HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 12032013 - 2013/421 Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
1
I. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
These Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are made with respect to the
“Project Approvals” (as defined below) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
(the “Project,” or the “Pantages Bays Project”) and state the findings of the Planning Commission
(the “Commission”) of Contra Costa County (the “County”) relating to the potentially significant
environmental effects of the Project to be developed in accordance with the Project Approvals.
The following Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (“MMRP”) are hereby adopted by the Commission of the County as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Sections 21081,
21081.5 and 21081.6, and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, (the “CEQA Guidelines”)
sections 15091 through 15093, for the Pantages Bays Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091,
no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (the
“EIR”) has been certified, which identifies one or more significant impacts on the environment
that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or
more findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence
in the record, are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
mitigate or avoid the significant impact on the environment (hereinafter, “Finding 1”).
2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency (hereinafter,
“Finding 2”).
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (he reinafter,
“Finding 3”).
For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the
public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of the project outweigh the significant impacts of the project.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project analyzed in the EIR is fully described in Chapter 3 of the June 2012 Draft
EIR, as amended in the July 2013 Final EIR for the Pantages Bays Project. The Project includes
the construction of 292 detached single-family homes, 116 of which would be water-oriented and
would include docks and deep water access, Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation, and associated
roadways, pedestrian facilities, and utilities infrastructure. In addition t o residential development,
the project would widen the portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project site. The
proposed widening of Kellogg Creek is cosponsored by Reclamation District No. 800 to reduce
water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg Creek. In order to proceed as
planned, the Project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
2
Subdivision/Tentative Map approval, Preliminary and Final Development Plan and tree removal,
as listed below in Section III. The 171-acre project site is located just west of the original
Discovery Bay and adjacent to Discovery Bay West in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa
County.
Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC is the Project applicant. Approximately 9 acres of the project
site, known as Pantages Island, is owned by East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the
remainder of the Project site is owned by C & D Discovery Bay LLC.
PROJECT APPROVALS
All of the following actions are referred to collectively as the “Project Approvals.” The
Project Approvals constitute the “Project” for purposes of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines section
15378 and these determinations of the Commission.
A. General Plan Amendment #GP99-0008: Change the General Plan land use
designations from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to Single-
Family Residential High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium
Density (SM), Public/ Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA); and,
B. Rezoning #RZ04-3146: Rezone the project site from General Agricultural District
(A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1); and,
C. Subdivision / Vesting Tentative Map #SD06-9010: Subdivide the 171-acre project
site into 292 Single-Family residential lots, Private Streets, Bays and Coves, Open
Space and Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation. The project also includes a request
to remove 80 trees from the project site.
D. Final Development Plan #DP04-3119: Development of the Project site includes:
Develop a gated community of 292 residential lots, 116 of which have
docks for deep water access,
Create 47-acres of Bays and Coves to provide water access to some of the
proposed residential lots,
Create/preserve 44-acres of wetland/emergent marsh in an Open Space area
on the project site,
Develop a Public Trail and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) wit hin the
Open Space area on the project site,
Widen Kellogg Creek,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
3
Develop a Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation on the project site,
Develop roadways, sidewalks and landscaping within the development.
.
E. Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) : Annexation to
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District sphere of influence and
corresponding service district boundary for water and sewer service.
F. Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District: Annexation for water and
sewer service.
G. Reclamation District No. 800: Annexation, Service Agreement.
H. US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 10 Permit, Work in Navigable Waters,
Section 14 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act.
I. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement.
J. California Regional Water Quality Control Board: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Section 401
Water Quality Certificate.
K. California State Reclamation Board: Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit.
L. Additional approvals by Contra Costa County :
Building permits for the proposed residences and infrastructure and demolition
permits for the existing structures on the project site.
Grading permits.
Storm drainage and flood control permits.
Potential participation in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.
III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project has the following two main objectives:
Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and a
proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water
access and individual docks; and
Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to reduce
water velocities and improve boater safety in that section of Kellogg Creek.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
4
Other key project objectives include:
Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation on the project site; and
Construct market-rate housing to meet the needs of present and future residents of
eastern Contra Costa County; and
Provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to and through the preserved open space
areas on the north side of the Project site, with open views of the Delta water, and
provide seating areas and kiosks with educational and historical signage.
Develop a project consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods (e.g. 6,000
to 21,320 square foot lots) to the east and west of the project site and that creates an
improved link between the original Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West; and
Provide for flood protection in a conservative manner that exceeds current minimum
standards for finished floor elevations above the 100-year storm BFE; and
Reduce the need for dredging by Reclamation District No. 800 and improve water
quality in Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate bank stabilization and
habitat restoration along the project shoreline, furth er reducing the amount of scour
and associated sedimentation; and
Create new high and moderate-quality back habitat in and near the project site and
enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-quality habitat to benefit native fish
species; and
Preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the northwestern portion of the Project
site and all the emergent marsh on Pantages Island; and
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project
consists at a minimum of the following documents:
The Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) and all other public notices issued by the
County in conjunction with the Project.
The Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Draft EIR ( June 2012)
and Final EIR (July 2013) and their Appendices, and all documents cited or
referenced therein;
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 60-
day comment period on the Draft EIR;
All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the
Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
5
All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers in connection
with the Project, and all the documents cited therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations,
diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the
County or by consultants to the County, the Applicant, or responsible or trustee
agencies and submitted to the County, with the respect to the County’s actions
on the Project;
All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members
of the public in connection with the Project, up through the public hearing on
October 22, 2013
Minutes or transcripts, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings
held by the County in connection with the Project;
Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Contra
Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553.
The Commission has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its
decision on the Pantages Bays Residential Project.
V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. On May 24, 2007, the County released an NOP for an EIR for the Project.
B. On June 18, 2007, the County held a public scoping meeting for the Project to invite
input on the scope of issues to be considered in the Draft EIR.
C. A Draft EIR entitled “Pantages Bays Residential Development Project” (State
Clearinghouse No. 2007-052130) was prepared by CirclePoint under the direction of
the County Department of Conservation & Development. The Draft EIR addresses the
issues raised in the scoping meeting and in response to the NOP, among other things.
The Draft EIR is dated June 2012.
D. On June 12, 2012, a Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were delivered
to the State Clearing House and the Draft EIR was circulated for a duly noticed 45 day
public review period that began on June 12, 2012, and ended on July 26, 2012.
E. The Notice of Completion and Availability and Notice of Public Hearing for the Draft
EIR was mailed by the Department of Conservation & Development to adjacent
property owners and occupants pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 (a) (3),
and the Notices were mailed to the neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary
of the project site. In addition, Notices were mailed to agencies, persons and
organizations who had requested such notice or had otherwise demonstrated interest in
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
6
the Project. The Draft EIR documents (print or CD) were mailed via either certified or
first class mail to federal, state and local agencies and organizations and persons who
requested a copy.
F. On July 23, 2012 the public review period for the Draft EIR was extended 15 days to
allow for additional time for public review. The original noticing procedure as
outlined above was repeated for the extension of public review. The total time for
public review was 60 days which ended on August 10, 2012.
G. On July 16, 2012, the County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to receive
comments on the Draft EIR.
H. On July 25, 2013, the Final EIR was released for public review by public agencies and
other commenters on the Draft EIR, more the 10 days in advance of the scheduled date
of certification.
I. On August 12, 2013 the County Zoning Administrator held a closed public hearing
and certified that the Final EIR is adequate for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Resolution No. 9-2013.
J. On October 22, 2013 the Commission held a public hearing to consider certification
of the Final EIR and Project approvals.
K. Copies of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including appendices, and studies, documents,
and reports referenced in the Draft EIR and Final EIR are available for public review
at the Department of Conservation & Development, Community Development
Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553.
VI. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. General Findings
1. Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required)
The Commission agrees with the characterization of the final EIR with respect to all impacts
identified as “less than significant” or as having “no impact,” and finds that those impacts
have been described accurately and are less than significant or have no impact as so described
in the final EIR. This finding applies to the following CEQA significance determinations:
Aesthetics, Impact 4.17 -
a. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway.
Rationale for Finding: There are no state-designated scenic highways
within 10 miles of the project site. As such, the project would have no
impacts to views from a scenic highway.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
7
The closest local scenic route is SR-4, located more than 1-mile south of
the project site. The proposed improvements would not be visible to
motorists travelling along this route. Therefore, the project would have no
impacts to views from this local scenic route.
b. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan identifies two major visual
resources in the County: (1) scenic ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings
of the Diablo Range; and (2) the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system.
In addition, policies within the General Plan require preservation, to the
maximum extent possible, of significant trees and natural vegetation,
including natural woodlands.
The trees on the project site are not considered a significant visual resource
protected under the General Plan. The removal of the trees would therefore
not represent a significant impact to visual resources.
Because views of the Diablo Range are already partially obstructed by the
Discovery Bay West development, and because the proposed
improvements are compatible with the type and intensity of surrounding
development, construction of the project is not considered a significant
impact to this scenic vista.
Views of scenic waterways from Discovery Bay (east of the site) would not
be impacted by the development of the project site, as the proposed
improvements would occur west of Kellogg Creek. Therefore,
implementation of the project would have a less-than-significant impact to
a designated scenic waterway.
c. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
Rationale for Finding: Development of the project site would introduce
one- to two-story residential buildings on a predominantly undeveloped
vacant site. The project would be similar in type, density, and quality with
surrounding subdivisions. The project would not substantially alter the
existing suburban-residential character or quality of the area.
Agricultural and Forest Resources, Impact 4.1 -
a. The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant
to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use.
Rationale for Finding: The project site does not contain farmland
designated “Prime,” “Unique,” or of “Statewide Importance.”
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
8
Furthermore, the project site does not contain “prime agricultural land” as
defined in Section 56064 of the California Government Code.
b. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is currently zoned General
Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) and the
project would conflict with this zoning. The project site is inside the Urban
Limit Line (ULL), and the surrounding properties have already been
approved for residential development and are actively being developed.
The project site is no longer used for agricultural production, and the
project includes a request for rezoning to Planned Unit District (P-1). The
requested zoning designation would reflect the intent of the ULL and
would be consistent with the residential developments on surrounding
properties. Therefore, the conflict with the existing zoning is considered
less than significant.
The project site is not under Williamson Act contract and so the project
would not result in any conflicts with this Act.
c. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))
d. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use.
Rationale for Finding: While the project site is vegetated with 80 trees,
these trees are dispersed throughout the site, and are not considered forest
land as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g).
e. The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Rationale for Finding: As noted above, the project site is not currently used
for agricultural production and does not contain any forest resources.
Development of the project would not therefore involve changes to the
existing environment, which due to their location or nature, would result in
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Furthermore, the project
site is generally surrounded by development, including the Ravenswood,
Lakeshore, and other Discovery Bay West and Discovery Bay
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
9
communities; and development of the project would not contribute
indirectly to the conversion of nearby farmlands.
Air Quality, Impact 4.2 -
a. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.
Rationale for Finding: The project is consistent with regional growth
predications and would implement several Transportation Control
Measures (TCM) included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
b. The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Greenhouse gas
and construction particulate emissions are separately addressed elsewhere
below as potentially significant impacts, and not under this subsection.
Rationale for Finding: The contribution of project-generated traffic to
levels of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions was predicted following the
screening criteria recommended by BAAQMD. The results of this
screening analysis indicate that project levels would be below the
California ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. Therefore, the project
would have a less-than-significant impact to those air quality standards.
c. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Rationale for Finding: The project would result in the construction of 292
residential units. Activities associated with a residential housing
development do not typically result in the creation of objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people.
Biological Resources, Impact 4.3 -
a. The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
Rationale for Finding: The project site does not constitute a wildlife
movement corridor, but rather serves wildlife in their local movement
patterns. While local wildlife (deer, skunks, raccoons, rats, etc.) will likely
use the site to move to and from the adjacent housing developments where
they are able to scavenge for food, the loss of this area for local movements
is not a significant impact as these species are capable of moving through
developed areas. Thus, loss of this habitat would not be a considered
significant impact under CEQA. In accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines, impacts to “corridors” and “interfer[ing] substantially” with
these corridors would constitute a significant impact. In order for there to
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
10
be a significant impact, first there has to be a corridor, not just a resident
wildlife use pattern established on site; second, “substantially” would
indicate that the wildlife corridor in question would be important to
special-status species or essential to a population. These criteria are not
met by the project site. Hence, development of the proposed project would
not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established corridors. The project
site does not constitute a native wildlife nursery site. Finally, the project
will not affect the movement of migratory fish because the project site and
adjoining waterways are not part of migratory waterways, as more fully
described in the Biological Resources section.
b. The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is located adjacent to but outside of
the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Inventory Area and as a
result the project is not routinely eligible for take coverage through the
HCP/NCCP. Although the project is located outside the inventory area of
the HCP/NCCP, the project may be allowed to make a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as
mitigation for impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species,
depending on input from the Agencies involved (California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) in the
course processing the necessary resource agency permits and their
issuance.
Geology and Soils, Impact 4.6 -
a. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of
a known earthquake fault, as delineated by the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.
Rationale for Finding: the project site does not include any faults identified
as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Therefore, the project would
not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from
these types of earthquake fault zones.
b. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Rationale for Finding: The project site generally flat and there is no history
of landslides in the vicinity of Discovery Bay. As such, there is a
negligible level of risk related to landslides.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
11
c. The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water.
Rationale for Finding: The project site would be served by the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD). Future
development would not rely on septic tanks or other alternative waste water
disposal systems, as the urbanized nature of the proposed development
necessitates the use of municipal wastewater collection and treatment
systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact 4.8 -
a. The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
Rationale for Finding: A review of regulatory databases maintained by
County, state, and federal agencies found that the project site is not
included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. There is currently no documentation
of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the project site or within
1 mile of the project site.
b. The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport.
Rationale for Finding: The project is located approximately 8 miles north
of the East County (Byron) Airport. A review of the Contra Costa County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that the project site is not
located within the airport sphere of influence and is not located within the
approach zone for either of the airport’s two runways. Therefore,
implementation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for
construction workers or future residents.
c. The project would not be in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Rationale for Finding: The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip,
is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the project site in the
Brentwood area. No impacts related to safety are anticipated as the project
would be an infill development surrounded by similar residential uses to
the east, west, and south. The project does not include any towers or other
vertical obstructions that could represent a unique hazard to the flight path
from this airstrip.
d. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation system.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
12
Rationale for Finding: The County has not adopted an emergency response
plan for the Discovery Bay area, and thus the project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with such a plan. Additionally,
the project is designed to comply with County and fire district standards for
roadways and emergency vehicle access and compliance would be verified
by both agencies prior to and after construction.
Similarly, the project could not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an emergency evacuation system. The Emergency Alert
System and Emergency Digital Information Service are the primary
systems used to inform the public of emergencies and threats to health,
safety, and welfare. These systems are electronic and are operated by
government agencies in conjunction with television and radio stations. In
the event of an emergency, these systems are used to broadcast emergency
information, such as evacuation alerts, across all radio and television
stations in the affected area. Due to the electronic nature of these systems,
there is no possibility that they could be impacted by the project.
e. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is bounded by waterways to the
north, south, and east, and lands to the west are developed with single-
family residential subdivisions. The General Plan does not identify this
project site as a high-risk zone for wildland fires. Therefore, the project
would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact 4.9 -
a. The project would not violate any waste discharge requirements.
Rationale for Finding: The project would result in wastewater generated by
residential uses. The wastewater generated by the project would not
violate any wastewater discharge requirement as residential wastewater is
accepted and treated by the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility
which is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Rationale for Finding: The project applicant is not proposing to drill new
water wells. The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
(TDBCSD) supplies water service to the residence of Discovery Bay
through an existing system of wells, treatment plants, storage tanks and
distribution system. The District would, after annexation of the project site,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
13
be supplying water service to the Project site. The District recently
prepared a Water Master Plan (Water MP) for Discovery Bay which
included the project. It was accepted by their Board in late 2012. The
Water MP identified system improvements that enable the District to meet
current and projected water demands through build-out in 2020, including a
new well. The project is required to pay its fair share of those system
improvements.
Deep infiltration and groundwater recharge is not feasible at the project site
due to the low permeability of the site’s clay soils. Surface runoff at the
project site typically flows into the adjacent waterways before having a
chance to permeate into the groundwater table. Therefore, the addition of
impervious surfaces to the project site is not expected to significantly affect
groundwater recharge on site.
c. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
And
d. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Rationale for Finding: The project includes a storm water drainage and
treatment system that collects runoff from individual drainage areas into a
series of linear bioretention facilities. Lots, sidewalks, and roadways
would drain toward the linear bioretention facilities via overland flow.
Treated runoff would be collected into a series of perforated pipe
underdrains that would discharge the storm water into the developed bays,
coves, and Kellogg Creek, in compliance with regulatory standards. The
proposed storm drainage would handle all stormwater runoff from the
developed portion of the site, on- and off-site flooding is not anticipated to
occur. The project has submitted a Storm Water Control Plan that has been
deemed preliminarily complete by the Public Works Department. The
project would not connect to an existing or planned water drainage system
and would therefore not contribute or exceed its capacity.
e. The project would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.
And
f. The project would place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
14
Rationale for Finding: The entire project site falls within Special Flood
Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa
County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that it is subject to flooding during
a 100-year event in the Delta. However, the proposed finish floor
elevations of the project would be raised above the base flood elevation for
a 100-year storm event, meeting the County’s flood design standards, and
reducing potential risks from flooding to a less-than significant level.
Furthermore, the project has been designed to comply with the future flood
elevation related to sea level rise in the next 100 years that is predicted by
the State of California.
g. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam.
Rationale for Finding: The closest reservoir is Los Vaqueros, located
approximately 7.5 miles to the west. The project site is located along the
eastern edge of the inundation area. The Contra Costa Water District
recently completed an environmental analysis for the expansion and
upgrading of the Los Vaqueros facility. The EIR prepared by the Contra
Costa Water District included a less-than-significant impact related to
downstream flooding associated with the risk of dam failure, based on the
conservative design of the facility that ensures it can withstand a maximum
credible earthquake, and the policies and procedures that guide the
monitoring of operations of the facility, ensuring that if needed, emergency
“drawdown” of water levels can be implemented to reduce the level of
inundation. As such, potential risks related to dam failure are considered
less than significant.
h. The project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is located approximately 80 miles
from the ocean and the potential for tsunamis affecting it from this source
is remote. There is no known evidence of these near-field tsunami and
seiches sources and they are not considered a risk to the project. The
project site is nearly flat and would thus not be subject to mudflows related
to landslides.
