measures, therefore, is not appropriate at this time. Response HH-22: Refer to Response 0-2. Response HH-23: Comment noted. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR or an impact on the environment. No response is necessary. Response HH-24: Refer to Response HH-21. 4-366 Response HH-25: Mitigation Measure 3.2-16 of the DEIR acknowledges the long-term cumulative traffic impact of the proposed project. This mitigation measure would require the project to pay its fair share toward the subregional road fee. Response HH-26: Refer to Response HH-21. Response HH-27: Comment noted. See responses to Letter E, California Department of Fish and Game. Response HH-28: Refer to Response X-7, section (e). Response HH-29: The commentor is correct that excess water would be pumped into Sandmound slough. However, the quality of that water would be monitored and required to meet NPDES requirements. Response HH-30: All of these comments are contained in Letter N from Linda Wadsworth, February 2, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter N for responses to these comments. Response HH-31: Affordable housing is not proposed on the site at this time. If it is proposed, the County. may require additional review of the project. Response HH-32: The Transportation/Circulation chapter of the DEIR (Chapter 3.2) studied a number of intersections in the project area, including the Knightsen Avenue/Cypress Road intersection. According to the traffic study, approximately 110 vehicles currently travel toward Knightsen on Knightsen Road, between Delta Road and Cypress Road during the P.M. peak hour. The proposed project would add approximately 40 vehicles to Knightsen Road in the P.M. peak hour. This increase, due to the project, was not considered significant. However, the DEIR includes mitigation to improve the Knightsen Avenue/Cypress Road intersection. i 4-367 Response HH-33: All of these comments are contained in Letter T from Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter T for responses to these comments. Response HH-34: Comment noted. This comment reflects the opinion of the commentor. If the proposed levee is constructed, the project site would be removed from the flood hazard zone. Homes within the flood hazard zone are required to be built above the flood level. This requirement would not apply to the project site if removed from the flood hazard zone. Response HH-35: All of these comments are contained in Letter DD from Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993. Refer to Response to Letter DD for responses to these comments. Response HH-36: Comments noted. The commentor restates the findings of the EIR that the project would result in. an unavoidable impact on regional air quality. No additional response is necessary. Response HH-37: The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not contain a goal numbered 3-25. In addition, none of the goals listed in the Land Use Element refer to development only in areas where it will avoid creating severe adverse impacts on the environment. Policy 3-25 addresses the rehabilitation of existing dwelling units. Goal 3-A states the following: "To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agricultural and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County's quality of life, In such an environment all residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural activities may take place in safety, harmony, and to mutual advantage." The project appears to be consistent with this goal in that adequate infrastructure facilities are either currently available, or have been identified as specific mitigation measures to be implemented as part of the project in order to serve new residents on the project site. The project also provides for the protection of agricultural and open space areas in that the project site is located within the County's Urban Limit Line. Areas within the Urban Limit Line are identified 4-368 as those areas of the County upon which development could take place. Areas outside the Urban Limit Line are identified as those areas which should be protected for agricultural and open space purposes. Policy 3-2 pertains to encouraging jobs development in areas where the jobs/housing ratio shows an overabundance of housing to jobs. The Bethel Island Area does show an overabundance of housing to jobs. However, the existing General Plan designations for the project site and surrounding areas (Off-Island Bonus Area) do not provide for significant job development in this area. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and requirements of the Off-Island Bonus Area. Response HH-38: The DEIR on p. 3-185 discusses the proposed project's consistency with the bicycle and pedestrian trails plans of the Contra Costa County General Plan. See Response L-4 regarding public transit. Response HH-39: The soils report referenced in this comment is included as an attachment to Letter S from Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993. 