Land Use and Planning. Impact 4.10 -
a. The project would not physically divide an established community.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is currently vacant, and
development of the site would not divide an established community. The
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
15
existence of the Discovery Bay community to the east and recent County
approval of subdivisions to the west have resulted in the site becoming an
island of vacant land surrounded by residential development to the east,
west, and south. Implementation of the project would continue the
residential pattern of development that is already defined.
b. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Rationale for Finding: The project is currently in conflict with the existing
zoning and general plan land use designation which identify the site for
agricultural uses. The project seeks approval of a general plan amendment
from the current designation to Single-Family Residential – Medium
Density (SM), Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH), Water
(WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS) designations to
support the proposed development. Similarly, the applicant also seeks
approval for rezoning from General Agricultural District and Heavy
Agricultural District to Planned Unit District.
Approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning would ensure that
the project is consistent with the applicable land use plan and zoning
regulations. If the Board of Supervisors does not approve the requested
general plan amendment and rezoning, the project as currently proposed
would not be implemented.
The project would be consistent with all other policies related to land use.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use
plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
c. The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is located adjacent to but outside of
the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Inventory Area and as a
result the project is not routinely eligible for take coverage through the
HCP/NCCP. Although the project is located outside the inventory area of
the HCP/NCCP, the project may be allowed to make a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as
mitigation for impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species
depending on input from the Wildlife Agencies at the time of their permit
issuance. The project would not conflict with any habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan and no impact would occur.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
16
Mineral Resources, Impact 4.11 -
a. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
Rationale for Finding: According to the California Geological Survey, the
project site is not classified or designated within a mineral resource zone.
Furthermore, based on General Plan maps of the area, the project site is not
within an area of known mineral importance. Therefore, the project would
not impact mineral resources
b. The project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan.
Rationale for Finding: Both the project site and the project vicinity do not
have a history of mining and the project site is not delineated as a mineral
resource recovery site on any known map or plan. Therefore, the project
would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site.
Noise, Impact 4.12 -
a. The project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
And
b. The project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity.
Rationale for Finding: According to the General Plan, a community noise
exposure level (CNEL) of up to 60 dBA is considered normally acceptable
for single-family residential uses. Noise measurements indicate that the
existing CNEL is between 45 and 53 dBA. The existing environment
therefore maintains a sound level of less than 60 dBA and would not
subject the proposed residents to unacceptable levels of sound as defined
by the General Plan.
Residential developments typically do not cause substantial increases in
noise. However, the project would slightly increase noise in the vicinity of
the project site due to greater numbers of automobiles and motorized
watercraft. Since this increase is less than the 5 dB threshold of
significance, this is a less-than-significant noise impact. The future noise
level with the addition of project traffic and watercraft would remain below
60 dBA.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
17
The project includes a Medevac helicopter landing pad to provide
emergency air-lift services for boating accidents. The landing pad would
only be used, on those infrequent occasions, for emergency situations to
transport accident victims from the project area to nearby hospitals. The
noise associated with this operation would be temporary and sporadic, and
would not result in a permanent change to the ambient noise environment.
Therefore, the proposed helicopter landings would result in a less-than-
significant impact to the existing and future noise environment.
c. The project would not expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels.
Rationale for Finding: The project does not include any components that
would generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels during
construction activities, such as sheet pile driving or deep dynamic
compaction. The construction of the shoring walls will be with a drilling
rig and not involve pile driving or deep dynamic compaction.
d. The project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport that could expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels.
Rationale for Finding: The project is located approximately 8 miles north
of the East County (Byron) Airport. The Contra Costa County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that the project is not within the
airport sphere of influence and is not located within the approach zone for
either of the airport’s two runways. The project is too distant from the
airport for there to be airport-related noise impacts.
e. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip that could expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Rationale for Finding: The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip,
is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the project site in the
Brentwood area. This airport services small private aircraft. Several
airplane over flights were observed during the long-term noise
measurements including jets and smaller general aviation aircraft. The
infrequent nature and relatively low noise levels means that they are not a
significant contributor to the average noise at the project site. Given the
relative distance to the project site and the types of aircraft associated with
the airstrip, no airstrip-related noise impacts are anticipated.
Population and Housing, Impact 4.13 -
a. The project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
18
Rationale for Finding: The project and surrounding properties were
included within the urban limit line (ULL) to indicate a potential for future
conversion to urban uses. The timing for the development of these areas is
speculative and regional population projections have attempted to project a
reasonable rate of growth based on market conditions. Given that the
direct population increase associated with the project (estimate 876 people)
would be within the region’s population forecasts, this impact is considered
less than significant.
The project site is an infill development and adjacent or nearby lands are
either already developed with residential uses, or are located outside the
ULL, which prevents further development. Therefore, impacts related to
indirect population growth are considered less than significant.
b. The project would not displace existing housing.
Rationale for Finding: No project-related improvements are proposed that
would displace any existing housing. The project site contains three
residential structures that are dilapidated and abandoned. Demolition of
the dilapidated and abandoned residential structures does not constitute
displacement of substantial numbers of housing units since the units are
vacant and uninhabitable. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c. The project would not displace people nor would it create substantial
population growth.
Rationale for Finding: The residential sites on the project site no longer
include inhabitable structures; therefore, no individuals would be displaced
or in need of replacement housing as a result of the project. No impact
related to the displacement of people would occur. Furthermore, the project
would construct 292 housing units, which would directly increase the
population of Far East County by 876 people. This is within ABAG
Projections for the years 2010 to 2020.
Public Services, Impact 4.14 -
a. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
Fire protection
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would not require the
construction any additional fire facilities, the construction of which could
result in environmental impacts. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the project applicant would be required to make a fair share contribution to
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
19
the reimbursement fund for the developer funded construction of Station
59, which is approximately one half mile distance from the project site. In
addition, the residences will be equipped with fire sprinklers for fire
protection.
Police protection
Rationale for Finding: As part of the project, a marine patrol substation is
proposed at the northeasterly point of the project site. The Sheriff’s Marine
Patrol Station would serve the residents from the project and surrounding
areas, and would significantly decrease response times to Discovery Bay.
The environmental impacts associated with the construction of the marine
patrol station are evaluated in the relevant technical sections of the draft
EIR (i.e., Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality). Implementation of the project would not require the
construction of any other police facilities; the construction of which could
result in environmental impacts.
The existing staff, equipment, and facilities of the existing Sheriff’s Delta
Station would be able to provide police services to the project site,
including at the new marine patrol substation on the project site, which will
not be staffed full-time. In addition, project homeowners will be included
in a police service district and pay a tax bill assessment that is typical for
new residential development in the unincorporated areas if the County.
Therefore, impacts related to increases in demand for police services would
be less than significant.
Schools
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would not require the
construction of any school facilities; the construction of which could result
in environmental impacts. As confirmed by Senate Bill (SB) 50, payment
of standard school impact fees is considered “full and complete mitigation”
of any school impacts. Payment of school impacts fees as required by SB
50 would reduce the impact of increased elementary and middle school
students to nearby schools to a less-than-significant level.
Other Public Facilities
Rationale for Finding: The project is projected to provide housing for
approximately 876 residents. This additional population could increase the
demand for library services, including facilities and equipment, book or
media volumes, and staff time. Neither California nor Contra Costa
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
20
County has formal library standards for collections or facilities. The
Contra Costa Library system is primarily funded by local property taxes,
with additional revenue from intergovernmental sources. Currently the
library serves a population of over 40,000. The Contra Costa County
Library Services (County Library) has a Strategic Plan which accounts for
the existing library services in the County and planned improvements and
facilities. The construction of a new library is dependent on a needs
assessment and available funding. According to the County Library, a
population increase would not, in and of itself, require a new or expanded
library and so is considered to be less than significant.
This additional population could also increase the demand for health
services, including facilities, equipment, and staff time. Neither California
nor Contra Costa County has formal health service standards for facilities.
Given that County health facilities generally serve low-income populations,
and the population generated by the project would not be low income, the
County would not require a new or expanded health facility as result of
project implementation. Therefore, this is considered a less-than-
significant impact.
Recreation, Impact 4.14 -
a. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Rationale for Finding: There is no indication of a deficiency in parkland in
the area of the Project site, and the existing parks would accommodate the
additional 876 new residents generated by the project. In addition, the
project applicant would be required to adhere to the County’s parkland
requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 people as discussed in Impact PS-1. The
project would also provide approximately 2.6 acres of public trail on site,
which would be available for use by the new residents generated by the
project as well as the public. In addition, the project would pay a park
dedication fee of $1350 per dwelling unit. Therefore, the project would
have a less-than-significant impact related to the substantial deterioration
of park facilities that serve the project site.
b. The project would include recreational facilities that could have an adverse
physical effect on the environment, but with mitigations the impact would be
less than significant.
Rationale for Finding: The project would allow the development of a 20-
foot wide EVA road in the northwest portion of the project area, through
the proposed wetland mitigation and open space area. The EVA road
would also serve as a publicly accessible bicycle/pedestrian trail and would
include interpretive signage, kiosks, and seating areas. For a discussion of
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
21
the impacts of the construction of the trail to the marsh and other biological
resources, see Section B, Biological Resources.
Public Utilities, Impact 4.15 -
a. The construction of new storm water drainage facilities as part of the project
would not cause significant environmental effects.
Rationale for Finding: The proposed storm drainage system includes
natural on-site drainage and human-made detention basins. Storm water
would be handled completely on site, with treatment in bio-swales or
bioretention before release into the area waterways. Impacts to storm
water drainage facilities and storm water management issues specific to the
project are addressed in Section B, Hydrology and Water Quality. The
proposed drainage system has been designed to compl y with NPDES and
the County’s C.3 requirements and impacts related to storm drainage
facilities would be less than significant.
b. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Rationale for Finding: The Potrero Hills Landfill that would serve the
project site currently receives 1,900 tons per day of solid waste and has a
remaining capacity of 6 million cubic yards. According to CalRecycle, a
single family residential unit generates approximately 10 pounds of solid
waste per day. The project includes 292 single-family residential units that
would generate approximately 2,920 pounds per day. The amount of solid
waste generated by the project represents less than 0.1 percent of the daily
amount of solid waste processed by the landfill.
The landfill has permitted capacity through 2016 and is in the process of
applying for the required permits that would allow the landfill to operate
through 2050 and expand to more than three times its current capacity.
Based on the landfill’s expansion plans for operation through 2050, the
landfill would be able to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs.
c. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.
Rationale for Finding: The project consists of residential land uses that
would not result in the generation of unique types of solid waste that would
conflict with existing regulations applicable to solid waste disposal. The
project would be required to comply with Contra Costa County’s solid
waste requirements, including the provisions of AB 939. Furthermore, the
project would have to comply with County Ordinance 2004-16, which
requires owners of all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
22
square feet in size or greater to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the
construction and demolition debris generated on the jobsite are reused,
recycled, or otherwise diverted.
In order to comply with Ordinance 2004-16, the project applicant would be
required as a condition of approval to prepare and submit a Debris
Recovery Plan to the County’s Department of Conservation and
Development prior to the issuance of a building or demolition permit. The
plan would address major materials generated by a construction project of
this size, including brush and other vegetative material, dimensional
lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packaging, and plastic wrap, and shall
address opportunities to recycle such materials or divert them away from
the Potrero Hills Landfill. Prior to final inspection, the project applicant
shall submit a Debris Recovery Report that demonstrates that at least 50
percent of jobsite debris was diverted from disposal by providing receipts
or gate-tags from facilities or service providers used for recycling, reuse
and disposal of jobsite debris. The project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations related to solid waste and this impact would
be less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic, Impact 4.14 -
a. The majority of the traffic conditions under the project condition would not
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
and
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Intersections
Rationale for Finding: With the exception of the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway (No. 7), Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive (No. 8), and
SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19) intersections, all study intersections
would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) with the
addition of project traffic. However, neither the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway nor Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive unsignalized
intersections would meet the peak hour signal warrant analysis. An
unsignalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS must meet the
MUTCD peak hour signal warrant for the impact to be considered
significant. Because neither intersection would meet the peak hour signal
warrant, impacts to these intersections as a result of the project generated
traffic are considered less than significant.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
23
Impacts to the SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19) intersection are
discussed further below under Sections B and C.
Roadway Segments
Rationale for Finding: Both Marsh Creek Road and Camino Diablo would
continue to operate at acceptable LOS D with the addition of project
generated traffic. However, the addition of project traffic would
exacerbate the existing deficiency of Vasco Road, which does not meet the
MTSO target of LOS D under Existing or Existing Plus Project conditions.
Therefore, impacts to Vasco Road are discussed further below under
Section B.
Boating Traffic
Rationale for Finding: The project is estimated to contribute an additional
131 new boating vessels to Discovery Bay. Based on the California State
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) average trip rate of 26.1 trips
per year, this would result in approximately 3,420 new boat trips per year
originating from Pantages Bays. This represents an approximately 2.8
percent increase in the number of local boat trips within Discovery Bay due
to the project, and will not cause congestion within Discovery Bay and
nearby Delta waterways.
The project would widen the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek to a
minimum width of 300 feet as recommended by Reclamation District 800
in an effort to reduce boat traffic congestion, provide for boats to pass each
other safely, and eliminate unsafe tidal flow currents caused by the current
narrow channel. The balance of the Kellogg Creek frontage would be
widened as necessary to accommodate new the new homes and docks and
still maintain the minimum width of 300 feet. Old Kellogg Creek will be
widened to the recommended minimum width of 120 feet (the homes and
docks there will be limited to one side of the waterway). Since the
proposed widened channel dimensions meet the recommended width, and
given the number of boats that will be within the widened segment of
Kellogg Creek which fronts the project site, congestion will not be a
significant impact.
In Indian Slough, which does not currently experience boat traffic
congestion problems, the relatively small increase in number of boats due
to the project (2.8 percent) will not have a significant impact on boat
traffic.
c. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks.
Rationale for Finding: The project does not involve aircraft or activities
that would interfere with air traffic patterns. The project includes a 100-
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
24
foot by 100-foot Medevac helicopter landing area near the Marine Patrol
Substation. However, emergencies that would require a Medevac
helicopter landing on the project site will be infrequent and would not
result in a change to existing air traffic patterns since Medevac helicopters
currently land on nearby levees when called for an emergency response.
Furthermore, the closest public or private airstrip is more than 2 miles
away.
d. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).
Rationale for Finding: Internal circulation was reviewed with respect to the
proposed roadway lane widths, sight distance, and
vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts. The project includes seven streets and
cul-de-sacs that would be privately owned and maintained by a
homeowners association. Pedestrian walkways would be provided on 5
and 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadways, with a 5-foot
landscaped buffer between the roadway and sidewalk throughout the
proposed development. Other than the emergency vehicle access
(EVA)/public trail, the roadways within the project site would not have
bike lanes. Therefore, bicyclists would be sharing the road with motor
vehicles. Given that the traffic volumes and vehicular speeds within the
project site are anticipated to be low, road-sharing is not anticipated to
cause a major conflict between bicyclists and motor vehicles.
In addition, the internal roadways were evaluated to determine whether
adequate sight distance is provided for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The
Caltrans Highway Design Manual provides sight distance standards based
on the design speed of the roadway. A design speed of 25 miles per hour
(mph) was used for the internal roadways, which corresponds to a
minimum sight distance of 155 feet. All of the internal intersections
provide adequate sight distance for pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
e. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Rationale for Finding: Streets would be designed in compliance with
County private road standards and requirements of emergency service
providers. In addition, an emergency vehicle access (EVA) road would be
constructed in the northwest portion and southwest portion of the project
site. The applicant proposes that EVA/public trail to be 20 feet wide, with
an 8-foot paved trail in the middle and a 6-foot compacted aggregate
shoulder on each side. A similar EVA would be constructed to the
Sheriff’s marine patrol substation except the paved trail would be off-
center to better accommodate the small daily number of marine patrol
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
25
station vehicles. As such, the project would provide adequate emergency
access to the entire project site.
f. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
Rationale for Finding: There is no planned transit service within the project
development. However, the project would connect to existing sidewalks
on Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. These sidewalks would provide
public pedestrian/bicycle access to the open space areas within the project
site. The sidewalk connections would also provide access from the site to
the closest existing transit service (at the intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Preston Drive), schools, and parks. As such, the project would not
conflict with adopted pedestrian plans or guidelines identified in the
Contra Costa General Plan, East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005
Update, or 2009 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project is
also consistent with the East County Trails Master Plan dated July 2009.
The Master Plan envisions access through the project site, but does not
identify a precise alignment. In conformance with this Master Plan, the
project provides access via the public trail through the emergent marsh
area. Trail users can also exit the project site and connect to other existing
and planned trails that provide access to the south towards Highway 4, as
shown on the Master Plan. East Bay Regional Park District in its DEIR
comment letter expressed support for the project public trails as proposed.
The two Tri Delta Transit routes that would serve the project site currently
operate well under capacity. The excess capacity available on the existing
transit system would accommodate additional transit trips generated by the
project. The project does not conflict with any transit system plans or
guidelines and would therefore not create an impact.
Impacts that Are Less Than Cumulatively Considerable
a. Cultural Resources
Rationale for Finding: No known historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources were identified on the project site, and therefore
the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. To the extent that
construction activities unearth previously undiscovered resources,
implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would
ensure their proper identification and treatment. The project would
therefore not result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative
impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
26
b. Energy
Rationale for Finding: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has indicated that
the distribution systems serving the County are designed to adequately
serve the energy demands from projected development within the County’s
Urban Limit Line, including the proposed project. As such, the project in
combination with the other development in the County would not result in
cumulative impacts to energy.
c. Geology & Soils
Rationale for Finding: Regarding potential seismic shaking, the site is not
located in the vicinity of an active fault line or fault trace and would not
therefore be subject to ground rupture. However, because of the
seismically active nature of the region, the project is required to conform to
all general plan conditions requiring analysis and design to ensure adequate
performance during a seismic event. The incorporation of these design
requirements, and compliance with the California Building Code ensure
that the project would not make a considerable contribution to the increase
in population exposed to posed injury, death, or property damage from
seismic events in the region.
d. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Rationale for Finding: The Pantages Bays residential project is not located
in proximity to the identified hazardous land uses along the San Joaquin
River or Byron Airport and would not therefore contribute to the
cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan EIR associated with
proximity to such uses and potential health risk during accidental release of
hazardous materials.
e. Water Quality
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan includes policies that specifically
reinforce these regulations by establishing the County’s active role in water
quality programs. The General Plan policies also establish support for
water quality standards that are adequate to protect human health in
important areas like the Delta estuary. Point sources of pollution are
required to be identified and controlled in order to protect adopted
beneficial uses of water. Implementation of these policies occurs as part of
the development review and construction permitting process and was found
to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the
project in conjunction with the development proposed as part of the
General Plan would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to
water quality.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
27
f. Flooding and Sea Level Rise
Rationale for Finding: The project has been proactively designed with
building pad elevations that conform to the conservative projections by the
State of California for sea level rise in 2050 and 2100. The project would
not therefore increase the number of persons or amount of property
potentially exposed to flood conditions and would result in a considerable
contribution to this cumulative impact.
g. Land Use & Planning
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan EIR noted the change in land use
patterns that would occur with implementation of the Urban Limit Line
(ULL); namely, a concentration of growth within areas designated for
urban development and a preservation of the agricultural core for purely
agricultural uses. The project site is included within the ULL, and
therefore has the potential for conversion to urban use. Although the
zoning for the project site (and much of the undeveloped lands within the
ULL) was left agricultural, the County’s potential for future development
of these lands was identified. All land use and planning development
projects included in the cumulative analysis have been designated for
potential future urban development as part of the ULL; therefore, the
combined development of properties within the ULL is not considered a
cumulatively significant land use impact.
h. Mineral Resources
Rationale for Finding: None of the land use and planning development
projects included in the cumulative analysis are within an area of known
mineral importance. Therefore, the development of the project in
combination with other projects in the area would have no potential to
impact state-designated regionally significant mineral resources and there
would be no cumulative impact related to mineral resources.
i. Noise
Rationale for Finding: Cumulative increases in noise levels would not
exceed the 5 dBA DNL threshold with the exception of a segment of Point
of Timber Road (between Byron Highway and Bixler). This segment of
roadway would experience an increase of 6.3 dBA DNL in the cumulative
scenario and an additional 0.7 dBA DNL with the project, increasing the
current ambient noise level of 57 dBA DNL to 63 dBA DNL in the
cumulative plus project condition. The project’s contribution (0.7 dBA
DNL) is less than 1.0 dBA and is not a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
28
j. Population and Housing
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan and adoption of the ULL
identified an intended pattern of residential development, including in the
Discovery Bay area. The General Plan EIR did not identify a significant
impact related to population growth and therefore a cumulative impact
related to population and housing does not exist. The General Plan EIR
noted that build out in accordance with the ULL and in tandem with a
program of employment development would create a jobs housing balance
that would support a more vibrant and sustainable community. The project
is located within the ULL and would not require an extension of services
outside the ULL boundary.
k. Public Services and Recreation
Rationale for Finding: Regarding sheriff services, the project includes
construction of a marine patrol substation to augment services in the
region. The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office has not identified a need
for additional facilities beyond the marine patrol substation, indicating that
acceptable service ratios can be maintained in the Discovery Bay area and
alleviating the cumulative impact for the provision of police services
within the project’s cumulative setting.
The service district of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
(ECCFPD) has recently been improved with the construction of Station 59
that would serve the project area. The location of this facility is
approximately one half mile from the project site and therefore complies
with General Plan policies that call for a response time of 3 min/ and or be
located 1.5 miles from the first due station. Furthermore, the project would
pay fire impact fees.
The General Plan requires that any new development include 3 acres of
public parkland per 1,000 people. The County Code also permits a
combination of land dedication and fee payment to mitigate park impacts.
In conformance with this policy, the project would provide parkland, in the
form of the approximately 2.55 acre public trail through the open space
area as described above and would also pay fees ( $1351 per dwelling unit)
to mitigate cumulative impacts to local parks.
The project in combination with other residential projects in the vicinity
would generate new students and would be required to pay development
impact fees to the local school districts, consistent with the requirements of
Senate Bill (SB 50). Payment of these fees is considered to completely
mitigate any impacts to schools. Therefore, cumulative impacts to school
facilities or services would be less than significant.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
29
a. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP
includes all of the Mitigation Measures adopted to avoid or reduce Project
impacts and will be implemented following Project approval.
b. Project Approvals Incorporate the Mitigation Measures and the
MMRP. The Mitigation Measures and the MMRP have been incorporated into
the Project Approvals; thus they have become part of and limitations upon the
entitlement conferred by the Project Approvals and are enforceable by the
County.
c. Impacts Summarized. The descriptions of the impacts in these
Findings are summary statements. Mitigation Measures are numbered to
correspond to listings in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Reference should be
made to the Draft EIR and Final EIR for a more complete description.
l. Visual Resources
Rationale for Finding: As discussed in this section, the project site would
be similar in type, density, and quality to the surrounding subdivisions and
would not therefore result in a cumulative contribution to the degradation
of scenic quality.
The project would not develop any hillsides or ridgelines, but would
develop the shoreline along Kellogg Creek to provide private docks with
deep water access. This development would degrade the shoreline from its
current state, which is characterized as low quality creek bank habitat. To
address impacts to the shoreline and associated biological species, the
applicant would be required to enhance 11,060 linear feet of creek bank
habitat on Pantages Island and along the ECCID dredge cut to provide high
and moderate quality shaded riverine aquatic habitat. These enhancements
would be visible to the public through the public trail to be provided
through the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area. With the
implementation of this and other associated enhancement measures, the
project’s contribution to this identified impact would not be considerable.
B. (1) Project Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant with Implementation
of Mitigation Measures and (2) Project Impacts that Remain Significant After
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR in its Mitigation and Monitoring identifies the following significant
environmental impacts associated with the Project and Mitigation Measures (MM)
adopted to reduce these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. To the extent
the Mitigation Measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant impacts, it is hereby
determined that any remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
30
the reasons specified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section N, below).
The Mitigation Measures identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed
description of impacts and Mitigation Measures, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR
and corresponding Conditions of Approval.
Aesthetics Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.17.3:
Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of light and glare which
could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure VIS-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Development of the project would include lighting
elements typical of a residential neighborhood (e.g., porch lights, street
lights, etc.) that would introduce new sources of nighttime lightin g to the
project site and surrounding areas.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would require the project
applicant to prepare a lighting plan for review and approval by the
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division (CDD). Provisions will be included in the lighting plan to ensure
that exterior lighting is low mounted, downward casting, shielded, sensitive
to the open space area, and utilize motion detection systems. Therefore,
Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would mitigate the potential impact to a less-
than-significant-level.
Air Quality Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.2.3:
Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes wood burning stoves would result
in a net increase of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment in an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
31
4. Rationale for Finding: Wood burning stoves and other area sources, such as
emissions associated with project traffic, would result in new air pollutant
emissions within the air basin. Project emissions were estimated and
would exceed the BAAQMD daily threshold of significance for ROG.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would prohibit wood burning
fireplaces or stoves from being included in the project plans. This measure
would reduce ROG emissions associated with project development to 36
pounds per day, which is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 54
pounds per day. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria air
pollutants during project construction but could expose sensitive receptors to toxic
air contaminants. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-2a and Mitigation Measure
AQ-2b.
2. Implementation: These Mitigation Measures will be a Condition of
Approval for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Project emissions of air pollutants would be highest
during project construction. Project construction would result in temporary
emissions of dust and diesel exhaust that could adversely affect nearby
sensitive receptors.
The implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, the short
duration of construction, and well-ventilated characteristics of the site
during daylight hours (when construction activity occurs), would reduce
health risks from construction emissions of TAC diesel PM to a less-than-
significant level.
Biological Resources Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.3.4:
Impact BIO-A: Although multiple surveys confirmed the non-presence of
special-status species on the site, due to the presence of suitable habitat,
development of the project could have significant impacts on the Delta button
celery, a state listed species, and/or other special-status plants if they were to re-
establish themselves between the last survey periods and the time of site
development. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-A.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
32
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Based on the results of multiple surveys, the County
determined that the Delta button celery is not currently present on the
project site, but that the site is presumed to include suitable habitat for the
species is due to the 1988 survey.
Mitigation Measure BIO-A is a result of this conclusion, the following
modifications to Section 4.3, Biological Resources have been incorporated
into the draft EIR as insurance against any potential construction impacts
to this special-status plant should it re-emerge between survey dates and
actual construction. The same rationale regarding other special-status
plants can be assumed, therefore, a more generalized mitigation measure
has been added to address other special-status plants that could possibly
occur in the project area.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-A would require pre-
construction plant surveys that would provide adequate opportunity to
identify occurrences of any special-status species. If Delta button celery is
found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures
such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable
measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably
reduce the potential impacts on Delta button celery. Therefore, the impact
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
trees. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project would require eighty trees to be
removed in order to widen Kellogg Creek and create the project bays and
coves, infrastructure, and residential lots. The trees are considered to be
protected trees because they are located on a property that can be further
subdivided and are greater than 6.5 inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH).
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require native trees to be planted with
mitigation to impacts ratio of 9.5:1, in accordance with an approved tree
management and monitoring plan. The trees that would be removed will
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
33
be replaced with a greater number of trees that are planted. Therefore,
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact BIO-2: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
bank habitat. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Impacts from the proposed project would include
loss of mostly low quality creek bank habitat low, some moderate quality,
and a small amount of high quality bank habitat. Moderate to high quality
bank habitat provides shelter and habitat for special-status fish and removal
of this habitat is considered a significant impact.
The new creek bank would be designed and planted to be mostly high
quality shaded riverine high quality creek bank, and to moderate quality
where wave action needs to be addressed. Other existing creek bank on or
near the project site of low or moderate quality will be enhance to high
quality habitat. There will be 11,060 lineal feet of new and enhanced creek
bank of mostly high quality and some moderate quality, compared to
excavation of approximately 9,147 lineal feet of mostly low and some high
quality creek bank. Subsequent to the creek bank creation and
enhancement, a 5-year monitoring program would also be carried out to
ensure that any tree and shrub mortality is documented and the dead
trees/shrubs are replaced as necessary to revegetate the impacted bank.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
vernal pool fairy shrimp. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-3.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
34
4. Rationale for Finding: The proposed project would require the removal of
a small seasonal wetland that is habitat for the threatened vernal pool fairy
shrimp. By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and
purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable
mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level because the vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat
would be preserved at a suitable location. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the California red-legged frog. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Although the threatened California red-legged frog
has not been identified on the project site and there are no historical or
recent sightings within a 5-kilometer radius of the site, the 14.14-acre
perennial emergent marsh on the project site provides suitable aquatic and
upland habitat for the California red-legged frog.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and
purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable
mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level because California red-legged frog habitat
acreage would be preserved at a suitable location. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the giant garter snake. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-5.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
35
4. Rationale for Finding: Although the threatened California giant garter
snake has not been identified on the project site and there are no historical
or recent sightings within a 9-mile radius of the site, the project site’s
perennial emergent marsh on the project site, vegetated edges of Kellogg
Creek, and ECCID Dredge Cut provides 16.04 acres of suitable aquatic and
upland habitat for the giant garter snake.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and
purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable
mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level because California giant garter snake habitat
acreage would be preserved at a suitable location. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the western pond turtle. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The western pond turtle is a California species of
special concern that is known to occur on the project site. It is unknown
whether or not the western pond turtle nests in the uplands on site. Impacts
to individual western pond turtles or their basking/aquatic habitats would
be regarded as a potentially significant impact.
Since the western pond turtle is not a state or federal listed species, there is
no agency specific mitigation ratio that is required to mitigate impacts to
this species. However, by purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank,
or acquiring suitable mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, project impacts
would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level because western pond
turtle habitat would be preserved at a suitable location. Also, installation
of turbidity barriers would protect individual turtles by keeping them out of
project construction zones. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6
would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would have potentially significant
impact on federal and/or state listed fish species and fish species designated by the
State of California as Species of Special Concern. (Significant)
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
36
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-7.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Several federal and/or state listed fish species and/or
state designated species of special concern could be impacted by project
construction, although the water channels along the project site are not
within the current typical migration pattern of these fish. Short-term,
construction-related impacts to special-status fish species could include
direct take of eggs, larvae, juveniles and adult fish due to use of dredges,
pumps, and other in-water construction equipment. Turbidity may also
disrupt juvenile and adult fish feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and
migration patterns. Construction activities will also temporarily remove
habitat available for spawning, feeding, and resting activities.
Mitigation Measure BIO -7 requires a levee to be maintained, between the
excavation area and the Kellogg Creek channel. Silt curtains or suction
dredges shall be used when conducting work in the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek (includes Old Kellogg Creek) to
localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrapment and the
effects of increased turbidity. Additionally, a qualified biologist would be
on site at all times during all in-water work. All work would be conducted
outside the critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed
fish. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would require
work to be conducted when listed and special-status fish species are not
likely to be in the area. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-7 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on tree nesting raptors. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-8.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite, red-
tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk, Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing
owl, and northern harrier occurs on the project site. Potential impacts to
these species from the proposed project include loss of nesting habitat,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
37
disturbance to nesting birds, and possibly death of adults and/or young. No
nesting raptors (birds of prey) have been identified on the project site. In
the absence of survey results indicating otherwise, the project may result in
impacts to nesting raptors that would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8 requires tree removal to be conducted outside
the nesting season and/or a protective buffer built around any tree that
supports nesting raptors during the course of construction. There would be
no loss of raptor eggs or nestlings, which are protected under California
Fish and Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the Swainson’s hawk. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-9.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed threatened
species. Swainson’s hawks are known to nest within 0.1-mile northeast of
the project site along Indian Slough (CNDDB Occurrence Number 1211).
While Swainson’s hawks have not been observed nesting on the project
site (they have not been observed nesting onsite by the applicant’s
biologists or Monk & Associates), the eucalyptus trees and pine trees along
the project site’s northern boundary provide suitable nesting habitat for this
raptor. Additionally, Monk & Associates observed one Swainson’s hawk
on the project site exhibiting defensive behavior during the September 20,
2006 site visit.
Based on the proximity of known nesting Swainson’s hawks and the
suitability of nesting and foraging habitat of 134 acres on the project site,
implementation of the proposed project would be viewed by CDFG as a
loss of Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat. Pursuant to CEQA,
any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and/or foraging habitat would be
considered a potentially significant adverse impact (PS).
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 requires the loss of foraging habitat and nesting
habitat to be adequately compensated (mitigated). The Swainson’s hawks
would not be disturbed during the nesting season, which would prevent the
loss of eggs and/or nestling birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-9 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
38
Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the western burrowing owl. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-10.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The western burrowing owl is a state species of
special concern. Western burrowing owls have not been observed on the
project site; however, they are known to nest in the immediate Discovery
Bay West area. Burrowing owls are mobile species and could nest on any
upland portion of the project site in subsequent years. Impacts to
burrowing owl from the proposed project would be regarded as a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-10 provides a summary of survey methodologies
contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that would be
applicable to the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -
10 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would have a potentiall y significant
impact on other protected nesting birds. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-11.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Birds protected pursuant to the Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and CDFG Code §3503 and §3800 could nest on the
project site and may be disturbed to an extent that eggs and/or young
would be lost. Additionally, the loggerhead shrike, the tricolored
blackbird, and California black rail are all California species of special
concern, and could nest onsite. Impacts to protected bird species during
the nesting season would be regarded as a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-11 requires preconstruction nesting surveys to be
conducted and protective nesting buffers to passerine bird to be
implemented as needed. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-11 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
39
Impact BIO-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-12.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over
waters of the United States and State pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of
the Clean Water Act, respectively. The proposed project would result in
impacts to 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland habitat and 0.30 acre of marsh
habitat, as confirmed by the Corps. Development of the proposed project
will also result in impacts to approximately 9,720 linear feet of existing
bank along Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek (mostly low quality
habitat). These areas would also meet the RWQCB criteria as “waters of
the State.” Because full avoidance of waters of the United States/State is
not possible, any impacts to seasonal wetlands and the adjacent uplands
would be regarded as significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-12 will create, as compensatory measures, a
seasonal wetland habitat in the uplands, which is adjacent to the preserved
marsh. It will also create new bank habitat on the project site, plus
enhance existing bank habitat within or near the project area, totaling
lineal feet 11,060 lineal feet (comprised of 9,157 lineal feet of high quality
shaded riverine aquatic habitat and 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality
habitat). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 will reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Cultural Resources Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.4.4:
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site does not contain buildings that are
eligible for NRHP listing and therefore removal would not constitute a
significant impact. However, there is a possibility that an unknown site
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
40
may exist in the project area and could be discovered during grading,
excavation, or construction. Indicators of historic resources include glass,
metal, ceramics, brick, wood, and similar debris.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 provides specific direction
to protect unanticipated historical resource discoveries during project
construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an unknown archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: No archeological resources were observed or are
known to be present on the project site. There is a possibility that
resources meeting the definition of a unique archeological resource in
Section 21083.2 of the Public Resource Code or qualifying as historic
resources could become visible once vegetation is removed or during
construction excavation. Indicators of prehistoric site activity include
artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of shell or bone.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 provides specific direction
to protect unanticipated historical resource discoveries during project
construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: No paleontological resources or unique geologic
features were observed or are known to be present on the project site.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
41
There is, however, a possibility that paleontological resources may become
visible once vegetation is removed or during construction activities such as
grading and excavation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 provides specific direction
to protect unanticipated historical resource discoveries during project
construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could potentially disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: No signs of human remains or burial sites were
observed during the survey of the project site and are not known to be
present in the project area. There is a possibility, however, that such
remains may become visible once vegetation is removed or during
construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUl-4 ensures compliance with the
requirements of Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15064.5, subd. (e)), which dictate the actions to take in
the event that human remains are discovered outside of a dedicated
cemetery. Compliance with the provisions of the guidelines would reduce
the significant impact to unknown archeological material and prehistoric
human remains in the project area to a less-than-significant level.
Geology and Soils Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.6.3:
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could expose people and
developments to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic
related ground failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEO-1b, GEO-1c,
and GEO-1d.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
42
4. Rationale for Finding: Although the project site is not within an officially
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, there is a seismic source
in the region capable of generating considerable ground shaking at the
project site. This could lead to potentially significant impacts resulting
from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure
including liquefaction or lateral spreading.