4-369 5. ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS The following errata and clarifications refer to additional corrections not referenced in the previous sections made on the Draft EIR. If the correction requires revision to the text of the Draft EIR, the subject text from the Draft EIR is shown with deleted text struck through and new text highlighted in bold. Corrections 1) Mitigation Measure 3.2-4, page 3-60 of the DEIR is modified as follows: 3.2-4 Sandmound Boulevard Improvement - This project would reconstruct Sandmound Boulevard from Bethel Island Road along the north border of the project and along the project's easterly frontage on Sandmound Boulevard. This The remaining improvements would be done in conjunction with other developments along Sandmound Boulevard. (Responsibility: Contra Costa County as a condition of future development). 2) Table 3.2-4, page 3-40 of the DEIR has been revised to include AM peak hour trip counts as follows: Table 3.2-4 CYPRESS LAKES TRIP DISTRIBUTION ... .:.;:. <D:irectioiii >:< > Peircent>: >I'ro'ect AM< PM:; '. :> T aveo Taps.. ADT Qut,,,. To Uut:.. To. North to Bethel 4% 480 11 23 34 30 18 48 Island Highway 4 to 42% 5,050 113 244 356 311 189 500 Antioch-Pittsburg Local Trips into 23% 2,760 62 133 195 170 104 274 Oakley Local Trips into 14% 1,680 38 81 119 104 63 167 Brentwood Highway 4 toward 8% 960 21 46 68 59 36 95 Stockton Highway 160 4% 480 11 23 34 30 18 48 toward Rio Vista Vasco Road 5% 600 13 29 42 37 23 60 toward I-580 5-1 3) Table 3.2-6(c), P age 3-55 of the DEIR, references the Delta Expressway as a "two-lane facility". This is corrected to reflect the Delta Expressway is proposed to be a four lane facility. 4) Chapter 5.2 - Cumulative Impacts, page 5-2 of the DEIR, the third bulleted item under Projects within the Bethel Island Area Planning Area is revised as.follows: • Lesher Landing: proposed 571 unit project located west of the proposed project along the north side of Cypress Road. 5) Several corrections are necessary to the Sewage Disposal discussions in the DEIR beginning on page 3-200. • p. 3-200, 2nd paragraph under Sewage Disposal, last sentence incorrectly references that the Oakley/Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority was transferred to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. This should have referenced that the Oakley/Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority was dissolved. • The DEIR referenced Jack Elder Ironhouse Sanitary District. This is revised to reference "James Elder". • P. 3-202 3rd full paragraph, 5th line is revised as follows: "a 100-acre parcel, owned by a nearby dairy, that can be is used for...." • p. 3=203, 1st paragraph, 4th and 5th sentences are deleted. • p. 3-204, 1st paragraph under impacts 2nd sentence incorrectly references the Oakley Sanitary District, it should read the Ironhouse Sanitary District. 5 � APPENDIX A CALINE-4 INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES r APPENDIX A CALINE-4 INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES The CALINE-4 input and model result files are identified by a file name. The following table provides the file name associated with each alternative set of assumptions. Intersection Alternative File Name Bethel Island/ Sandmound Existing 1CYPEX Project 1CYPPR Cumulative 1CYPCU Bethel Island/ Cypress Project 2CYPPR Cumulative 2CYPCU Bethel Island/ Gateway Existing 3CYPEX Project 3CYPPR Cumulative 3CYPCU Cypress/ SR 4 Existing 4CYPEX Project 4CYPPR Cumulative 4CYPCU r nCtunl run rLLr- : LLV'UL'4 - - 1. Site Variables U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/:,? MIXH= Mo.0 M AMB= 0.0 pp-M SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Descrioti0rt , LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) * F h V DESCRIPTION * X1 Yi X:� Y? + TYPE 'vP:i (ui i) .M) (:• ------ ---------------------t----------------------------- A. SANDMOUND EB -250 B. SANDMOUND WP 250 c -250 c IN li: 'o._ 01. IC.0 C. BETHEL ND -c°,0 2 : 3 IN 400 D. BETHEL SB -2 250 -2=N. IN coy; o.C X1.0 * MIXW * L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EF, 1 D iGi= LINK + (M) . (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) t+Fri) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/ ita) i3cC) (Kr C; --_------------------------------------- A. 0 0 240 15.012.0 30 1 1 6 ='.0 v.'0 B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 1 l '10 =.3 45.0 is l. C. 0 0 240 15.0 1-0.0 c0 i 21 400 5.3 15.0 0.0 D. 0 0 240 15.0122.0 30 4 1 coo 5.3 15.0 0.0 3. Receotar Coordinates X Y Z RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5 ' RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1. RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.5 . o� MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:ICYPCU * FRED *WIND + COCN/LINK * CONC f BRG * (PFM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A F C D RECPT 1 * 1.4 f 151 * 0.2 (1.0 0.5 0.4 RECPT 2 * 1,1 * 157 * 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.3 RECPT 3 * 1.4 * 327 * 0.1 0.0 (:.7 rv.; RECPT 4 * 1.3 * 57 f 0.2 0.3 0,S 0.3 1. Site Variables U-- 1.0 M/5 Z0= 100.0 CIH BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CMTS CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000.0 M AMF= 0.0 PPM SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TW= 4.