The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the
building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The California Building
Code requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural
engineering analysis of structures to be based on soil profile types.
Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep
risks within generally accepted limits. Peer review of the final design
plans and active supervision of the installation of the project’s seismic
components would ensure compliance with all County-approved building
requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEO-1b,
GEO-1c, and GEO-1d would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site is approximately 171 acres, of
which approximately 80 acres is proposed for development. Construction
and/or excavation of associated lots, private streets, and waterways on the
project site would temporarily increase the amount of exposed
(unvegetated) surfaces. Erosion of these surfaces could lead to increased
sedimentation in receiving water bodies (e.g., Kellogg Creek and Indian
Slough).
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require provisions within the SWPPP
and SWCP to keep construction period, long-term erosion, and
sedimentation to a practical minimum.
Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures to substantial adverse effects
related to expansive and corrosive soils on the project site. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
43
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The expansive characteristics of the soils on the
project site may cause ground subsidence and/or settlement that would
damage the proposed building foundations if not taken into consideration
during final design of the project. Additionally, the soils at the project site
contain a moderate to severe degree of sulfate, which are corrosive.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1b and GEO-1c would
ensure that the final development plans for the project were peer reviewed
and that any issues to the stability of the foundations, etc. were properly
engineered given the conditions of the project site. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would ensure that the corrosivity of the soils
was also taken into account.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section
4.8.3:
Impact HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the release of hazardous
materials into the environment during demolition, grading, and construction
activities. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Soil samples from Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek,
and Indian Slough were tested for arsenic and reported arsenic values
below the Delta Dredging and Reuse Strategy’s threshold criteria. The soil
samples were also tested to determine the potential for arsenic to leach into
surface water and/or groundwater. The testing showed that leachable
and/or soluble arsenic is not an issue in Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek, or
Indian Slough. Therefore, it is not likely that grading activities would
release pesticide residue into the environment. The ESA identified several
drums, pails, and paint cans onsite, including an area near the channel bank
with partially-buried drums and cans. Although there was no obvious
evidence of hazardous materials releases, there is a potential that the
discovery of additional drums and/or cans could occur, particularly during
construction activities.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
44
This mitigation measure ensures the project site shall be inspected during
demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event that previously
unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall be
reported to the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department (CCEHD)
and investigated and remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in
accordance with existing regulatory programs, reducing the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact HAZ-2: The project could potentially release hazardous materials during
demolition of the existing residence. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: According to the ESA, Marcor Remediation Inc.
removed asbestos from three of the four existing residential clusters located
on the project site, by demolishing and removing the contaminated portions
of each structure. The existing former residence located to the south of
Point of Timber Road in the center of the project site was not included in
the asbestos remediation, and demolition of this residence could expose
asbestos to onsite construction workers. Additionally, demolition of any of
the four existing structures on the project site could expose lead-based
paints (LBP) and/or other hazardous materials to construction workers
during demolition activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b would
reduce the risk of exposing people to hazards associated with regulated
building materials by ensuring that materials are removed in accordance
with state regulations prior to start of demolition and construction. This
would reduce potential hazardous material risk to a less-than-significant
level.
Impact HAZ-3: Project demolition and construction activities could expose
individuals at the Timber Point Elementary School to hazardous emissions or
materials. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b.
2. Implementation: These Mitigation Measures will be Conditions of
Approval for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
45
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site is located a quarter-mile from
Timber Point Elementary School. (Other schools in the area, such as
Discovery Bay Elementary School and Excelsior Middle School are
located more than a quarter-mile from the project site.)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b
would ensure that any hazardous material identified on the project site is
properly removed and disposed of, reducing the impact of potential
exposure of students and school faculty to hazardous materials to a less-
than-significant level.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in 4.9.3:
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the existing drainage patterns
resulting in erosion, sedimentation, and contamination of storm water runoff which
could degrade water quality in adjacent water bodies.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-1b, and HYD-
1c.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Construction will involve earth moving activities,
with a large portion being wet excavation associated with excavating the
bays and coves. Demolition, clearing and site preparation would be
performed utilizing excavators/front-end loaders, tracked dozers with disk,
and trucks for debris removal. Rainfall could carry loose soils into
adjacent waterways, resulting in increased sedimentation and degradation
of water quality. Concentrated flow due to grading in some areas would
increase the potential for erosion and potentially increase sediment
transport into the adjacent areas. Construction equipment debris and fuel
could also further degrade the quality of storm water runoff if fueling
activity and maintenance products are not handled properly. This
contamination could impact nearby waterways (i.e., Kellogg Creek) and
the on-site marsh lands and wetlands.
Weekly monitoring of the water quality adjacent to the turbidity barriers by
a qualified biologist during project construction would ensure that potential
water quality impacts to Kellogg Creek are avoided, thereby reducing the
impact to a less-than-significant level. Preparation of a Storm Water
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
46
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would include compliance with
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, an erosion
control plan addressing control of sediment, stabilization of erosion, and
protection of water quality, and soil stabilization techniques. These
measures would ensure that construction activities would not degrade water
quality, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HYD-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as
direct conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site contains at two domestic
groundwater wells. The wells can act as a direct conduit for pollutants that
are washed down with storm water runoff if they are not properly
decommissioned. This is considered a potentially significant impact to
groundwater quality.
Properly decommissioning the existing groundwater wells on the project
site, under the purview of the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Department, would ensure that pollutants would not be able to seep into the
groundwater through the well sites, thereby reducing the impact to a less -
than-significant level.
Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas of projected tidal
inundation due to sea level rise, which would place people and structures within a
flood hazard associated with long-term sea level rise. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of
Approval for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The entire project site falls within Special Flood
Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa
County (FEMA 2009), with a 100-year BFE for the project site of 7.5 feet
NGVD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 feet NGVD. The flood risk to the
project site is expected to increase with future sea level rise.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
47
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would
require the applicant to design the project to remove developed portions of
the project site from the flood plain assuming the 2100 sea-level rise
scenario predicted by the State. This would reduce long-term flooding
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Noise and Vibration Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.12.3:
Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI-1c.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Noise from the construction of the residential
improvements would occur from site preparation, installation of shoring
walls, foundation work, framing, and interior work. In addition, the project
would involve extensive excavation and dredging by bulldozers, scrapers,
drilling rigs, etc., to create the bays, coves, and waterways around the
homes. Similar to the earthmoving activities, home construction would
occur during specific windows of time during the 8-year construction
period, in specific areas of the project site, not the entire site at once.
Based on these assumptions, the noise levels at adjacent residences to the
west could exceed 75 dBA during particular activities in close proximity to
the project’s western boundary. This is considered a significant, but short-
term impact.
The implementation of restricted days and hours of construction,
notification, sound attenuating barriers, usage of drilling rigs for
construction of shoring walls (no pile driving or deep dynamic compaction)
and restrictions on certain activities to summer months would result in the
greatest feasible reduction in temporary sound levels associated with
construction.
Public Services Significant Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.14.3:
Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland (an/or
the payment of in-lieu fees) to meet the County’s parkland dedication requirement.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PS-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
48
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project would result in an estimated population
increase of 876 persons. Based on the County’s parkland requirements of 3
acres of parkland per 1,000 people, the project would be required to
provide 2.6 acres of parkland to meet the County’s parkland dedication
requirements.
The County has determined that the combination of payment of fees and
dedication of land for a public trail represents full and complete mitigation
for parkland impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
PS-1 would reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level.
Transportation and Traffic Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in 4.16.4:
Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized
intersection. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway
(south intersection) is projected to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D
during the AM peak hour with the addition of project trips. This is below
the County’s standards of significance for signalized, Semi-Rural
intersections and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Implementation of this mitigation measure (payment of a fair share cost of
the required intersection improvements) would improve traffic conditions
at this intersection to an LOS high-C (a V/C ratio of 0.72) during the AM
peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour and reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions on Vasco Road. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
49
3. Finding: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
4. Rationale for Finding: The addition of project traffic would exacerbate the
existing deficiency of Vasco Road, which does not meet the MTSO target
of LOS D under Existing or Existing Plus Project conditions. As there are
no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of Vasco
Road, even with payment of the regional roadway fees the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes on
nearby rural roads, and create conflicts with the farm equipment that share these
roads during the peak summer months. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Several roadways serving Discovery Bay and the
proposed Project site are two-lane rural roads that have not been improved
to current County standards. The Project could increase traffic on
unimproved rural roadways. As the added vehicle traffic could create
increased hazards with incompatible equipment on unimproved roadways,
the Project, in conjunction with other planned and pending development,
could result in a potentially significant roadway impact during peak
farming periods. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would
require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade
existing roadways and reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Public Utilities Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.15.3:
Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Waterworks
Standards, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD)
does not currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
50
4. Rationale for Finding: The TDBCSD supplies the water to the project and
is currently operating with a legal shortfall of 200 gpm. The TDBCSD is
not therefore considered to have sufficient capacity to serve its existing
connections, nor does it have sufficient capacity to serve the project.
Although, the project would result in 292 new residential service
connections, the Water Master Plan (Water MP 2012) recently completed
for the TDBCSD conservatively assumed for the Pantages project 300
residential service connections and 1.2 MGY in irrigation, which is
equivalent to 6 residential connections. The Water MP, therefore, assumes
the connection of 306 residential units. The project would construct 292
residential units and would require approximately 1.2 MGY in irrigation,
and would therefore require slightly less water demand than estimated in
the Water MP.
Implementation of a combination of the facility improvements and
upgrades identified in the Water MP would ensure that an adequate
distribution of water to serve the planned build-out of the project within the
margin required by State Public Health standards. However, due to the
uncertainty in the timing of these facility improvements and upgrades, the
planned improvements may not be constructed at the time the project seeks
a new service connection with the TDBCSD. To account for this
uncertainty, this EIR conservatively assumes that impacts from inadequate
source capacity are significant and includes this mitigation measure. It
requires prior to final map recordation a Can & Will Serve Letter from the
TDBCSD confirming to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing of the
construction of any needed improvements outlined in the Water MP to
ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. It also requires that
prior to the first occupancy permit being issued that the applicant provide
sufficient documentation to the CDD that the required improvements have
been constructed and are operational. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure UTIL-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does
not currently have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure UTIL-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
4. the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
51
Rationale for Finding: The TDBCSD has recently completed the Wastewater
Master Plan (Wastewater MP 2011) for the Discovery Bay area that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for build-out through 2020.
This mitigation measure requires prior to final map recordation the TDBCSD
provide a Can & Will Serve Letter confirming to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator that TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing of
the construction of any needed improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP
to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. The measure also
requires that prior to the first occupancy permit being issued that the applicant
provide sufficient documentation to the CDD that the required improvements
have been constructed and are operational. This measure is consistent with
policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4. The project would be in compliance with policies 7-
21 and 7-33, which require that a project demonstrate that sufficient capacity
exists. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 will reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level.
C. Findings with Respect to Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.2.4:
Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in conjunction with other
development in the region would result in a net increase of reactive organic gases
(ROG). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area
for ground-level O3 under both the federal CAA and the California CAA.
The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. The
project, without mitigation, would exceed the BAAQMD-recommended
operational threshold of significance for ROG (54 pounds per day),
resulting in a significant impact. According to the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air
quality impact would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which prohibits the uses of
wood burning fireplaces or stoves within the project and permits only
natural gas fireplaces or stoves, would reduce ROG emissions associated
with project development to 36 pounds per day, which is below the
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
52
BAAQMD significant threshold. Therefore, the project’s contribution to
this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Biological Resources Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.3.5:
Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-A through BIO-12.
2. Implementation: These Mitigation Measures will be a Conditions of
approval for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the proposed project would
contribute to a cumulative loss of seasonal wetlands, non-native annual
grassland, iodine bush scrub, and creek bank habitat in the region.
Implementation of the project would also result in cumulative impacts to
common plant and animal species. The seasonal wetlands are also known
to support a federal listed species: the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Impacts to
the seasonal wetlands onsite will result in the cumulative loss of this
species in the region. Additionally, the iodine bush scrub, ornamental
trees, emergent marsh, and non-native grassland communities of the project
site may also be important for several special-status animal species such as
the Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, giant
garter snake, the loggerhead shrike, and tricolored blackbird (see Impacts
and Mitigations Section above). There are other proposed projects in
Eastern Contra Costa County that would/are impacting similar resources to
those that would be impacted by the project. Project-related impacts would
be considered cumulative with other projects in the region. The BIO
Mitigation Measures prescribed would offset cumulative impacts to
special-status species, wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife
habitats to less-than-significant levels.
Construction of the project would result in cumulative impacts to “waters
of the United States” and stream channels that are regulated by the Corps,
RWQCB, the CDFG, and the Reclamation Board. On a regional basis,
these impacts would add to other development related losses of “waters of
the United States” and stream channels. In addition, by alte ring drainage
patterns and water flow, downstream aquatic life could be affected as well.
Several special-status fish species are known to occur in waterways in the
vicinity, and these fish species could also be adversely impacted by the
proposed project. Mitigation that includes creation and enhancement of
impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and bank habitat would
offset this cumulative impact to less-than-significant levels.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
53
Global Climate Change Cumulative Impact Analyzed in Section 4.7.4:
Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the
BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year
and would have a considerable contribution on global climate change. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and CUM
GCC-1b.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Im plementation of Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and CUM
GCC-1b would reduce total GHG emissions, but would remain above
BAAQMD threshold. The project contribution to global climate change
would remain cumulatively considerable as significant and unavoidable.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project's incremental increases in GHG
emissions associated with traffic, and with direct and indirect energy use,
would contribute to regional and global increases in GHG emissions and
associated climate change effects. The project would emit approximately
5,080 metric tons of CO2e annually when fully developed. The project
would generate 876 new residents, resulting in a per capita CO2 emissions
rate of 5.79 metric tons per person per year. This rate of emission is
greater than the adopted BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e
per year.
The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to determine the amount of reduction
in area source emissions that would results from the above mitigation
measures. According to the URBEMIS 2007 model, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and CUM GCC-1b would reduce total
GHG emissions by 10 percent, for a post-mitigation total emission rate of
5.21 metric tons of CO2e per capita per year, which remains above
BAAQMD threshold of 4.60 metric tons of CO2e per capita per year. The
project contribution to global climate change would remain cumulatively
considerable.
Transportation and Traffic Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section
4.16.5:
Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer
Road/Byron Highway (No. 6). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
54
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporate d
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The westbound approach of the Byer Road/Byron
Highway (No. 6) intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the
AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project conditions, and LOS
F during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative Plus Project
conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient
westbound operations by more than 5 seconds. This intersection would
meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1
would improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23).
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA 2 (Option 1 or 2).
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway
(No. 23) are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade already deficient intersection
operations by more than 5 seconds. Both intersections meet the peak hour
signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions, and are therefore considered significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1) would mitigate the impact by
installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and
providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Mitigation Measure CUM
TRA-2 (Option 2) would mitigate the impact by installing traffic signals at
both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket
at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Implementation of
Option 1 or Option 2 of this mitigation measure would improve conditions
at these two intersections to acceptable LOS levels.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
55
Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9) is projected to operate at LOS F during AM
and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already
deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered
a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal and providing a left turn lane at all four intersection
approaches of Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection. Implementation
of this mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway (No. 12) is projected to operate at acceptable LOS B
during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS B
to unacceptable LOS D. This intersection would meet the peak hour signal
warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
56
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road (No. 13) is projected to operate at acceptable LOS C
during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS C
to LOS E. This intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant
under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and
is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches at
Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be less than
significant.
Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek
Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16) is projected to operate at LOS F during AM
and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
57
deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered
a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve conditions at
this intersection to acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be
reduced to a less-than-significant impact.
Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek
Road/Bixler Road is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM
peak hours under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient
intersection operations by more than five seconds. This intersection would
meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve conditions at
this intersection to acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be
reduced to a less-than-significant impact.
Impact CUM TRA-8: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron
Highway (south) (No. 19). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
58
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway
(south) is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and
unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would further degrade
intersection No. 19 operations to LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS
E during the PM peak hour, and would increase the V/C ratio by more than
0.01. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8 would reduce the impact by adding a
second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through
lane on the southeast-bound SR 4 approach. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-
than-significant impact.
Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of
SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport
Drive (No. 21) is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour
under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade already deficient intersection
operations by more than five seconds. This intersection would meet the
peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative
Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at the SR 4/Newport Drive intersection. Implementation of
this mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-
than-significant impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
59
Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino
Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The intersection Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road
(No. 22) is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project Conditions. The addition of project trips would
increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10 would reduce the impact by adding a
northbound right turn lane at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road
intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve
conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the
impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Vasco Road. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: The project contribution to traffic LOS conditions along Vasco
Road would remain cumulatively considerable as significant and
unavoidable.
4. Rationale for Finding: Service along Vasco Road, south of Camino Diablo
Road, would not meet the MTSO target LOS D in either the northbound or
southbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour under either
cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the
LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11 requires the project applicant to pay
regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and
Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing. Even
with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable as there are no plans to provide
additional capacity on this roadway segment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
60
Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Marsh Creek Road. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a condition of approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: The project contribution to traffic LOS conditions along Marsh
Creek Road would remain cumulatively considerable as significant and
unavoidable.
4. Rationale for Finding: Service along Marsh Creek Road, west of SR4,
would not meet the MTSO target LOS D in either the eastbound or
westbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour under either
cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the
LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project
applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways.
However, as there are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on
this segment of Marsh Creek Road, the impact would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Public Utilities Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.15.4:
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term water
supplies within the project area.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would require
approximately 108 gmp of additional water demand from TDBCSD. As
demonstrated above, although there would be an adequate water supply to
meet current and future water supply demands with the project, TDBCSD
lacks the appropriate facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the
groundwater supplies. Given this, planned growth identified for the 2020
horizon year, in the Water MP, would result in significant cumulative
impact under long-term conditions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1 would require that
the improvements to capacity are constructed prior to the project moving
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
61
forward in the event that the project outpaces available water distribution
resources. With the facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the
groundwater in place, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less
than significant.