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) # EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH VMI) (M) (M) A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 680 26.5, 0.0 14.0 B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 366 26.5 0.0 14.0 . C. BETHEL NB 4 -250 4 230 IN 5 26.5 0.0 14.0 D. BETHEL SB -4 250 -4 --2250 IN 320 26.5 0.0 14.0 + MIXN +� l R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 ME LINK (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA MqO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) A. 0 0 236 15.012.0 30 9 4 620 5.3 30.0 0.0 B. 0 0 236 15.012.0 30 6 3 686 5.3 30.0 0.0 C. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 500 5.3 30.0 0.0 D. .0 0 236 15.012.0 30 3 1 5 5.3 e0.0 0.0 3. Receotor Coordinates X Y Z RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5 RECEPTOR 4 -22 -22 1.5 MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:ICYPEX * PRED *WIND COCN/LINK * CONC * ERG (�;.M) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A i c 0 ------ ------r--+----------------------- RECPT 1 * 1.7 * 151 * 0.i 0.0 1. 0.4 RECPT 2, * 1.9 * c01 * (:.1 i"!.i 1.4 0. RECPT 3 * 2.0 * 270 * 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2' RECPT 4 * 1.7 * 30 * 0.0 0.0 1. 0.2 REPORT FOR FILE iCYP- `Jr~lac•ie5 U= 1.0 M/5 c"0= 100.0 CM ERG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY v5= 0.0 CM/S M1XH= 1000.0 M A114E= 0.0 Ppm 5I6TH= 10.0 DEGREES TEND= 4.0 DEGREE (C) Link Gescrionc.r. LINK ; LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF DESCRIPTION + X1 Yi X2 Yc TYPE VPH (6/"i'i t!�li ire; A. SANDMOUND EE +-- 250--------------------- #-Itv----------------------------- --- - --.-- --- E. SANDMOUND WB 250 2 - CE0 2 IN 50 co.5 :;. :; lv.G C. BETHEL NE ? -250! c 0 IBJ 500 D. BETHEL 5r _5G + MIXW ' + L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPL EFi iuTi iLT', LINK + (M) (M) (M) '(SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPrO (6/MIN) (SEC) ;Si Ci - -- A. --�--v--- U 240 15.0 12.0--------- 00 i; .. 1 15C.a---4:. ---1---- B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.v 30 1 1 10 5.3 4 C. U 0 240 15.U 12.0 3i! e D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 60 5 1 321 0 1 5.,! c•. 3. Recectrr Coordinates X Y Z RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 RECEPTOR c 14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.:, RECEPTOR. 4 -14 -14 1.� MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE 1CYPPP * PRED *WIND * COCK/Lith( * CONC * BRG * (;T-M) RECEPTOR * 1PPM) *(DEG)* A 6C -- D - --*----#----*------- ---- RECPT 1 * 2.3 # 110 * 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 RECPT 2 * 2.8 * 194 * 0,3 1.3 1.u 1,3 RECPT 3 * 2.2 * 351 * 0.3 1.2 0-5 0.c RECPT 4 * 2.2 * 63 * 0.: 0. 0.6 0.3 ' 1 REPORT FOR FILE 1CYPCU i 1. Site Variables U= 1.0 M/o 10= 100.0 CM ERG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY V:= 0.0 CM/5 MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) r E. Link Descriotion LINK + LINK COORDINATES (M) PF H W . DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y_ * TYPE VPH (G/Ml) (r) (M) ------------a---------------------f------------------------ A. 5ANDMQUND EB -c:,0 -c 250 c i N 15 ...- i.0 :'l B. SANDMOUND WE 250 -.0 2 iN ;:� .c' i• 1::,G C. EETHEL Nb 2 -250 c :::50 i h i 50 7 1 i._ t.(• 1 D. BETHEL SB 2j0 -250 IN 603 i l. 0.0 !0.0 * MIXW * L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EF! IDT1 IDT2 LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -*-- ---------- A. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 150 1.3 45.0 0.0 ' B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 1 1 10 1.3 45.0 0.0 C. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 1E 4 1067 1.3 1':.0 0.0 D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 11 3 o5s' 1.3 1 0 G.0 3. Receotor Coordinates X Y i RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.:. RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1. r r i MODE. RccULT.,3 F0 FILE F,ED *WIND * COCNiLIN*-; * CONC * ERG * :RF'K! RECEPTOR * (RPM) *(DEG)* A E C G —---------*------- -----*-------------.----------- RECPT i * 3.5 * 1112- * 0j.`_• i.S 0.% 0.c RECRT +" 4.0 f 240 * 1.: i.c C. 0. RECD T y # 3.5 328 * +-i.7 i."r ,.5 REPT 4 * 4.4 * 14 * Im r fin .v REPORT FOR FILE 2C CU i. -;rte vl—aisles U= 1.0 rl/S FJ ERG= 0.11 ctq CLASS= F 1 17`l IM I X H= 1 fic.o.c; S.,GTP.