Impact CUM UTIL-2: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term
wastewater treatment within the project area.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would generate
approximately 98,000 gallons of wastewater per day. This additional
amount would increase the amount of wastewater treated by the wastewater
treatment facility by 0.1 mgd. TDBCSD lacks the appropriate facilities to
provide wastewater treatment capacity for the project and other forecasted
projects without implementation of facility improvements. If the
improvements are not in place at the time of the project, in combination
with other projects, implementation of forecasted growth could result in a
significant cumulative impact under long-term conditions. Given that the
project would increase wastewater flow to the wastewater treatment plant,
the project’s contribution to this significant impact would be considerable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2 would require that
the improvements to wastewater treatment capacity are constructed prior to
the project moving forward in the event that the project outpaces RWQCB
capacity and operating requirements. With the facilities to ensure
wastewater treatment capacity in place, cumulative impacts to water supply
would be less than significant.
D. Findings with Respect to Alternatives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the draft EIR contains a
comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the project. The primary purpose of
the alternatives analysis is to provide decision makers and the general public with a
range of reasonable project alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic
project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the project’s
significant adverse environmental effects.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
62
The draft EIR evaluated a no build (no project) alternative and one build alternative to the
proposed project. The feasibility of each of these alternatives is described and determined
below.
No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in
its current state and there would be no development of residential housing units, roadways,
and utilities infrastructure. The site would remain privately-owned and the open space
wetland mitigation area would remain unimproved. There would be no changes to parcels on
the site or any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
Compared to the project, the No Project Alternative would avoid all potential construction-
related impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic because no new facilities would be constructed and all use
of construction equipment would be avoided. Operationally, the No Project Alternative
would avoid any new impacts associated with Aesthetics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, and Noise because no changes in current
operations would occur.
Although the No Project Alternative would involve fewer ground disturbing activities than the
project, annual disking of the site has the potential to result in some impacts to the California
red-legged frog, the western pond turtle and the western burrowing owl. Therefore, the No
Project Alternative would have biological resources impacts less than the project.
The project site contains abandoned groundwater wells that could act as direct conduits to
groundwater for hazardous waste. The No Project Alternative would have the same risks as
the project in terms of water quality impacts from abandoned groundwater wells in the area
(Impact HYD-2), although all other impacts would be reduced when compared to the project.
The No Project Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impacts and
would have less impact on most environmental topical areas. However, this alternative is
considered infeasible because it would not advance any of the project objectives.
Alternative 1: Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 1, the Reduced Density Alternative, would be the continuation of the existing land
use or regulatory plan for the project site. Project site parcels are currently designated by the
General Plan as Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation and Water (WA), and zoned as a
General Agricultural District (A-2) and a Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). This alternative
would not require a General Plan amendment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
63
The Agricultural Lands (AL) land use designation allows for all land-dependent and non-land
dependent agricultural production and related activities. The General Plan permits residential
uses at a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Other uses related to
processing of agricultural products, agricultural support services and small-scale visitor uses
are allowed with a land use permit.
The A-2 and A-3 zoning designations allow the site to be developed with agricultural uses,
such as general farming and sheds and warehouses, and with residential uses, such as a single -
family dwelling or a family care home. A detached single-family dwelling is allowed on each
parcel with the A-2 or A-3 zoning designation. Other uses, such as commercial recreational
facilities, medical offices, or churches, may be allowed with a land use permit.
Alternative 1 assumes primarily rural residential land uses on approximately 171 acres as
allowed under the existing general plan and zoning designations. For purposes of this
analysis, five of the parcels on the project site are considered developable. This alternative
assumes five single-family residential units would be constructed on the project site in
accordance with current zoning designations. The limits of development would therefore be
the same as the project, but the density would be reduced by approximately 98 percent. This
alternative also assumes that the existing wetlands and emergent marsh would be protected,
similar to the project.
The reduced density of Alternative 1 would result in fewer vehicle trips, reducing the traffic-
related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project impacts related to air quality, biology,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, noise, public services and recreation, utilities, and visual resources would be similarly
reduced.
The Reduced Density Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impacts
and would have less impact on most environmental topical areas. However, this alternative is
considered infeasible because it would not advance any of the project objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA requires an EIR to identify an
environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2). Further, if the
environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR also shall
identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2). In general, the environmentally superior alternative is defined as
that alternative with the least adverse impacts to the project area and its surrounding
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
64
environment. Under CEQA, the goal of identifying the environmentally superior alternative
is to assist decision-makers in considering project approval.
A range of reasonable alternatives were considered, but rejected because they do not meet a
majority of the project objectives or were deemed infeasible. A comparison merit was
included for the No Project Alternative and a Reduced Density Alternative. The Reduced
Density Alternative was developed to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic,
and to fulfill the requirements of CEQA to considered development under existing land use
plans. Both of these alternatives would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable traffic,
air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas impacts. The No Project Alternative would have le ss
impact on most environmental topical areas when compared to the project. The Reduced
Density Alternative would have similar or lesser impacts on all environmental topical areas.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and
the alternative selected may not meet the goals or needs of the County. The project under
consideration cannot be identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Additionally, if the No Project Alternative is determined to reduce most impacts, CEQA
requires that the EIR identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other
alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). Because a majority of the alternatives
that would reduce and avoid significant impacts would not attain a majority of the project
objectives and were deemed infeasible, the environmentally superior alternative in this case is
the Reduced Density Alternative.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Commission has balanced the benefits of the Pantages Bays Project against its significant
and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project, and
has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. This determination is based on the final EIR and other information in
the record. Notwithstanding the imposition of the mitigation measures as set forth above,
certain impacts of the project have not been reduced to a level of insignificance or eliminated
by changes in the project. Based on the above recitals and findings, the entire record, oral and
written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings on the project, the
Commission finds that there is substantial evidence that the project will bring substantial
benefits to the County, including economic, social, or other benefits outweigh the significant
effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The project would build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and
a proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water access and
individual docks; and widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site
to reduce water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg Creek. The
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
65
benefits of the project are more specifically detailed below. Any of these overriding
considerations is sufficient to support the Commission’s determination herein.
1. Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and
a proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-
water access and individual docks.
2. Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to
reduce water velocities and improve boater safety in that section of Kellogg
Creek.
3. Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation on the project site.
4. Provide public pedestrian / bicycle access to and through the preserved
open space area on the north side of the project site, with open views of the
Delta water, and provide seating areas and kiosks with educational and
historical signage.
5. The project will reduce the need for dredging by RD 800 and improve
water quality in Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate
bank stabilization and habitat restoration along the project shoreline,
further reducing the amount of scour and associated sedimentation.
6. The project will create new high- and moderate-quality bank habitat in and
near the project site and enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-
quality SRA habitat to benefit native fish species.
7. The project will preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the
northwestern portion of the site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages
Island.
In light of the foregoing environmental, economic, and policy-related benefits to the
County and State, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the Commission finds and
determines that these considerable benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse effects, and the “adverse environmental effects” that cannot be mitigated to a
level of environmental insignificance are deemed “acceptable.”
E. Incorporation by Reference
The final EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation,
this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the
basis for determining the significant of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and
the reasons for approving the project in spite of the potential for associated significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
66
F. Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guideline 15088.5 does not required recirculation of the EIR because no significant
new information has been added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of
the draft EIR for public review. New information added to the EIR following public
comments on the draft EIR was not significant, because the EIR was not changed in a way
that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
(including a feasible project alternative) that the County and/or applicant have declined to
implement.
Specifically, there is no new significant environmental impact which would result from the
project, and no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact analyzed in the
draft EIR would result from the project. In circumstances where a comment on the draft EIR
expressed concern about scope of analysis with respect to a particular project impact, and the
County considered in its response that the commenter’s concern had merit, additional
mitigation was added to be sure the potential project impact would be less than significant.
For example, in response to comments by Robin Purchia on behalf of Contra Costa Coalition
for Responsible Development concerning the potential presence of certain special status plant
and animal species on the project site at the time of construction, mitigation measures were
added or modified to require more extensive pre-construction surveys. In the event a
protected species is found to be present through those additional surveys, the added mitigation
measures require actions to be taken in coordination with California Department of Fish and
Game and its protocols to reduce any impact on that species to less than significant.
The mitigation measures modified or added to the final EIR are included as part of the
conditioned project. They confirm the project will have no new significant environmental
impacts, as well as no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact analyzed
in the draft EIR.
The final EIR responds in an appropriate substantive manner to all comments on the draft
EIR. In some of those responses, minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the
draft EIR. None of the comments, responses and/or appendices to the final EIR requires
recirculation.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
67
G. Summary
Based on the foregoing findings and on the information contained in the record, the
Commission has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each one of the
significant impacts of the Pantages Bays Project:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the Mitigation Measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined
that:
1. All significant effects on the environment due to the Pantages Bays Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations in Section D(a), above.
H. Fish and Game Fee
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and Public Resources Code Section 21089 require the
payment of a filing fee at the time a Notice of Determination is filed to defray the Calif ornia
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (formerly known as California Department of Fish and
Game) costs in managing biological resources affected by a project undergoing CEQA
review. Payment of the fee is required for the project because, considering the record of
proceedings as a whole, there is evidence that it would have an impact on wildlife resources
as defined under sections 711.2 and 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code.
Evidence
1. Section 4.3 of the draft EIR discusses specific impacts related to biological
resources.
2. For the purposes of the Fish and Game Code, the project would have
significant individual and cumulative adverse impacts on wildlife, including
the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
68
3. The record of proceedings as a whole indicates that the project would result in
physical disturbance to the resources listed in the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife regulations.
4. Pursuant to Fish and Game code section 711.4(e), the lead agency for the
project is Contra Costa County. The document filing number is State
Clearinghouse No. 2007-052130. The name of the project is “Pantages Bays
Residential Development Project.”
I. Certification Findings
The County Planning Commission hereby certifies that:
1. The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
2. The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead
agency and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and,
3. The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and
analysis.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Major Subdivisions (SD)\SD06-9010\Attachment C- CEQA
Findings v-fd 1.doc
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT / COUNTY FILES: SD06-9010 & DP04-3062
Administrative
1. ____ ____ This approval is based on the exhibits/reports/letters received by the
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division (CDD) and/or referenced or added to the Final Environmental
Impact Report or the Conditions below, including the following:
A. Sheets 1 through 11 of Project Plans, titled “Subdivision 9010” Pantages
Bays October 2009 including Preliminary and Final Development Plan
and Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 3 and 5 of 11 (as amended).
B. Tree Reports: HortScience October 2006 & August 2007.
C. Biology: Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and
Mitigation Plan for Pantages, Gibson & Skordal 2006 / Evaluation of
potential California red-legged frog, Miriam Green Associates 2010. /
Evaluation of giant garter snake, Miriam Green Associates 2010. /
Results of special-status species, Miriam Green Associates 2003. /
Response to CDFG Comments, Miriam Green Associates August 31,
2012. / Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods [fairy shrimp] Wet Season
Survey Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC May 2003. / Dry
Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Pantages Property, EcoAnalysts, Inc.
August 4, 2003. / Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report, Stillwater
Sciences May 2007. / Bank Habitat Plan, Sheet 7 of 11 on Pantages
Bays Plans October, 2009. / Modified Table 8 Quantity (feet) and
quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater
Sciences June 2010. / Modified Table 9 Quantity (feet) and quality of
dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June
2010. / Response to CDFG Comments, Stillwater Sciences September
26, 2012.
D. Geology: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO 1999. /
Geotechnical Exploration Pantages, ENGEO June 23, 2004. /
Geotechnical Exploration Panatages Bays ENGEO September 22, 2006
(revised October 27, 2006). / Summary of Potential Settlement, ENGEO
2011. / Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO January 26,
2005.
E. Hydrology: Pantages Bays Storm Water Control Plan C.3 Report, dk
Consulting 2006/ Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment
Memorandum, PWA 2010. / Numerical Modeling of Discovery Bay:
Evaluation of Pantages Bays Project, RMA 2006.
Page 2
F. Landscaping: Preliminary Landscape Plan, Sheet 11 of 11 on Pantages
Bays Plans October, 2009.
G. Mooring Plan: Sheet 6 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October, 2009
(refer to Sheet 7 for correct bank habitat design for high quality and
moderate quality enhanced or recreated creek bank).
H. Wetlands Delineation Plan Sheet 8 of 10 on Pantages Bays Plans
October, 2009. / Jurisdictional Delineation Pantages Property, Gibson &
Skordal, LLC December, 2002 and verified by Army Corp letter dated
June 4, 2003. / Supplemental Delineation Request-Pantages Project,
Gibson & Skordal, LLC October 11, 2006. / Army Corps letter dated
January 7, 2009, verifying Jurisdictional Delineation Map Pantages
Properties May 2008.
I. Trails, Sidewalk & View Fencing Plan: Sheet 9 of 11 on Pantages Bays
Plans October, 2009. / Open Fencing – View Corridor Plan Exhibit,
Environmental Foresight, Inc. April 9, 2010.
J. Street, Open Space, Water, Marine Patrol Substation & Landscape
Parcels: Sheet 10 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October, 2009.
K. Pantages letter to Sheriff’s Office March 25, 2008, regarding marine
patrol substation. / Sheriff’s Office response letter to Pantages May 21,
2008. / Sheriff Substation & 2-Boat Dock Exhibit August, 2008. Email,
dated September 19, 2013 from Mark Williams, Assistant Sheriff to
Mark Armstrong, Applicant, regarding reconfigured marine patrol
substation.
L. Letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to CDD
(November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005;
September 15, 2004), and from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24,2005.
M. Waterfront Lots Sea Level Rise Exhibit, Storm Drain Exhibit, Overland
Release Exhibit, and Sea Level Rise Table, all dated December 22,
2010.
N. Plates 1-5 attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report.
2. ____ ____ This subdivision is approved contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors
actions;
A. Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment from Agricultural
Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DL) to Single-Family Residential
High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM),
Page 3
Public / Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA)( County
File #GP99-0008)
B. Approval of the proposed Rezoning from General Agricultural District
(A-2) and Heavy Agricultural (A-3) to Planned Unit Development (P-1)
(County File #RZ04-3146)
This approval allows for a maximum of 292 residential lots.
Fees
3. ____ ____ This application is subject to an initial application fee, which was paid with the
application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review
expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fees due must be paid
within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever
occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working
days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project
planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit
issuance.
Indemnification
4. ____ ____ Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the
subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
County, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, of annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map
application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section
66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
Compliance Report
5. ____ ____ At least 45 days prior to filing a Final Map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the
Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures with this permit for the review and
approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division (CDD). The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000
that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit,
additional fees will be required.
a. Except for those Conditions administered by the Public Works Department,
the report shall list each Condition followed by a description of what the
applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that Condition. (A
copy of the computer file containing the Conditions of Approval may be
available; to try to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 674-7793).
Page 4
b. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the Final Map.
Child Care
6. ____ ____ Upon the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of $400.00
per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the
area as established by the Board of Supervisors.
Police Services
7A. ___ ___ The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain
and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels
created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual
amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of
voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be
completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible
for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is
requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing.
7B. ___ ___ Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall offer to dedicate Parcel “I”
(0.51 acres more or less) on the Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading
Plan (Sheet 5 of 11 of the Pantages Bays Plans October 2009) to Contra Costa
County for use as a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation and boat dock. The offer to
dedicate shall also include a mooring easement in favor of the County for the boat
dock. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing on Parcel “I” a Sheriff’s
Marine Patrol Substation, docks and landing space for a Medevac helicopter after
construction of the project streets, utilities and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)
and prior to the 50th occupancy permit.
The following improvements shall be constructed by the applicant on Parcel “I”:
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation; an approximately 2,160 square foot, one
story, permanent modular building (“three wide” units, 12 X 60 feet each)
elevated above the 100-year flood plain ( taking into account State projections
on sea level rise) with the following improvements:
Restroom (sewer and water hook-ups), electricity (power), air conditioning,
appropriate low glare outside lighting, native low maintenance/low water
usage landscaping, remote control and video camera transmission of the
project entry vehicular gate from the substation.
Page 5
A boat dock to accommodate 3 boats and Sheriff’s personal water craft ( the
Office of the Sheriff will supply any boat hoist and be co-applicant for dock
permit),
A pre-engineered 2 door garage on slab, 25x25 feet in size with a 10 ft. ceiling
and roll up doors,
Emergency vehicle access road and turn-around, with a compacted gravel
surface elevated about the 100-year flood plain (taking into account State
projections on sea level rise).
Approximately 100’ x 100’ landing pad for Medivac helicopter.
At least 60 days prior to issuance of building permits for the Sheriff’s substation and dock the
applicant shall submit plans to the Office of the Sheriff for its review and comment and to CDD
for its review and approval.
Air Quality
8. ____ ____ Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans shall not include wood
burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such
use. That prohibition includes outdoor wood burning fireplaces, ovens or similar
wood burning features. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1)
9. ____ ____ To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated with grading and new
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures for all phases of construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
Page 6
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the on-site complaint and enforcement manager (COA#44) regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2a)
10. ____ ____ To reduce health risks from TACs during project construction, the project
applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two
minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased,
and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20
percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most
recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing emissions includes
the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels,
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment projects, add-on devices such as
particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be
equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and
PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more recent
certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. (Mitigation
Measure AQ-2b)
Biology
Special-Status Plants
11. ____ ____ A. Prior to site disturbance a pre-construction survey for the Delta button celery
(Eryngium racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the
plant’s blooming period (June to October). The survey shall be conducted in
the area of the project site south of Point of Timber Road. If Delta button
celery is not found, no further mitigation is needed. If Delta button celery is
found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such
as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures,
including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the
potential impacts on Delta button celery. The qualified biologist shall
coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department
of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols.