= IO.0 1: Link. Descri, LINK L I NK COORDINATES (M) # t= r W, DESCRIPTION X1 Yl X? Y2 TYPE VPH ;G/!q: 'M) if.) --------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ P. CYPRE-31S, E6 —'0 -4 -4 lN 14 1. E. CYPRESS WE i50 4 q It, 1. 4. C. BETHEL NP 4 -2 ' 4 250 IN ii._ .0 i4.: , D. BETHEL SE. -4 im I xw LINK f (") (M) M) (-.15'ril NCYC QLA "i-10 -----t---------------------------------------------------•---- ------------ C, C. 236 3. Receot...r Cc.,-,,,d i nat es RECEPTOR i -22 cc 1.3 RECEPTOR 2 212 cc i.5 RECEPTOR 322 i.5 RECEPTOR 4 !.5 MULL ll=ULI5 rUh. r1Lc L:Ll.YPUU * PRED +WIND * COCN/LINK * CONC * ERG * (PP)I) RECEPTOR * (GPM) *(DEG)* A P C D ----*--+-----,r------------—--------- RECPT 1 + 2.1 * 112 * U.1 0.0 0.e (1.7 RECPT 2 * 2.b * 247 * 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.:. RECPT 3 * 2.5 + 328 * 0.2 0.7 i. 0.5 RECPT 4 * 2.5 * 16 { 1.3 0.4 0.n 0.6 -�- REPORT FOR FILE 3CYPEX 1. Site Variacie_ U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM BRG= 0.0 DF RrF vr)= 0.6 r..M/a CLASS= F iINr,LIIY V"_ MIXH= 1000.0 M AME= 0..0 Ppm ' SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.J DEGREE ;C) :. Link Descriotion LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) EF h W ' DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH iG/Mi) (h) (M) ------+------------------------ ------------------------- A. GATEWAY EB -12°0 2:0 IN ?u.'J B. GATEWAY WE 250 c -250 IN i10 26.5 0.0 10.0 C. BETHEL NB -25 2 250 IN :'.b. 0 10.0 D. BETHEL SE a * MiXW * L R STPL DCLT ACCT SND EF iM,I iGi2 LINA( * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) [t4'r0 NCYC NDLA V:':HO (Gllfli-N) (-=C) ( EC) ---*-- ------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 210 5.3 45.0 0.(! B. .0 0 240 15.0 1c.0 30 2 1 J. 45.0 C. C. 0 0 240 li.0 12:0 30 4 2 20 2.3 1`,.0 0. D. 0 0 240 15.0 'E.0 30 _ 1 l c:: 5. f.{I 3. Receptor Coorainates z Y RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.1 RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5 RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.5 1� MOD EL-r(tGULTS' FOR FILE C:3CYPEX- * PRED *WIND * COCN/LiNe, * CONC + 6R6 * (cG,M/l RECEPTOR + (PPM) *(DEG}* A E c C ---*------M---*--------------------- RECPT 11 ---------------------- RECPT i + 1.1 * iic * 0.5 0.3 0.0 0., RECPT 2 * 1.4 * 193 * 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 RECPT 3 * 1.1 * 3 * 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 + 1.3 * 64 * 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 REPORT FOR FILE 3CYPPR 1. Site Varianles U= 1.0 M/S ZO= 1CO.0 CM ERG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 Cr;/.3 CLASS= F STABILITY V5= 0.0 CMTS MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPpi SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) , 2. Link Descriotion , LINK + LINK COORDINATES (M) # Err H N DESCRIPTION t X1 Y1 X: Y2 ?� TYPE VPH (G/MI) iM) (.Y) ---------- ------------------------#----------------•------------- A. GATEWAY Eb -250 :`_0 ?d B. 6ATEWAY Wb 250 2 -250 c iN I20 26.5 C. PETREL Nb c�0 IN 2,40 D. BETHEL SB -2 c5C! -2 -_50 IN 3C! 22.= a } MIXW + L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFT ?LTi iDT_ LINK- + (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/miff) (;SEC) (3EC) -----�---- ------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 240 13.0 12.0 30 2 1 X20 =.3 4 o B. 0 0 240 15.0 l:.0 30 2 1 5 5. 45.G 0.-0 C. 0 0 240 1:.0 11.0 30 4 :� _. i 0 D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 i i5.0 f. =. 3. Receotor Coordinates X Y c ' RECEPTOR 1 -14 Ik 1.5 RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5 RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.` MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE Co3CYPGR * PRED *MIND * COCN/LINK * CONC * BRG * (RPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A b C G ------*-----*----*------------------------ RECPT 1 * 1.5 * 153 * 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.4 RECPT 2 * 1.6 * 197 * 0. 0.3 0.9 0.3 RECPT 3 * 1.5 * 265 * 0.0 0.0 1.3 0: : RECPT 4 + 1.4 + 27 + (1.i {: i f 1 �J REPORT FOR FILE : 3CYPCU 1. Site Variables U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM , BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VDD 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S ' MIX& 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PFM SIGTli-- 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK f LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W ' DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 f TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M.) A. GATEWAY EB -250 -2 250 -2 IN 5 11.2 0.0 10.0 B. GATEWAY WB 250 2 -250 2 IN 461 11.2 0.0 10.0 C. BETHEL NB 2 -250 2 250 IN 921 .11.2 0.0 10.0 D. BETHEL SB -2 250 -2 -250 IN 115 11.2 0.0 10.0 { MIXW f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTI IDT2 LINK t (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) '(SEC) A. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 B45 1.3 45.0 0.0 B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 6 4 5 1.3 45.0 0.0 C. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 15 6 115 1.3 15.0 0.0 D. 0 0 576 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 150 1.3 if,.0 1l.0 3. Receptor Coordinates , X Y Z RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5 RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5 , RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5 RECEPTOR .4 -14 -14 1.5 D r.'.N�, ..mac MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:3CYPCU � `'�° t PRED +WIND t COCN/LINK t CONC t BRG t (PPM) RECEPTOR t (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D RECPT 1 t 1.6 t 110 t 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 RECPT 2 t 2.1 t 193 t 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.0 RECPT 3 t 1.3 t 360 t 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 t 1.9 t 70 t 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 D D D D . a 0 D . a a ■TD REPORT FOR FILE : 4CYPEX 1. Site Variables U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S , MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK f LINT( COORDINATES (M) EF H W DESCRIPTION f X1 Y1 X2 Y2 + TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 310 26.5 0.0 14.0 B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 60 26.5 0.0 14.0 C. SR 4 NB 4 -250 4 250 IN 510 26.5 0.0 14.0 D. SR 4SB -4 250 -4 -250 IN 630 26.5 0.0 14.0 } MIXW r t L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTI IDT2 LINK * (Ml (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 3 1 60 5.3 40.0 0.0 B. 0. . 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 440 5.3 40.0 0.0 C. 0. 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 4 2 620 5.3 20.0 0.0 D. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0' 30 7 4 450 5.3 20.0 0.0 3. Receptor Coordinates ' X Y Z RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5 ' RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5 RECEPTOR 4 -22 -22 1.5 ' if. MODEL RESLLTS FOR FILE C:4CYPEX t FRED *WIND { COCNILINK COX * ERG + (FPM) 1_CEPTOR * (PPA) *(DEG)+ A B C �D CST 1 } 4.6 t 104 t 0.0 0.4 0.6 3.5 WT 2 4.0 + 258 + 0.2 0.6 0.7 2.4 RCPT 3 # 4.4 t 330 t 0.1 0.8 1.2 2.4 TZPT 4 * 4.9 f 21 f 1.0 0.5 0.6 2.8 19 M i REPORT FOR FILE : 4CYPPR , 1. Site Variables U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Description LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) + EF H W ' DESCRIPTION X1 Yl X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (6/MI) (M) (M) -------+------------------------ A. CYPRESS EB -60 -4 250 -4 IN 660 26.5 0.0 14.0 B. CYPRESS NB 250 4 -250 4 IN 180 26.5 0.0 14.101 C. SR 4 NB 4 -250 4 250 IN 550 26.5 0.0 14.0 D. SR 4SB -4 250 -4 . -250 IN 1210 26.3 0.0 14.0 MIXW f U.=. R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2 LINK { (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 120 5.3 40.0 0.0 B. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 1020 5.3 40.0 0.0 C. 0 0 236 15.012.0 30 5 3 841 5.3 -20.0 0.0 D. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 10 5 600 5.3 ;:0.0 0.0 3. Receptor Coordinates X Y Z ' RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5 RECEPTOR 4 -22 -22 1.5 r ' =l a" b al MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:4CYPPR t PRED *WIND f COCN/LINK * CONC t BRG * (PPM) RECEPTOR t (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D RECPT 1 5.6 * 111 } 0.1 1.6 1.0 2.9 RECPT 2 f 6.1 t 240 t 1.8 2.2 1.3 0.9 RECPT 3 * 6.3 * 291 f 2.0 1.1 2.6 0.5 RECPT 4 { 7.7 f 18 + 2.8 1.2 0.7 3.0 NJ Tit o �r 'r F •i- ivi`.ti; i 1 REPORT FOR FILE : 4CYPCU 1. Site Variables U= 1.0 M/S 10= 100.0 CM BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM ' SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C) 2. Link Descriotion LINK + LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W ' DESCRIPTION + X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/Mi) (M) (M) ---------------- A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 778 11.2 0.0 14.0 B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 216 11.2 0.0 14.0 C. SR 4 NB 4 -6250 4 250 IN 650 11.2 0.0 14.0 D. SR 4SB -4 250 -4 -250 IN 1257 11.2 0.0 14.0 + MIXW + L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTI IDT2 ' LINK + (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 140 1.3 40.0 0.0 B. 0 0 236 15.012.0 .30 2 1 1202 1.3 40.0 0.0 C. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 873 1.3 20.0 0.0 D. 0 0 236 15.0 12'.0 30 10 5 700 1.3 210.0 0.0 3. Rereotor Coordinates X Y Z , RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5 RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5 RECEPTOR 4 -22 -2-D 1.5 1 * FRED *WIND * CO /LINK * CONC * $R6 * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A-- B C D - RECPT 1 * 2.2 * 135 * 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.5 RECPT 2 * 2.6 * 236 * 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.4 RECPT 3 * 2.5 * 292 * 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.3 RECPT 4 * 2.8 * 18 * 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.9 a 1 1 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 B a:ijil-,11!W AUVd0Mrd A66MdAil"" ..,. E. "°` tShort.P Kaldveer Associates Execuive Vice Piesiae rt Geoscience Consultants Ronaldsident L. Engin PE..G.E. Vice President Engineering Patrick Stevens.P.E..G.E. NW ASSOaialE _ David Hoexter,C.E.G.,R.E.A. Associate Michael McRae,P.E. Associate Down Rinoldl,P.E. February 27, 1989 Barbara L.Poner.P.E. KE1097-1, 13211 Randy P.Rowley.R.E.A. Polly L.Worrell.R.E.A. a RE: PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED BETHEL ISLAND AREA PROJECT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Ladies and Gentlemen: In this report we present the results our preliminary environmental assessment performed at the above referenced site. The site is located between Sand Mound Boulevard and Bethel Island Road just south of Bethel Island, California, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1 . The purpose of this investigation has been to discover, if possible, any conditions -or activities on the site or in the near vicinity which may result in or indicate the presence of potentially hazardous materials at the ground surface or in the subsurface soils or ground water. This investigation was performed by Mr. Eric Schniewind, Staff Geologist, and Mr. Randy Rowley, Senior Engineering Geologist/Environmental Specialist, R.E.A. SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work included site reconnaissance conducted on aFebruary 13, 1989; discussions with county and state government agency personnel and property owners; research of available documents and review of stereo-pair aerial photographs. The research focused oa present and past site and near vicinity conditions and activities which may indicate the presence of potentially hazardous materials in the subsurface soil or ground Q water. Persons and agency representatives contacted, articles and data used and a complete list of aerial photographs reviewed, are presented at the end of the report under "References" . a 425 Roland Way Oakland,California 94621 (415)568-4001 FAX 415.568.2205 A California Corporation February 27, 1989, 13211 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION/CONDITION } The site, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2, encompasses approximately 681 acres. The site is bounded to the north and east ! by Sand Mound Boulevard, to the west by Bethel Island Road, and the ' southern boundary extends approximately 2, 800 feet south of Cypress Road. The site is essentially level with a maximum relief of ' approximately 15 feet ranging from 7 feet above to 8 feet below Mean Sea Level. The northern portion of the site, the Dal Porto property, consists primarily of wetlands and sandy soils with a ' drainage channel that runs across the site from east to west. Land use primarily consists of horse and cattle grazing. The southern portion of the site, the Leo Mantelli property, is also essentially 1 level with several shallow drainage canals. This portion of the property is used for occasional cropping of alfalfa. There are several residences on the site. Some heavy equipment is ' stored at these locations. Residences and grazing areas are separated by fences and several rough farm roads provide access to the various houses. Towards the center of the site there is a small refuse dumping pile which contains primarily metal and household debris . SITE HISTORY ' The delta area was originally inhabited by the Saclan and Bay Miwok Indians. Within the Hotchkiss Tract, a main village is believed , to have existed. At least one and possibly numerous other burial grounds are known to exist on our subject site. During the first decades of the American period in California history, efforts ' focused on converting the Delta and adjacent flood plains into farmland. Extensive efforts went into levee building. Once the land was cleared, crops such as potatoes, beans, onions, celery, asparagus and hay were successfully grown in the area. On our site, the soil was too sandy for crop propagation, and therefore was used primarily for livestock grazing. Family farming was the focus of life on Bethel Island from approximately the 1880 ' s to the 1940 ' s. The Dal Porto family occupied their land beginning around 1940. More recently- Bethel Island has become the center of resort development with attention drawn towards its recreational ; advantages, particularly boating and fishing. There has been some interest in the potential oil field on the subject site. Several years ago, ENX Oil Company drilled for oil on the site, but an economically developable field was not discovered. Our site; to ' the best of our knowledge, has remained as livestock and light agricultural land. There has been no permitting through the Contra Costa Department of Agriculture for pesticide use on the Dal Porto ' Kaldveer Associates February 27, 1989, 13211 Page 3 { y or Mantelli properties in the last five years. Prior pesticide use has consisted of only light pesticides, for example paraquat, which generally decomposes rapidly. AREA ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The property is surrounded by single-family dwellings and light grazing land. Just north of the site is the small town of Bethel Island. According to information available to us, there are no hazardous waste disposal sites or landfills within a two-mile radius of the subject site. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, has prepared listings of sites known to have had prior environmental problems. One such list addresses sites considered by the state to be a toxic site, and a second list presents sites with leaking underground fuel tanks. Of the two lists, only one site, found on the leaking underground fuel tank list, was located within a two-mile radius of our subject site. During excavation of a utility trench on Riverview Drive, approximately one-half mile north from the subject site, gasoline odors and an oil film on the water in the trench was observed. Ground water was encountered at a depth of 1 . 5 feet. Much of the contaminated water was pumped out for a period of two days. The source of the leak was determined to be a line leak from a 4, 000 gallon underground fuel tank from Carter Marine, located on the inside of the levee. There is no threat to surface waters and a further investigation is in progress. Other known fuel storage a tanks in the vicinity of the site, although not reported as leaking, include an underground fuel storage tank at Carol ' s Harbor and two above-ground fuel storage tanks located on the Dal Porto property. Carol ' s Harbor is located along Sand Mound Boulevard just to the east of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS Based on our understanding and knowledge of the site history and past and present uses of the site, there is no evidence to suggest any concern for any soil and/or ground water contamination existing on the property. The only contaminated site located. near the subject site does not have significant contamination, in our opinion, to warrant any concern. The light agricultural use on the site pose's a potential for the existence of low levels of residual pesticides in the soil, however, according to a representative . of the Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, the site is, in their opinion, clear of any a - significant pesticides. Therefore, based on all acquired ( information regarding this site, there is, in our opinion, no Kaldveer Associates February 27, 1989, 13211 Page 4 threat to public health and safety and thus no necessity of environmental testing. , LIMITATIONS Our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and environmental principals and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied is made. The analysis and conclusions contained in this report are based on the site conditions as they existed at the time of our reconnaissance, discussions with site owners and governmental agents, review of documents and aerial photographs. Changes in the information or ' the data gained from these sources or in the proposed land use could result in changes in our conclusions. If such changes do occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in , light of those changes. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you. If you have any ' further questions, please call. Very truly yours, KALDVEER ASSOCIATES, INC. David F. Hoexter, C.E.G. , R.E.A. Manager, Environmental/Geological Services ' Ronald L. Bajuniemi, P.E. /G.E. ' Vice President Engineering DFH/RLB:pv i Copies: Addressee (4) Enclosures: Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site Plan , Kaldveer Associates February 27, 1989, 13211 Page 5 l �W REFERENCES Aerial Photographs Pacific Aerial Surveys: Panchromatic Vertical Aerial AV-3368-36-9 , 10, 11, August 30, 1988, 1: 12,000 AV-253-37-10, 11, 12, 13, May 21, 1957, 1: 12, 000 mContacts: Bethel Island Fire Department, Bethel Island, California Contact: Ted Alesna California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Sacramento, California Contact: Matt Lease Carol ' s Harbor, Bethel Island, California Contact: Jackie Carver Chartered Group, Walnut Creek, California Contact: Lyn Jochim Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, Brentwood, California Contact: Dick Mello Contra Costa County Health Department, Martinez, California Contact: Godfrey Becks Diablo Petroleum, Brentwood, California Contact: Jim Brown Dick Miller Publications and Reports: California Department of Health Services, "Expenditure Plan for the Hazardous Substance Clean-up Bond Act of 1984" , Revision Number Three, dated January, 1988. _ Abandoned Sites Program Information System, dated February 9, 1989 . Koldveer Associates 4 • February 27,' 1989, 13211 Page 6 I REFERENCES (continued) Publications and Reports: (continued ) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley ' Region, "Ground Water Contamination Sites" , undated. Underground Storage Tanks, Central Valley Region,. dated ' February 7, 1989. California Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System, "Closed and Inactive Landfills" , dated May 21, 1988. Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Bethel Island Area Specific Plan" , dated November, 1988. i. Kleinfelder, "Phase I, Geotechnical Investigation" , dated December V 22, 1988. U.S. EPA Superfund Program, CERCLIS, "List 8: Site/Event Listing, San Joaquin County, California" , dated January 7, 1988. Kaldveer Associates ' ' r 0 r Ryde G•I l,r °owLrr a 1 � i Isle on c r.. .t.s. C o lEmmaton l.lr ..:.k. n Nichols I Acres 1.1 Bethel • a I'M.hfl ...r Ivy Islam �° Sr o ciyde �'"`.pPitt b n t WMl l.s °s� Ir 0 0� y G+r..r •.. 2 tn,ttwrq '39 ' .rrr r,.., z ow� s r Oakley..,,Adobw it li . sd AerarJ dorrl �� `jr.-do °•''` LOYA°° ;M°ocA° 3 ' ` G:r i s, v.cMc 4,r0 vo/°�i Alport I Cwsir� ;Owa Y f i Kni¢hL~ ITE • Clayton _ ow A. jilwA Geek Pw* •" try GrM C 0R U Z . L 0 1 Byr n ., 2 5 lam MILES - KILOMETERS 'Diablo � 0 1 2 � 71 �Danville 5 Blackhawk Base: Thomas Bros Guide page M, 6th Edition 1988. MAW " SITE VICINITY MAP - Kaldveer Associates PROPOSED BETHEL ISLAND AREA PROJECT { Geoscience Consultants Contra Costa County, California -_ A California COrPOfOlIOn PROJECT NO. GATE Figure 1 KE1097-1 February 1989 em z Q 0 I 0,aG - �v - _° �et}el/Isl SrOAOr *'em 7 �• •Trai '� '•yi Parit a � PROJECT SITE ' .S--.L 0 U H G-A S I-A am 11I 1 I _ .......................... In I : SLOUGH C'A'S f I E L D — � 1 w 1:. I w ti •i. a •' p .1 I 1 I / I / T — \' I I ir. i SCALE 0 2000 4000 ft ' 'Base: "Vicinity Map' by Kleinfelder, undated MAW SITE PLAN , � PROPOSED BETHEL ISLAND ��► �� KaldvMr Associates AREA PROJECT Gooscience Consultants Contra Costa County, California ._ ACouromlaCorporaW 1f10JECT h40• I DATE Figure 2 KE 1 097— 1 ebruary 198 9 I i APPENDIX C APPLICANT'S LETTER TO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 799 e A 1 1 IMD COL March 12 , 1993 a Board of Trustees Reclamation District #F799 P .O. Box 447 Bethel Island, CA 94511 Attn: Robert Gromm Re: Cypress Lakes and Country Club Dear Boardmembers : As the District is aware, Cypress Lakes and Country Club is currently being processed through County of Contra Costa. We are seeking Rezoning, Final Development Plan and approval of the subdivision. The Reclamation District is the responsible agency for all drainage and flood protection for the area and Cypress Lakes is totally located within the district' s boundaries . The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project determines that ultimate jurisdiction of drainage and flood protection would be with the Reclamation District or another public entity. AAccording to the Contra Costa County General Plan, development occurring in the Hotchkiss Tract is required to be built out of the flood plain. our project is proposing to build an internal levee around the perimeter inorder to take the property out of the floodplain. We are also proposing an internal drainage system which would keep most of the drainage on-site except in the case of a 100 year storm, then the excess runoff would be pumped out into Sandmound Slough. a Now that the Environmental Impact Report is close to certification, I would like to formerly request that the Reclamation District #799 be the responsible public agency for flood protection (internal levee) and drainage system. I would a Ygnacio Vzilley Road, Suite 400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • Fax (510)947-2091 • phone guarantee that the deveicpment taouid remain in the aistrict and continue to pay the regular assessment charged by the district . Plus, the new development would be responsible _or all maintenance and operational costs directly related to the ' drainage and flood protection (internal levee) of Cypress -sakes . A possible scenario would be to set up a subdistrict to assure only Cypress Lakes would be assessed for these new costs to the ' district. It has been a concern to the district on how to raise money for ' the continual upgrading and maintenance of the existing levee . By remaining in the district, Cypress Lakes would then be able to make a fair share contribution towards the long-term funding of this work. Please send me the necessary documents and permits that are needed to move forward. T look forward to working with you on the details . Sincerely, Lyrth Jochi:1 ' Vice President cc: Contra Costa County, Community Development Department ' Contra Costa County, Public Works - 1 k