(Mitigation Measure BIO-A)
B. Prior to site disturbance pre-construction special-status plant surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall occur
Page 7
during the season that provides an adequate opportunity to identify
occurrences of any special-status plants. If no special-status plants are found,
no further mitigation is needed. If a special-status plant or plants are found, a
qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant
relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including
monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts
to the identified special-status plant. The qualified biologist shall coordinate
implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and
Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation
Measure BIO-A)
Landscape Trees
12. ____ ____ To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 trees on the project site, the
project includes landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would be planted
along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the proposed
landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio. Comply with the
following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements
subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division (CDD):
a. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading
permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. The Final
Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary landscape plan,
Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
b. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon
size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size.
c. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize
landscape maintenance cost.
d. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance
Requirements: The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape (or with the County Ordinance if one is adopted) and with the
Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter
ordinance applies to intersections with public roads. The landscape architect
shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards
and reporting requirements.
e. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a
bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the
bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of landscaping. Prior to
the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall
assess the value of the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the
Community Development Department. Prior to the release of the bond a
landscape designer shall submit a letter to CDD that the landscaping is in
good health. (Mitigation Measure BIO-1)
Page 8
Creek Bank Habitat
13. ____ ____ a. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide CDD with proof of
permits required from resource agencies ( for example, a Section 404 permit,
Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or absence of requirements for such
permits. Prior to removal or reconstruction of bank habitat along Kellogg
Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks within the project site and at
Pantages Island, the applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the
RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and determine if permits are warranted
for the activities pursuant to the regulations that are in effect.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve bank habitat shall be
approved by the Corps, the RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits prior to recordation of Final
Map.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed by the
CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board.
d. Specifically, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of 9,720 lineal feet of
excavated low (4,527 lf), moderate quality (4,781 lf) and high quality bank
habitat (412 lf) by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both on site and off site, to high quality
bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on
Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive
and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality
bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and
grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated
portion of Pantages Island, and the North Cove to near the end of Kellogg
Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet, which
exceeds removal lineal footage by 1,340 lineal feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on site and off site,
approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including: (1) shaded riverine
aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat) on the
westerly, northerly and southerly sides of Pantages Island , the ECCID portion
of the project site, and the creek bank ECCID easement area west of the
project site (1,464 lf) from the Pantages property line to the bridge, and
Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Highway 4 (3,688 lf owned
by RD 800) ; and (2) moderate quality bank habitat (1,903 lf) along Kellogg
Creek on the easterly side of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the
north cove to the northeasterly end of the project site. The creek bank and
revegetation design that creates moderate quality habitat following excavation
will include the following:
Page 9
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between mean low
water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to provide additional
stabilization and some shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at approximately
MHW to support larger riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with riparian
trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench shall
be planted on 15-foot centers to ensure adequate bank coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes, and
Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or arborist
annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is greater than 20 percent
mortality of planted trees after 5 years, the project proponent shall be
responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-
year period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall
also be conducted. In the event an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and
eradication program shall be developed and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
ix.
To improve the overall habitat value of the bank, installation of tree
species along the lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes
in the rip-rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes
allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks without harming the integrity
of the bank. An alternative bank stabilization method other than rip-
rap, which provides and same or better overall quality of the habitat
and provides for sufficient protection against wave action, may be
considered.
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel to the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge, along the westerly,
northerly and southerly sides of Pantages Island, in the section of Old Kellogg
creek at the southwestern end of the project site, and along the east and west
sides of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4, shall be
restored to high quality habitat by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material from
approximately MLW to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established to
create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank.
Page 10
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in-water resting and
hiding places for fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with native
riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and shrubs after 5
years, the applicant shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring
the trees for an additional 3-year period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall
also be conducted. In the event an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and
eradication program shall be developed and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the westerly,
northerly and southerly perimeter of Pantages Island shall be restored
to high-quality habitat by implementing the setback design as
described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel. This design shall
be established around most of the island, except for bank habitat
adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be
stabilized with riprap (see subsection 13.e.i above) to prevent erosion
due to wave action from existing and future boater activity. Therefore,
this area of Pantages Island will be designed to provide moderate-
quality bank habitat as prescribed above in subsection 13.e. Also to
address wave action, moderate quality habitat shall be created along
the northerly side of the North Cove. (Mitigation Measure BIO-2)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
14. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to vernal pool fairly shrimp
shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the
Final Map. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp
the applicant shall implement one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a ratio
determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio determined
during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation
between the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent shall make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy, to offset the project’s
Page 11
impact to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial contribution to
the Conservancy or the amount of mitigation land that shall be
purchased via fee title shall be determined during negotiations with
USFWS during Section 7 consultation between the Corps and the
USFWS.
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy shrimp
were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g., financial
contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of the Biological Opinion
outlining the mitigation requirements and incidental take statement from
USFWS, shall be provided to CDD.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion issued for
the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg bank
shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and
redeposited in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that shall be created
within the wetland mitigation preserve onsite. (Mitigation Measure BIO-3)
California red-legged frog
15. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to California red-legged frog
shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the
Final Map. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer
habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1
acre of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of
FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/
authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be
completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. Copies of all survey reports
and monitoring reports required by USFWS in the conditions of the Biological
Opinion shall be submitted to CDD.
d. Prior to filing of the Final Map CDD shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/ authorizations related to this species. (Mitigation Measure BIO-
4)
Giant garter snake
16. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to Giant garter snake shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to recordation of the Final
Map. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland habitat
Page 12
(that is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat impacted, 1 acre
of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of
FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
project proponent may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Any
mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/
authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be
completed as stated in the permits/authorizations.
c. Prior to filing of the Final Map CDD shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/authorizations related to this species (Mitigation Measure BIO-
5)
Western pond turtle
17. ____ ____ Any necessary resource agency permits related to western pond turtle shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the Final Map.
Prior to site disturbance in the affected area, the applicant shall install turbidity
barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers prote cting the
preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the
project construction areas.
The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies
(CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be
followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this
special-status species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that
any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter
snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond
turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a
1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land
would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a
surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the
applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for
permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement
habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies
and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy. (Mitigation Measure BIO-6)
Page 13
Federal and / or State listed fish species
18. ____ ____ Federal and/or State listed fish species and California species of special concern
fish.
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and California
“species of special concern” during construction and dredging of the two
interior bays, a levee shall be maintained between the area to be excavated and
the Kellogg Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and
siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in take of federal
and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work in the
ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this equipment
will localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrainment and the
effects of increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between August 1 and November 30 to
minimize the potential for take of threatened and endangered fish species. By
conducting work within this time period, the project will avoid most critical
spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed bank
habitat mitigation to re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant. (Mitigation Measure BIO-7)
Tree nesting raptors
19. ____ ____ a. Prior to site disturbance a preconstruction nesting survey of the trees to be
removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to
ensure no birds are nesting. If possible, tree removal shall be completed
outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28).
b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and
September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30
days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal
work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and
shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those
trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree
shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the
project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with
bright orange lath or other suitable staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per
above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may
be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and
determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this
occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows
Page 14
sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting
raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest
tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established
buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may
be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified raptor biologist. (Mitigation Measure BIO-8)
Swainson’s hawk
20. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to Swainson’s hawk shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the Final Map.
To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat1 (this is a 1:1 impact to
mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization.
An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation
organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135
acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (see footnote
below).
b. Prior to site disturbance to ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting
Swainson’s hawks (on or adjacent to the project site), preconstruction nesting
surveys shall be conducted in conformance with Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central
Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000).
c. If an active nest is found within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid
potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species),
project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be
reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-
September 15 annually)”(CDFG 1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor
biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site.
The size of this non-disturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified
raptor biologist in the field and in coordination with CDFG. The buffer shall
1 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite which do not provide
foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
Page 15
be based on the location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance of noise and
other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist,
and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest buffer
could be vacated.
f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree
shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for
tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed
as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest
trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). (Mitigation
Measure BIO-9)
Western burrowing owl
21. ____ ____ Any necessary resource agency permits related to western burrowing owl shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to ground disturbance
activities. Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the
methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012. Below we provide a summary of the survey
methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that
would be applicable to the project site. These surveys would meet the standards of
care required by CEQA for conducting surveys.
a. Initiating Survey. An initial take avoidance survey shall be conducted no less
than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Burrowing owls
may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project
activities will trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not
limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbance.
b. Number of visits and timing. Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least one site
visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey
visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least
one visit after June 15.
c. Survey method. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7
meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the
start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project
area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all
potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of
one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remain s, whitewash, or decoration.
Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also
listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey.
d. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect
burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20
km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection
probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr
winds, and cloud cover is <75%.
Page 16
e. Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature,
latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil
twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil
twilight provide the highest detection probabilities.
f. Avoiding burrowing owls. A primary goal is to design and implement
projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances
that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Avoidance
measures may include but not be limited to:
Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from
February 1 through August 31.
Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by
migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy
chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban,
industrial, or agricultural development.
Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on -
site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.
Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other
machinery do not collapse burrows.
Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance
animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur
(e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas).
Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of
January and February.
g. Minimizing Impacts. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in
place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens
or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize
disturbance impacts. A qualified biologist shall conduct site-specific
monitoring to inform the project proponent of buffer requirements. See Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance.
h. Permanent Impacts. Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of permanent impacts to
burrowing owl habitat loss.
i. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the
Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and burrowing owl
habitat. (Mitigation Measure BIO-10)
Impacts to other nesting birds
22. ____ ____ a. Prior to site disturbance a nesting survey shall be conducted no more than 14
days prior to tree removal and/or breaking ground (surveys should be
conducted a minimum of 3 separate days during the 14 days prior to
disturbance) prior to commencing with construction work if this work would
Page 17
commence between February 1 and September 1. If a lapse in project -related
work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey consistent with
related protocols and if required, consultation with CDFG shall occur before
project work can be reinitiated.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike, tri-colored blackbird, and/or
California black rail, are identified nesting within the area of affect, the
project sponsor shall contact CDFG regarding appropriate buffer sizes and
shall fence off a non- disturbance radius around the nest according to this
measure. (Mitigation Measure BIO-11)
Waters of the United States and / or State
23. ____ ____ The necessary resource agency permits related to Waters of the United States and
/ or State shall be obtained and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of
the Final Map. Authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (e.g. Individual Permit and a
Certification of Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any waters of the
U.S./State on the project site.
In conformance with the Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation
and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC
(dated November 15, 2006). the project shall minimize impacts by:
grading home pads to drain toward streets and away from open space
areas, landscaping with native plants,
construction of bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the development and the preserved
marsh habitat within the open space areas,
using native plantings as landscaping buffers between development and
open space preserve areas. An exception is at the Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no buffer.
The open space preserve area shall be separated from adjacent residential
development with permanent residential fencing that protects the open
space preserve from unauthorized use while providing a visual connection
to the open space.
Residential fences shall be tubular steel or some other form of permanent,
visually open, fencing where houses back up to the open space preserve.
In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with educational signage shall be
developed to reduce human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State shall also be minimized by
implementing the following measures:
a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices consistent
with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the
project to protect the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area, including
Page 18
installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and ot her
protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor
the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation wetlands shall
be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands permanently affected by project
activities. If possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and shall resemble
those wetlands affected by the project (known as in-kind replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for each
square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be enhanced/created)
or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions imposed by the Corps and
RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components listed here:
Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland on-site;
Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet of bank
habitat on-site and off-site (the off-site mitigation includes the ECCID
Dredge Cut from the Pantages property line to the bridge linking
Lakeshore and Lakes neighborhoods (1,464 lf) and the RD 800 Kellogg
Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4 (3,688lf)), including
shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat; Creation of
approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-term storm water management
plan designed to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project shall consist of two major
efforts. First shall be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the uplands
adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second shall be the creation and
enhancement of bank habitat within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat
Prior to the issuance of the 180th building permit, unless an alternative time frame
is specified in the necessary resource agency permits, the project shall:
a. Create a minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and 0.30
acre of marsh within the 36.83-acre open space preserve area (Parcel “C”).
Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in the 12.58-acre
upland area in the northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the marsh shall
be accomplished either on the eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern bay or along the western side of
Page 19
the existing marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created wetlands to
impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal wetlands
within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of the proposed wetland
soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on the existing
topography within the uplands, soil composition, and ground water depths, and
the created seasonal wetlands shall be excavated to a depth necessary to
accumulate seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay layer that will perch
rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal wetlands to be
impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands for seed source. These
topsoils would contain a seed bank of the impacted pool plant species which
would germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re- created pools.
f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to accommodate the
addition of topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing another wetland
compensation plan that is approved for the project by both the Corps and the
RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of approximately 9,720 lineal feet of
bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of that existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank
habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages
Island, East Contra Costa Irrigation District(ECCID) property on the south side of
the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kell ogg Creek between
Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of
moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with
riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the
excavated portion of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the North Cove to
the end of Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060
lineal feet, an increase of 1,340 lineal feet and an overall substantial improvement
in the quality of the bank habitat.
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat shall be located
within a 36.83-acre permanently preserved area (Open Space Parcel “C”). The
marsh habitat on Pantages Island (Open Space Parcel “D,” 6.39 acres more or
less) shall be permanently preserved through conservation covenants/easements.
Page 20
It is envisioned that ownership of the two open space preserve areas will be
transferred to the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
(TDBCSD), prior to the recordation of the Final Map, for preservation in
perpetuity, or other public agency approved by CDD. The TDBCSD would also
function as the Preserve Manager and conduct the long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the preserve areas in perpetuity.
In addition, the approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and created bank
habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity. The lineal footage within the project site
will be included as part of Water Parcel “F,” as modified to include that creek
bank and the shoring walls. It is envisioned that Parcel “F” as modified and the
enhanced bank habitat on ECCID property and Pantages Island will be transferred
to Reclamation District 800 (RD 800). RD 800 already owns the mitigation
Kellogg Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4. RD 800 will own and
be responsible by conservation covenants/easements to monitor and maintain
these bank habitats in perpetuity. It is further envisioned that a maintenance and
improvement control easement will be recorded in favor of RD 800 over the slope
between the shoring walls and the back retaining wall (and the retaining wall
itself). See the Waterfront Lots Sea Level Rise Exhibit dated December 22, 2010.
Funding for maintenance of the permanently preserved open space conservation
area shall be provided through annual assessments of homeowners in Pantages
Bays that are secured through a TDBCSD landscape and lighting district or
alternative binding, permanent agreement completed prior to filing the Final Map.
With respect to the creek bank conservation areas owned by RD 800, the shoring
walls and the slope/retaining wall easement, the assessment will be created by a
Proposition 218 vote undertaken prior to filing the Final Map.
A 5-year monitoring program shall be established to monitor the progress of the
wetland mitigation toward an established goal. At the end of each monitoring
year, an annual report will be submitted by the applicant to the Corps, RWQCB
and Contra Costa County. This report will document the hydrological and
vegetative condition of the mitigation wetlands, and will recommend remedial
measures as necessary to correct deficiencies. The applicant shall submit proof, in
written form, to CDD prior to filing of the Final Map that the applicant is
responsible for the 5- year monitoring as it may be extended, including its cost.
(Mitigation Measure BIO-12)
Cultural
24. ____ ____ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric,
historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be
halted and the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional
Page 21
(historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined appropriate and
approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find.
If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the
consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or
other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional
to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether
avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, and other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall
be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according
to current professional standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional
shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County’s discretion, the professional
may work under contract with the County. (Mitigation Measure CUL-1)
25. ____ ____ In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in
any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours;
The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased
Native American;
The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means
of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains
and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location
not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
Page 22
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner. (Mitigation Measure CUL-4)
Geology
26. ____ ____ The project applicant shall design structures and foundations to withstand
expected seismic sources in accordance with the current version of the California
Building Code, as adopted by the County. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1a)
27. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit updated
improvement plans for the project for review by the County’s Peer Review
Geologist and review and approval by CDD. For the purposes of geologic
review, the plans shall provide detailed information on the bank stabilization wall
system being proposed along the waterfront residential lots. (Mitigation Measure
GEO-1b)
28. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an updated
geology, soils and foundation report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 94-4.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review
and approval of CDD. The report shall address the specific approach to grading
and development indicated by the final subdivision map and improvement plans,
and shall provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the
stability of the residential lots.
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria:
a) Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions,
b) Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into
account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley
seismic zone) and
c) Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down. ( Mitigation Measure GEO-
1c)
29. ____ ____ During the construction of subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical
engineer shall provide observation and testing services and issue a
grading/shoring wall completion report. The report shall provide docu mentation
on the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate testing of fill compaction to
determine the effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in preventing
Page 23
lateral spreading failures toward the Kellogg Creek channel. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-1d)
30. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and
Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State
Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB.
The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water quality,
a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was
prepared for the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works Department
in order to comply with County water quality requirements. Engineered linear
bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected storm water runoff treatment
for this project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2)
31. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, the project applicant shall submit a
plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate
how the results of the study will guide design of concrete and ferrous materials
that are in contact with the ground. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3)
Deed Acknowledgments
32. ____ ____ Concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall record a
statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling
attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available
from the seller.
Global Climate Change
33. ____ ____ The County shall ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green building
techniques in the design of proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project.
Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green
Building Code or equivalent green building standards. (Mitigation Measure
Cum-GCC-1a)
34. ____ ____ The applicant shall incorporate the following measures within the proposed
project:
a) Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants in
combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Page 24
b) Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including
the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways,
driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements;
c) To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets, adhesives,
sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low concentration
of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs);
d) The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each
single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e.
non CFC-based refrigerants);
e) Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency
systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants would
be ventilated through the building at a faster rate;
f) The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low-flow
or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use;
g) Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops;
and
h) The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting
fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment.
i) In each garage an electric outlet shall be installed and dedicated for use in
recharging electric vehicles. (Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1b)
Hazardous Materials
35. ____ ____ Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from the paint
disposal area and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile
organic compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the Environmental
Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. If soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated
and remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Division (CCEHD). (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a)
The project site shall be inspected by an environmental professional, appointed by
the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event
that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall
be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the oversight of
CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs. (Mitigation Measure
HAZ -1b)
36. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all asbestos-containing materials have been removed at the
existing residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance
with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a)
Page 25
37. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the
existing former residences on the project site, in compliance with state
regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b)
Hydrology
38. ____ ____ During construction a qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) on the project team
shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg
Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their
position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed, to
accurately assess water quality degradation. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-1a)
39. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and
Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State
Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB.
The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http ://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Additionally, the Title 10 Ordinance (1010)
of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances requires the project sponsor to
obtain a permit for drainage activities for creek improvements to Kellogg Creek
and Old Kellogg Creek. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1b)
40. ____ ____ To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage, and
maintenance, the contractor shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow.
Final plan notes, and contractor bid documents shall include the following
specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance
materials, and refueling purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any
contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not
protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed beneath
the engine block and hydraulic systems. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-1c)
41. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall coordinate
with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and
survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells on the project site.
Page 26
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or
retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the
decommissioned wells for approval. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-2)
42. ____ ____ Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a
finished floor elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet. (Mitigation Measure
Hyd-3a)
43. ____ ____ Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a
finished street level elevation of 12.1 feet including the EVAs. (Mitigation
Measure Hyd-3b)
Noise and Vibration
44. ____ ____ All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and
federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state
or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please
visit the following websites:
Federalholidays:
http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2011.asp
California holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml
At least 10 days prior to the issuance of grading permits signs shall be posted at
the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day
and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site
complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems.
Page 27
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to
and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent
land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and
coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures
(considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the
construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager
will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all
construction hours to respond to complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for
each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading
or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and
mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and
area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be
included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons
with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,
tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour
emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be
re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to CDD.
(Mitigation Measure NOI-1a)
The project applicant shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation plan
for review and approval by the CDD at least 30 days prior to the issuance of
grading permits. The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying
neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during particular phases
of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are
noise-related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan
shall be required as part the grading permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model Community
Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60dBA for
stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound
level estimates for each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The barriers
can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they have a
Page 28
minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot.
Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully overlapping 1x
redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8
feet tall but this would be refined as part of the construction noise control
plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and
location of the barriers are the actual construction practices, including
equipment to be used and the location and duration of noisier activities. The
topography will also need to be considered in the final determination of
barrier heights and effectiveness.
Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The
project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set
by Contra Costa County.
Locate stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable and/or
enclose noise sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or
hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment
and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type” exhaust mufflers on vehicles and
equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible.
The method for construction of the shoring walls will be Cement Deep Soil
Mixing (CDSM), using multiple augers and with steel I-beams lowered into
each column while the soil-cement mixture is still in a fluid state. There will
be negligible vibration and typical construction noise with this method. Steel
sheet piles as shoring walls is not allowed, nor is deep dynamic compaction of
soils. These shoring wall and soil stabilization methods generate too much
noise and vibration. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1b)
45. ____ ____ At least 14 days prior to the issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall
construct temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the
existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions.
Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
(Mitigation Measure NOI-1c)
Parks and Recreation
46. ____ ____ Concurrent with the filing of the Final Map the project applicant shall on the face
page of the Final Map (and/or by other recorded instrument reviewed and
approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the public access by pedestrians and
bicyclists to approximately 2.6 acres of public trails (in a 20-foot EVA with
shoulders and at least eight feet paved in the middle on the EVA connected to “B”
Street and “A” Street and paved off center on the EVA to the marine patrol
substation), plus the eight-foot sidewalk leading from Point of Timber Road to the
public trails through the preserved open space, and including the passive
recreation location at the end of the trail beyond the marine patrol substation) for
ingress, egress and use by pedestrians and bicyclists. The right of public access
recorded documentation shall confirm: (i) dogs not on leash are not permitted on
Page 29
the EVA/trails due to proximity to creek banks, emergent marsh and seasonal
wetlands (includes dogs accompanying both members of the public and Pantages
Bays homeowners); (ii) dogs on leash are allowed unless prohibited per permits
issued by the Army Corp of Engineers and/or other resource agencies) (iii) that all
pedestrians and bicyclists (and permitted dogs) must stay on EVA/trails in open
space parcel, for purposes of public safety and environmental protection of the
nearby emergent marsh, created seasonal wetlands, and created/enhanced high
and moderate creek bank habitat; (iv) that for the same reasons no fishing or
swimming is allowed from those creek bank locations; and (v) that public access
is limited from dawn to dusk. The recorded documentation of the right of public
access to the EVA/trails shall confirm the foregoing limitations on that use.
The applicant shall provide a water fountain at the end of the trail beyond the
marine patrol substation for public use (water supply will be from the metered
hook-up for the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation). Tables and seating near the
open water at the end of the trail beyond the marine patrol substation, kiosks and
signage that is historical (related to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber) and
educational (related to the environment, its protection. and limits on trails use in
open space as described above), and benches along the trails, all in a number,
design and content subject to review and approval of CDD. The public trails
through the open space area also serve as an EVA and must comply with Fire
Department requirements and be completed by the issuance of the 180th building
permit.
Signage shall be provided at the two project entries for public pedestrians and
bicyclists (Point of Timber and Wilde Drive) and the trail heads at the end of “B”
Street and “A” Street, which confirms public pedestrian and bicyclist access to the
EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads within Pantages Bays. The signage shall
also specify the limitations on such use (e.g.,if dogs are permitted they must be on
leash on EVA/public trails; dogs must be on leash on roads and sidewalks;
pedestrians and bicyclists must stay on trails in open space; public pedestrian and
bicyclist access permitted only from dawn to dusk). The signs and their content
are subject to review and approval of CDD.
In combination with the dedication of the public trails the project shall pay a park
dedication fee of $1,351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits.( The
park dedication fee of $1,351 was the fee in effect at the time the application was
deemed complete on November 11, 2006).
Concurrent with the filing of the Final Map the applicant shall on the face page of
the Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved
by CDD) offer to dedicate to the public access to the privately owned roadways
and sidewalks within Pantages Bays for ingress, egress and use by pedestrians and
bicyclists from dawn to dusk. The recorded documentation of the right of public
access to project roads and sidewalks shall confirm that it does not include public
Page 30
vehicular use (unless by invited guest), and that dogs are permitted with the public
only if on leash.
It is anticipated that these offers of dedication of public access for pedestrians and
bicyclists will be accepted on behalf of the public by the County (and/or by
another public agency approved by CDD) prior to or concurrent with recordation
of the Final Map. These rights of public access and the right of enforcement by
members of the public and the County (or by another public agency) shall be
confirmed in the CC&Rs and individual deed disclosures. (Mitigation Measure
PS-1)
46A. __ __ Improvement plans shall include two 90-degree parking stalls located in each of
the “A” Street and “B” Street cul-de-sacs, and designated for handicap
accessibility in order to provide for vehicular access for the disabled adjacent to
the public trails within the project open space. Required turning radius in the cul-
de-sacs for fire trucks shall be maintained and grading to accommodate the stalls
shall stay outside the emergent marsh. The public agency responsible for
maintenance of the public trails within Open Space Parcel “C” (likely the Town
of Discovery Bay CSD) shall maintain the ADA parking stalls, and make
available the necessary means of electronic access through the vehicular gate at
the end of Point of Timber Road to any disabled member of the public making
that request for the purpose of securing direct vehicular access to the open space
public trails. The same method to open the gate for project residents and/or
public agencies shall be made available to disabled members of the public who
request it for that purpose. These requirements shall be included in the recorded
public trail easement. Signage at the project entry shall provide notice as to the
location of the ADA parking stalls and the public agency responsibility with
respect to vehicular access through the gate requested by disabled members of the
public. The CC&Rs for the homeowners association shall confirm this right of
access through the vehicular gate for disabled members of the public who req uest
it and the requirements with respect to project entry signage and for permanent
retention of the ADA parking stalls at the cul-de-sacs. The final location of the
four parking stalls, and the form and text of the applicable signage, public trail
easement and CC&Rs with respect to this condition, shall be approved by CDD
prior to filing of the Final Map.
Public Utilities (Water & Sewer)
47. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD
(i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that the
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of
any required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity
exists to serve the project.
Page 31
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are
constructed and operational. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1)
48. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide documentation to
CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any
capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and
necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of
RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are
constructed and operational, and that any source control measures are being
implemented consistent with the requirements of RWQCB. (Mitigation Measure
UTIL-2)
Street Names
49. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and
private) shall be submitted for review by CDD, Graphics Section (Phone #674-
7810). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be
certified by CDD without the approved street names. Street names of historic
significance to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber will be used if available,
subject to review and approval of CDD.
Transportation
50. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway
(south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn
lane from Byron. This improvement is currently identified in the 2007 Contra
Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although
funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County
fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement prior to the
issuance of building permits. Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure TRA-1)
51. ____ ____ The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade
Page 32
existing roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require
the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways
and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-2)
52. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer Road/Byron
Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and a
southbound left turn lane. This improvement is not identified in any funding
program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for
this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1)
53. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved
by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and
providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound
Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway
Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications
to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required
left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is currently
included in the Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1) is included in the ECRAOB fee
program at time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
Page 33
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits.
(Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1))
54. ____ ____ As an alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1), mitigation of
the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and
Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing
traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn
lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not
be shifted under this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing
at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any
funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program.
If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14
percent of the total costs for this improvement. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2))
55. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour
Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left
turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is currently
included in the Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Page 34
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calcula tes that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-3)
56. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal.
This improvement is currently included in the Draft East County AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public W orks Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-4)
57. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and
adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is not
identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of
Page 35
the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To
determine the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s
estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department
prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5)
58. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers
Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This
improvement is currently included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculate s that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-6)
59. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler
Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This
improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not
included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the
County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as
operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee
program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would
be required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7)
60. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway
(south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the
Page 36
Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4
approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is
currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine
the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of
that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance
of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8)
61. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive
intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the
total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine
the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of
that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance
of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9)
62. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn
lane. This improvement is currently included as one of several improvements
intersection in the Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Page 37
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10 is included in the ECRAOB fee program
at time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-10)
63. ____ ____ The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade
existing roadways upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM
TRA-11)
Visual/Lighting
64. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the project applicant
shall submit a lighting plan for the review and approval by CDD. Exterior
lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize
motion detection systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of
individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property.
Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply
with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency
Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses.
(Mitigation Measure VIS-1)
Architectural Design of Non-Waterfront Production Homes Models / Fencing Plan
65. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall
submit, for review and approval of CDD, floor plans and elevations (showing
building height) for the models of the non-waterfront production homes. This
condition does not apply to the 100’ wide by 110’ deep minimum size non-
waterfront homes. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits the
applicant shall also submit for review and approval of CDD a fencing plan for the
whole of the Pantages Bays project.
Page 38
Homeowners Association
66. ____ ____ Prior to recordation of Final Map a homeowners association shall be formed for
the ownership and maintenance (through homeowners assessments) of all
common areas including private streets and common landscaping except as
specified in these Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures. Examples
of exceptions to ownership and maintenance by the homeowners association
include Open Space Parcel “C,” Open Space Parcel “D,” Water Parcel “F,” and
the Public Trails/EVA easement area. Homeowners will be financially responsible
for the maintenance of those parcels through other assessment mechanisms as
described in Condition 69 below. Marine Patrol Substation Parcel “I” will be
owned and, through the Office of the Sheriff, maintained by the County at its cost.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
67. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit, for CDD
review and approval, the CC&Rs for the Pantages Bays project. Prior to
submitting the CC&Rs to CDD for review and approval the applicant shall work
with the Lakeshore Home Owners Association for review and comment of the
CC&Rs (Contact Duane Steele). The CC&Rs shall include information for the
future property owners that the trails to be constructed from the entrance to the
Pantages Bays through the Open Space to near the water’s edge at the northeast
corner of the site, as well as the sidewalks and streets within Pantages Bays, shall
be available for public pedestrian and bicycle use from dawn to dusk, subject to
the limitations described in Condition 46 applicable to all trail users (e.g., dogs on
leash are allowed on EVA/trails unless prohibited in permits from resource
agencies). The CC&Rs shall also confirm that rights of access to that effect are
included on the recorded Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument
reviewed and approved by CDD) and accepted on behalf of the public by the
County (and/or other public agency approved by CDD such as the TDBCSD).
The Police, Fire District, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), RD 800,
TDBCSD, and other public agencies (e.g., Mosquito Abatement District) right of
ingress, egress and use of all roads (includes all of Parcel “A”) and EVAs within
the Pantages Bays project shall be provided for and confirmed in the CC&Rs.
The offers of dedication to the public shall so provide, and a note to that effect
shall be included on the face page of the Final Map (and/or other suitable
recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD), as provided for in
Condition 76 below.
The CC&Rs shall confirm that maintenance of the streets, sidewalks, landscaping,
creek banks, shoring walls, open space, EVA/public trails, the passive recreation
location at the end of the public trails, and the typical police service district
assessment shall be paid for by Pantages Bays homeowners through assessments
(for example, TDBCSD landscaping and lighting district assessments, RD 800
Page 39
tax bill assessments on waterfront residential lots, police service district tax bill
assessment, homeowners association assessments).
The CC & Rs shall confirm that each homeowner is responsible for maintenance
and repair of the back retaining wall on the waterfront lots and the slope between
that wall and the shoring wall. They shall further confirm that any storm water
drainage improvements associated with the slope, retaining wall and shoring wall
shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The CC & Rs shall
further confirm that RD 800 will have an easement over the slopes and retaining
walls to enforce these obligations.
The CC&Rs shall include the Pantages Bays Design Standards described below in
Conditions 76 and 77. The CC&Rs shall confirm they are enforceable in all
respects by CDD, and that CDD must confirm compliance with them prior to
issuance of a building permit for the construction of a new home and accessory
structures, or subsequent alterations. There is no requirement that the CC&Rs
include design review by the homeowners association.
Also included in the CC&Rs shall be information to the future property owners of
waterfront lots regarding view corridors to the water from the sidewalk/street.
Both side yards on most waterfront lots shall be required to have open fencing
along the front to provide the opportunity for at least one view corridor from the
fence to the water (through the back yard). One side yard may be a non-view
corridor side yard planted with hedges to restrict views into the side yard. This
will most likely occur along the garage side of the house where residents may
store items like garbage containers and landscaping equipment that they do not
want viewed from the street. To illustrate the requirement the open fence exhibit
by Environmental Foresight Inc. dated 4/9/10, as modified to be consistent with
the Pantages Bays Design Standards, shall be included in the CC&Rs. Excepted
from this view corridor requirement are the waterfront pie-shaped lots on cul-de-
sacs and other irregular waterfront lots listed in the Design Standards. The
fencing requirements related to view corridors are included in the Pantages Bays
Design Standards and are enforceable by CDD.
There shall be a recorded deed disclosure for each of the approved lots confirming
the foregoing as well, with the form and content reviewed and approved by CDD.
The recorded deed disclosure shall include reference to the Design Standards and
the waterfront lots to which the view corridor requirement applies.
Construction and Demolition Debris
68. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or demolition permit(s),
the developer shall submit a “Debris Recovery Plan” demonstrating how they
intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating
from the demolition of existing building and/or the construction of new buildings.
At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of the first residential unit not
Page 40
including models, the developer shall submit a completed “Debris Recovery
Report” documenting actual debris recovery efforts including the quantities of
recovered and landfilled materials) that resulted from the project.
Ownership, Maintenance and Financial Responsibility for Project Parcels
69. ____ ____ The non-residential parcels below shall be recorded on the Final Map. These
parcels shall be owned and maintained as provided below. The financial
responsibility for that maintenance will likely be provided as described below.
Necessary easements related the parcels are described below.
A. Parcel “A” (18 acres, more or less) includes the private roadways, sidewalks,
bioswales, storm drainage facilities, street trees, primary entry gate and
features at Point of Timber, and the secondary EVA and pedestrian/bicyclist
entry at Wilde Drive. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding
responsibility: Pantages Bays homeowners association with funding from
homeowners assessments. The Wilde Drive EVA and pedestrian/bicyclist
entry shall be offered for dedication to the County, with maintenance and
funding responsibility the same as for the private streets by the HOA.
B. Parcels “B,” “G,” and “H” at the Point of Timber entry are for landscape
purposes. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility:
Pantages Bays homeowners association with funding from homeowners
assessments.
C. Parcel “E” is the public turnaround at the project entry at the end of public
Point of Timber Road. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding
responsibility: Contra Costa County following acceptance of the turnaround as
part of the public roadway.
D. Parcel “C” is open space (37 acres, more or less), which includes the recreated
seasonal wetlands and the preserved emergent marsh. Parcel “D” is also open
space (6 acres, more or less) on Pantages Island, which includes preserved
emergent marsh. Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements)
and maintenance: TDBCSD. Maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages
Bays homeowners tax bill assessments likely through a landscaping and
lighting district formed prior to recording Final Map. An alternative to
TDBCSD ownership and maintenance would be RD 800, with funding by
Pantages Bays homeowners through a Proposition 218 assessment, and with
the vote completed by RD 800 and owner and the assessments finalized prior
to filing the Final Map. Another alternative, though not preferred, would be
ownership (with conservation covenants/ easements) by the Pantages Bays
homeowners association, with maintenance by an approved conservancy
organization, and funding through the association and/or an endowment.
E. Parcel “F” as modified in the Final Map will be comprised of waterways,
shoring walls and creek bank (47 plus acres, plus or minus; as currently shown
Page 41
on the tentative subdivision map the parcel only includes water). There will be
a related easement for RD 800 control and enforcement of required
maintenance and repairs by each homeowner (and limitations on landscape,
and improvements) on the back retaining wall and the slope between that wall
and the shoring wall. There will likely be a similar RD 800 enforcement
easement with respect to repair and maintenance of storm drainage
improvements by the homeowners association where located on a slope,
retaining wall and shoring wall. A related easement on adjoining open space
parcels for RD 800 access will also be required. Ownership (subject to
conservation covenants/easements), related easements and maintenance: RD
800 with funding by Pantages Bays waterfront homeowners through
Proposition 218 assessments, with the vote completed by RD 800 and owner
and the assessments finalized prior to filing the Final Map. RD 800 will also
be responsible to maintain through conservation covenants/easements the
southern creek bank on ECCID land from the westerly end of the Pantages
property to the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge, as well as the creek banks on Kellogg
Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4. Funding for this off-site
creek bank maintenance may be the same as for Parcel “F.” RD 800 and the
applicant may negotiate as part of a pre-annexation agreement an alternative
financing mechanism as to elements of Parcel F” and/or the off-site creek
banks, subject to CDD review and approval.
F. Parcel “I” is the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation parcel (0.51 acres, more or
less). Following acceptance of the offer of dedication and the constructed
improvements, the parcel and facilities will be owned by the County.
Maintenance of the parcel and its facilities (including the boat dock) will be
the responsibility of the County, at its cost through the Office of the Sheriff.
The creek bank within the mooring easement for the dock will be owned and
maintained by RD 800 per subsection E above.
G. The EVA/public trails will be shown as an easement within Open Space
Parcel “C.” See subsection D above. TDBCSD will be responsible for
maintenance of the parcel and its EVA/trails, paid for by Pantages Bays
homeowners likely from property tax bill assessments through a landscaping
and lighting district. Alternatively, RD 800 will accept ownership and
maintenance responsibilities, with funding by Proposition 218 assessments of
Pantages Bays homeowners. Alternatively though not preferred, the Pantages
Bays homeowners association will own the parcel and be responsible for
maintenance of the EVA/public trails, with funding provided by homeowners
assessments.
LAFCO Boundary Reorganization/RD 800 and TDBCSD Annexations
70. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site is annexed, through a
LAFCO boundary reorganization, to RD 800 and to TDBCSD. RD 800’s
Page 42
annexation may be limited, for example to only the waterfront homes and Parcel
“F.”
Fire District Conditions
71. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, CDD shall receive confirmation from the Fire
District that conditions have been satisfied for its agreement to allow more than
25 homes beyond a single point. For previous Fire District review and condi tions
see the letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD)
to CDD (November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005;
September 15, 2004), and the letter from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24, 2005.
Completion of ECCID Agreement
72. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, CDD shall receive confirmation from the project
applicant and ECCID that their agreement has been completed, including the lot
line adjustment conveying land to the Pantages owner (adjoining creek bank strip
and portion of Pantages Island) and conservation easement (over land along the
ECCID Dredge Cut extending from the west edge of the Pantages property to the
Lakeshore/Lakes bridge), and conveying Pantages land within the dredge cut bed
to ECCID.
Minimum Depth of Bays and Coves
73. ____ ____ As constructed the bays and coves within Pantages Bays shall be at a minimum
depth of 10 feet at low tide (LMW), as recommended by Reclamation District 800
in order to provide safe navigation (e.g., prevent grounding) and avoid noxious
weeds like Brazilian Waterweed from growing there.
Wilde Drive and Point of Timber Project Entries
74. ____ ____
As set forth on the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, Sheet 3 of Pantages
Bays Plan, Wilde Drive vehicular access shall be limited to emergency vehicles.
Other vehicles will be restricted by bollards, or a gate. Pedestrian and bicyclist
access (public and Pantages Bays residents) is permitted there. Final design of
that entry as to emergency access shall be reviewed and commented on by Public
Works and approved by CDD. Also as set forth on Sheet 3, public vehicular
access at Point of Timber will be restricted by an electronic gate, so that only the
vehicles of residents and invited guests are permitted entry. A separated entry on
each side of the road shall be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists (public and
Pantages Bays residents). Final design of the entry features and landscape, as
they may be modified compared to the current preliminary desi gn (e.g., see
Condition 84), shall be reviewed and approved by CDD (in addition to the Fire
District and Public Works Department with respect to bollards or a gate at Wilde
Page 43
Drive and the gate at Point of Timber.). Any modified design at Point of Timber
must include a public pedestrian/bicyclist entry with an improved trail path at
least 8 feet in width on the northerly side and 5-foot sidewalk on the southerly
side, with clearly identified with signage.
Access for Sheriff, Fire District, EMTs, RD 800, TDBCSD and Other Public Agencies for
Use of Project Roads
75. ____ ____ Police, Fire District, and EMTs ingress, egress and use of all roads, sidewalks and
EVAs within the Pantages Bays project shall be confirmed in the CC&Rs as
provided for in Condition 67 above. That right includes but is not limited to
routine and other patrols by the Sheriff. The applicant shall on the face page of the
Final Map and deed disclosures for each of the homes (and/or by other recorded
instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the County (and
other applicable agencies) such rights of full access. The same rights of access
shall be provided in the CC&RS and the Final Map note and/or other recorded
instrument) to RD 800 (due to its responsibilities for waterways, creek bank
habitat, shoring walls, and related slope and back retaining wall easements), as
well as TDBCSD (due to its responsibilities for sewer and water facilities within
Pantages Bays and likely ownership and maintenance of Open Space Parcels “C”
and “D”). Other public agencies as determined necessary by CDD will be
provided the same access (for example, the Mosquito Abatement District).
Design Standards, Final Architecture, View Corridors, and Common Area Landscape
Plans
76. ____ ____ Compliance with the Pantages Bays Design Standards, Plate 4 attached to the
Planning Commission Staff Report, shall be required in construction of new
homes, or any subsequent building footprint alteration, as well as fencing and
landscape within the street/sidewalk water view corridors and side yards. The
Design Standards include minimum setbacks for the 60’, 80’, 90’ and 100’ wide
lots, as well as height and fencing restrictions. CDD shall review proposed
architectural plans for new house construction or subsequent building footprint
alteration to confirm compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. Any
future amendments to the Design Standards shall require CDD review and
approval. The Design Standards (as they may be so amended) shall be included
in the CC&Rs. The Design Standards shall be enforceable by CDD.
A minimum of 10% (16 units) of the 161 non-waterfront smaller residential lots
(minimum 6,000 square feet, 60’x100’) shall be single story. For the production
homes on the 60’x100’ lots, the architecture elevations and street landscape shall
provide articulation along the streetscape on straight roads sufficient to avoid a
visually linear appearance, namely along “B” Street and “E” Street where
minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lots are located.
Page 44
A minimum of three architectural elevations for the production homes on the
60’x100’ lots shall be provided. CDD has the authority to ask for more than three
elevations of those homes for review and approval should CDD determine it is
required for an appropriate articulated streetscape and/or compatibility with the
neighboring developments of Ravenswood and Lakeshore.
As provided for in the Design Standards, there shall be a single-story home with a
maximum height of 25 feet (or at applicant’s election a two-story home with the
second story (maximum 33 feet) limited to the front half of the home) on Lots 270
and 271, Lots 266 and 267 and Lots 262 and 263 subject to review and approval
of CDD. The applicant shall record this building height restriction on each of
these six lots prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, in a form
and content reviewed and approved by CDD.
In addition, the side yard setback on both sides of these six lots shall be minimum
10 feet, instead of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side as provided for
all other minimum 60-foot wide lots. The standard 5-foot side yard setback on
each other lot that adjoins Ravenswood shall be next to the 10-foot setback on the
adjoining lot, so that the combined setback between those homes will always be
minimum 15 feet. The maximum height on each other lot adjoining Ravenswood
shall be 33 feet.
The shoring walls shall be finished with shotcrete or similar product acceptable to
RD 800 and approved by CDD. The finish shall be earth tone or similar color
acceptable to RD 800 and approved by CDD.
76 A ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure for lots 257, 258, 267, 270 and 271 that states these
lots are only permitted to have one story homes (maximum 25 feet in height) or
two story element in the front half of the home (maximum 33 feet in height), and
that each of these lots shall have a side yard setback of 10 feet. The approved
language shall be recorded on each of these lots.
76 B ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure for lots 254 through 292 (all the lots adjoining
Ravenswood Subdivision) that the maximum height of the house shall not exceed
33 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots.
76C ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure that requires the rear lot fences for the lots that back up
to the Open Space shall be open view fencing consistent with the applicant’s
wetland consultant.
76D__ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for review and
approval a deed disclosure that describes the requirements for open view fencing
on waterfront lots consistent with the Pantages Design standards.
Page 45
76E __ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for review and
approval a deed disclosure for each of the homes that informs them that there is a
public trail in the development and that public pedestrians and bicyclists may use
project streets and sidewalks.
Grade Elevations and Rear Yard Fencing Design Across from Ravenswood
77. ___ ____ The final design of retaining walls and wood fence/lattice between Pantages and
Ravenswood shall be reviewed and approved by CDD at least 30 days prior to
issuance of building permits to confirm compliance with the Pantages Bays
Design Standards. This rear yard fencing requirement in the Design Standards is
enforceable by CDD.
Applicant has agreed to work in good faith with adjoining homeowners in
Ravenswood to replace their existing rear yard fence with a new common fence
consistent with the specifications above and in the Design Standards. Subject to
the approval of the adjoining Ravenswood homeowner(s), applicant at its cost will
remove the existing fence and construct the new common fence. If the necessary
homeowner approval is not secured following good efforts as reviewed and
accepted by CDD, then applicant shall construct within its rear property line a
wood fence (with any necessary retaining wall or kickboard) that meets the design
specifications set forth in the Design Standards.
Reduction in Highest Waterfront Pad Elevations
78. ___ ___ Shoring walls will be at a uniform height (approximately 8 feet showing above
water at current mean sea level). There will be a 2:1 graded slope between the
shoring wall and a back retaining wall. The purpose of the slope and back
retaining wall is to accommodate sea level during the 100-year flood event at high
tide assuming the State’s projection for sea level rise of 4.6 feet in the next 100
years. The height of the retaining wall above ground, if exposed, will be
determined in large part by the pad elevation on the particular lot. For aesthetic
purposes relatively high pad elevations on waterfront lots (for example, see Lot
137) will be reduced at the final grading plan to the extent reasonable and still
address projected sea level rise, as well as accommodate storm water flows/outlets
and gravity sewer to the TDBCSD pump station that will be constructed for the
project, subject to review and approval of CDD.
Lakeshore Boundary Grading Alternative and Off-Site Dirt Hauling
79. ___ ___ The Lakeshore Homeowners Association Board of Directors (Lakeshore HOA
and Lakeshore Board) has expressed interest in modifying the proposed grading
Page 46
plan between Lakeshore residential lots and the adjoining Pantages residential lots
and EVA to place engineered fill on the intervening strip owned by the Lakeshore
HOA. Such a grading plan change would require cooperation between the
applicant and Lakeshore Board, and potentially adjoining Lakeshore homeowners.
Grading easements and/or lot line adjustments will likely be required. Any
grading revision in this location, along with any associated lot line adjustments
and common fencing arrangements shall be subject to review and comment by
Public Works and CDD review and approval as part of the final grading plan.
Applicant’s engineers anticipate the grading operation will be a balanced cut and
fill. If the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced then applicant
shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan (which will include the pavement
analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Public Works Condition
102) for submittal to CDD for its review and approval.
PUBLIC WORKS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION SD06-9010/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP04-3062
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the
Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval.
Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan/vesting tentative map submitted to
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division dated
October, 2009, as amended.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP.
General Requirements:
80. ____ ____ Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to
the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review
and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance
Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Any necessary traffic
signing and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the
Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department.
Roadway Improvements (Frontage):
81. ____ ____ Applicant shall construct curb, minimum 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal
and transverse drainage, street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation, and
pavement transitions at the terminus of the pubic portion of Point of Timber Road.
Applicant shall construct face of curb 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line.
82. ____ ____ Applicant shall install off-site signage along Point of Timber Road relative to on-
street parking for trailhead use as access to the project Public Open Space area.
Page 47
83. ____ ____ Applicant shall construct these frontage improvements to County public road
standards. An exception to the vertical gradient standards shall be allowed to
reduce the minimum curb grade to 0.75% in conformance with existing adjacent
improvements.
84. ____ ____ Applicant shall provide two entry lanes (one each for residential and visitor),
provide one exit lane, and locate any vehicular entrance gates a minimum 20 feet
from the edge of the public travel way to allow vehicles to queue without
obstructing traffic as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department.
Sufficient area shall be provided outside any gate to allow a vehicle to turn around
and re-enter Point of Timber Road in a forward direction.
Roadway Improvements (On-Site):
85. ____ ____ Although all subdivision streets are to remain private, all streets are to be
constructed to full County Public Road Standards as specified by Title 9 of the
County Ordinance Code, including all minimums and maximums with respect to
pavement width, horizontal alignment, vertical alignment and sight distance.
Allowable exceptions from said Standards are as follows:
a. “C” Court may be reduced to a 28-foot wide road within a 43-foot easement,
as shown on the tentative map.
b. In-lieu of a crowned street section, the pavement may be sloped with a
continuous 2% cross slope.
c. Sidewalks may be eliminated from one side of the street, with a minimum 5-
foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face) on the remaining side.
The pavement section on the side of the street without the sidewalk shall be
bordered by a minimum 2-foot wide “flush-graded” curb.
d. Construction of a turnaround at the public street terminus of Wilde Drive.
86. ____ ____ Applicant shall install safety-related improvements on all streets (including traffic
signs and striping), as approved by the Public Works Department.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
87. ____ ____ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department of the acquisition of all
necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and
drainage improvements.
88. ____ ____ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department that legal access to the
property is available from Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive.
Encroachment Permit
Page 48
89. ___ ___ Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, if necessary, for construction of improvements within the right-of-way of
Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive.
Lot Line Adjustment:
90. ___ ___ Applicant shall complete and record the proposed Lot Line Adjustment with the
East Contra Costa Irrigation District parcel at the northeast corner of the subject
property.
AOB Reimbursements:
91. ___ ___ The applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact Public
Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or
reimbursements against the area of benefit fees.
Road Dedications:
92. ___ ___ Property Owner shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-
way necessary for the planned turnaround at the terminus of Point of Timber
Road.
93. ___ ___ Property Owner shall convey to the Public, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-
way encumbering all Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads and bicycle and
pedestrian trails. These facilities will NOT be accepted by the County for
maintenance. More specifically, see Condition 46.
Street Lights:
94. ___ ___ Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010 -1 formed
for Countywide Street Light Financing.
Landscaping:
95. ___ ___ All landscaping to be maintained by the property owner shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator for review and approval.
Bicycle - Pedestrian Facilities:
Pedestrian Access
96. ____ ___ Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance
with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This
shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps.
Page 49
97. ___ ___ All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current
County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be
installed on all curb ramps. Adequate easements shall be established to
accommodate a minimum 4-foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA):
98. ___ ___ All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access,
including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20
vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the
approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department (20 feet, compacted
AB all-weather surface).
99. ____ ____ The Fire District and Public Works Department shall review and approve any
proposed vehicular bollards or gates to be installed at the terminus of the publicly-
maintained portion of Wilde Drive.
Parking:
100. ___ ___ Parking shall be prohibited in cul-de-sac bulbs, one side of on-site roadways
where the curb-to-curb width is less than 36 feet, and on both sides of on-site
roadways where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. “No Parking” signs
shall be installed along these portions of the roads subject to the review and
approval of Public Works Department.
Utilities/Undergrounding:
101. ___ ___ Applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities,
including those along the frontage of Point of Timber Road. The developer shall
provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas,
telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the
size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs
and meters, and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the
Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or
utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer.
Construction:
102. ___ ___ The applicant shall provide a pavement analysis for those roads along the proposed
haul route or any alternate route(s) that are proposed to be utilized by the hauling
operation. This study shall analyze the existing pavement conditions, and
determine what impact the hauling operation will have over the life of the project.
The study shall provide recommendations to mitigate identified impacts. The
applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing the recommended
repairs. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a bonded road
Page 50
improvement agreement to assure the roadway repairs.
Maintenance of Facilities:
103. ____ ____ The maintenance obligation and financing of all common and open space areas,
private roadways, private street lights, public and private trails and landscaped
areas, EVA’s, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage facilities shall be
included in the easements, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative
financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. All
agreements between Reclamation District 800, the Town of Discovery Bay
Community Services District and the developer, along with the CC&Rs, shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the CDD and Public Works Department
at least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map for the first phase.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
104. ____ ____ The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating
on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system,
to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an
existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters
to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the
Ordinance Code.
Hold Harmless
105. ____ ____ The property owner shall be aware that the creek banks on the site are potentially
unstable. The property owner shall execute a recordable agreement with the
County which states that the developer and the property owner and the future
property owner(s) will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of damage to
the on-site and off-site improvements as a result of creek-bank failure or erosion.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
106. ____ ____ The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in
compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design
standards.
107. ____ ____ The applicant shall design and construct all proposed grading, dredging and
improvements to Kellogg Creek in compliance with all Federal, State and Local
regulatory permitting and design requirements. These agencies may include, but
not be limited to: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Services,
California Department of Fish & Game, California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, Reclamation District #800, and Contra Costa County Flood
Page 51
Control District.
108. ____ ____ Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and
driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
109. ____ ____ Private storm drain easements, conforming to the width specified in Section 914-
14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be dedicated over all proposed storm
drains traversing residential lots or other portions of the property outside the
“common area.”
Floodplain Management:
110. ____ ____ The project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the
Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of
the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County
Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) Co Ord Code 82-28
as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property.
111. ____ ____ Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (C-LOMR-F) from FEMA concurring that the proposed
grading and site improvements, when completed, will be satisfactory for FEMA
to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map and eliminate the residential lots from the
Special Flood Hazard designation.
112. ____ ____ After completion of fill operations and installation of storm drain improvements,
the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application with FEMA to finalize the
FIRM revision process. The FEMA LOMR-F must be obtained prior to issuance
of building permits on the residential units.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
113____ ____ The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California
State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (Central Valley - Region IV).
Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the
reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate
wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean
Water Program for the site's storm water drainage:
- Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
- Label all storm drains (“No Dumping, Drains to Delta) using current storm drain
markers.
Page 52
- Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing
run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter.
- Other alternatives comparable to the above, as approved by Public Works.
- Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
- Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot-
specific IMPs to buyers.
Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance:
114. ____ ____ The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a
Storm Water Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public
Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be
deemed consistent with the County’s Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the final map. To the extent required
by the NPDES Permit, the Final Storm Water Control Plan and the O+M Plan will
be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently
become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and O+M
Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and
the O+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant.
115. ____ ____ Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP
and compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the
County’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014).
116. ____ ____ Storm water management facilities shall be subject to inspection by Public Works
Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of storm water
management facilities shall be borne by the applicant.
117. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard
Storm Water Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with
Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility
for, and related to, operation and maintenance of the storm water facilities, and
grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of storm water
management facilities.
118. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject
property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Storm Water
Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County
under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of
storm water facilities by property owners.
119. ____ ____ Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer
than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito &
Vector Control District.
Page 53
120. ____ ____ All treatment BMP/IMPs constructed within each phase of the proposed
development shall be designed and sized to treat, at a minimum, storm water
generated from each phase constructed.
ADVISORY NOTES
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Discovery Bay Community
Services District and Reclamation District 800.
The applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and
Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. These fees
are related to regional improvements separate from those identified in the East County
Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) fee program, and other mitigation fees required
herein to be deposited to the County Road Trust account.
This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47,
Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that
may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
All construction within the creeks, including bridges, culverts, outfall structures, etc., will
be subject to permitting and review by the Public Works Department, Flood Control
Division per the provisions of Division 1010 of the County Ordinance Code.
This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
Although the Storm Water Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily
complete, it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of
improvement plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 storm water
requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the
improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the County approval, and the
project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may
significantly increase the time and applicant’s costs associated with approval of the
application.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Major Subdivisions (SD)\SD06-9010\SD06_9010_ COAs
Final 10.22.13.docx